This is a twisted interpretation, Charlene Lamb -Deputy Asst Sec for Int'l Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security stated in Oct 2012 that budget cuts were not a factor in either the refusal to increase security or the decision to lessen security. Eugene Robinson should have done his homework.Republicans lead a witch hunt on Benghazi
By Eugene Robinson
Did Clinton’s State Department fail to provide adequate security for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi? In retrospect, obviously so. But the three diplomats who testified at the hearing gave no evidence that this failure sprang from anything other than the need to use limited resources as efficiently as possible.
House Republicans who voted to cut funding for State Department security should understand that their philosophy — small government is always better — has consequences.
Is the scandal supposed to be that a four-man Special Forces team was not sent from Tripoli to help defend the Benghazi compound?
...But the decision not to dispatch troops was made by the military chain of command, not by Clinton or anyone who reported to her. Superior officers decided this team was needed to help evacuate the embassy in Tripoli, which was seen as a potential target for a Benghazi-style attack.
The Pentagon has concluded that the team, in any event, could not have arrived in Benghazi in time to make a difference. Hicks testified that he disagrees."
That is the main question, WHO made these decisions? And it is irrelevant that the Pentagon has concluded the team could not arrive in time to help. First, there was more than one team available. Second, at the time the decisions were made to tell various teams to stand down, NO ONE could possibly know how long the attacks would continue.
"...Well, then, maybe the transgression is that administration officials, for some unfathomable reason, willfully lied when they said the attack was in reaction to an anti-Islam video produced in the United States and disseminated on the Internet."
At least he got that right.
"...Maybe that’s it: a cover-up. Perhaps the administration conspired to hide Clinton’s failure to protect our diplomats overseas. But she commissioned an independent report by former ambassador Thomas Pickering that said — well, I’ll just quote Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee:“The Pickering Report appears to make clear what we already knew: that there was strategic warning from the intelligence community of a dangerous security environment in Benghazi and that our diplomats were failed by the bureaucracy at the State Department.”
And according to Mr Hicks lawyer, the interviews were not videotaped, nor were stenographers used - testimony was written down by "note takers". Mr Hicks was also NOT ALLOWED to review what the note takers took down to ensure he was not misquoted. And surprise, now his detractors are saying that what he testified to this week is not what he said during the earlier interviews.
"Was Hicks “demoted” for blowing the whistle on Benghazi, as he testified? He asked to come home, understandably, and the department parked him in a desk job — with the same pay and rank — until something more to his liking comes open. Has he been muzzled? Hardly, as evidenced by his testimony Wednesday."
Mr Hick went from being praised by both Obama and Clinton for his actions in a volatile and dangerous situation to being harshly criticized for his "management style" after he talked to Congressional investigators after being told not to by his bosses and received a direct call from Clinton's Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills berating him for giving the interview.