Charlene Lamb Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the Department of State already testified under oath that
funding had nothing to do with the decision to not increase security at the Embassy or Consulate
No, it didn't. And increased funding wouldn't have helped either, thanks to the republicans and democrats.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html
Boxer would have been on firmer ground if she had echoed the broad point made by the Accountability Review Board that both Republicans and Democrats in Congress repeatedly have failed to provide the State Department with the requested resources. Instead she narrowly tailored her critique to the two-year period when Republicans were in control of the House, failing to mention that Democrats have also “cut” the president’s budget request. Thus her remarks lacked significant context.
Indeed, it is almost as if Boxer is living in a time warp, repeating talking points from six months ago that barely acknowledge the fact that extensive investigations have found little evidence of her claim that “there was not enough security because the budget was cut.”
State Department officials repeatedly told Congress that a lack of funds was not an issue. Instead, security was hampered because of bureaucratic issues and management failures. In other words, given the internal failures, no amount of money for the State Department likely would have made a difference in this tragedy.
And when are you going to stop the lies about Charlene Lamb?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...9410b04-29d8-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_blog.html
When asked whether the State Department was indeed watching the Benghazi attacks in real time, a State official responded, “Nobody at the Department had the ability to watch either of the attacks in real time.”
According to official accounts, the assault on the large U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi started around 9:40 p.m. on the night of Sept. 11. The assailants barged through the facility’s pedestrian gate, torched some security barracks with diesel fuel and then turned their attention to the compound’s main building, according to Lamb’s testimony before Congress.
Just who was doing all that storming; what they were doing before the attack; whether there were protesters in their midst — all of that is a matter of intense dispute with political implications. Administration official said after the attacks that they may have been associated with protests over an anti-Muslim video; critics responded that no, this was strictly a terrorist attack.
There was never any real-time video of this early portion of the Benghazi hostilities. No one in Washington — State Department, White House, whatever — was watching live feeds of the gate-crashing.
An administration official explains: “The Benghazi compound had a CCTV [closed-circuit television] system. Meaning, a system of cameras on the compound. Those cameras could be monitored from the [Tactical Operations Center, TOC], which is one of the structures on the compound.. . . Those images could not be seen anywhere outside the TOC, let alone outside Benghazi. The footage from those cameras is recorded and stored for a period. The footage from the attack was not in USG [U.S. government] hands until later in September.”
Hannity, that FOX pig and America hater, took the misunderstood words of a low level staffer and distorted them to create a lie. That is treason, isn't it?
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/24/who-started-the-benghazi-real-time-video-falseh/192380
That night on Fox News' Hannity,
Liz Cheney seized on Lamb's testimony, but characterized it correctly:
CHENEY: Today, we learned from Charlene Lamb under oath that she followed, you know, the diplomatic security official, that
she followed what was going on, minute by minute. She was following it in real time. So the administration knew in real time, there wasn't a mob, they knew in real time that this was a well-coordinated attack. They knew in real time that it involved heavy weaponry, this was clearly a terrorist attack and the American people have clearly, as you've said, been lied to.
The following morning, October 11, Jennifer Rubin posted a video of Cheney's Hannity appearance in a post headlined "Real-time Libya: Who knew what, when?" In that post,
Rubin claimed (citing no other sources) that Lamb had watched a "real-time video" of the attack -- something neither Lamb nor Cheney had said:
Seriously, something doesn't make sense. Do we think no one else ever got the benefit of that information that mid-level bureaucrat Charlene Lamb had? This was the most urgent issue of the moment in which everyone (the White House, the public, the media) wanted to know what happened in Benghazi.
So why not look at the real-time video? Why not ask Lamb what she saw and heard?
That next day, October 12, CNBC host Lawrence Kudlow wrote in his syndicated column that "State Department officials saw the Benghazi attack in real time." [emphasis in original]
Later that night on Fox News, Hannity made his first reference to "real time video" of the attack: "The president knew within 24 hours what the truth was, and what I am told, they actually saw this in real-time. There is a video, real-time, of everything that went down in Benghazi."
This was verified by Hillary Clinton, btw...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rpedoes-hannity-there-was-no-real-time-video/
In today’s testimony before a House committee, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked point-blank about all of this video business. She said, “There was no monitor, there was no real time.”
That’s not to say that the State Department wasn’t getting real-time updates on the situation at the Benghazi compound. Indeed, it was. But they were coming via telephone, not “real-time video.”
Clinton’s disavowal of real-time video was strong, airtight and in no way sufficient to ever supplant the notion that top State officials grabbed a bag of popcorn and kicked back with some Benghazi TV.
which one of those did Bush say was caused by a movie?......
No...Bush did far worse...
WASHINGTON - In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attacks, White House officials repeatedly pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda, but investigators ruled that out, the Daily News has learned.
After the Oct. 5, 2001, death from anthrax exposure of Sun photo editor Robert Stevens, Mueller was "beaten up" during President Bush's morning intelligence briefings for not producing proof the killer spores were the handiwork of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, according to a former aide.
"They really wanted to blame somebody in the Middle East," the retired senior FBI official told The News.
On October 15, 2001, President Bush said, "There may be some possible link" to Bin Laden, adding, "I wouldn't put it past him." Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden's henchmen were trained "how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together."
But by then the FBI already knew anthrax spilling out of letters addressed to media outlets and to a U.S. senator was a military strain of the bioweapon. "Very quickly [Fort Detrick, Md., experts] told us this was not something some guy in a cave could come up with," the ex-FBI official said. "They couldn't go from box cutters one week to weapons-grade anthrax the next."jmeek@nydailynews.com
...and of course you look on the 'huffingtonpost'.....