Appearance vs Security

Katie Pavlich at posted an article today about some of the recent comments made about the attack on the American Embassy in Benghazi.

The article explains:

Last week during congressional testimony from State Department officials who were on the ground in Libya, we heard over and over again that more security for the consulate in Benghazi was requested but denied. We also heard repeatedly from Democrats, including Ranking Member of the House Oversight Committee Elijah Cummings, claiming a lack of funding was at fault for less security in Benghazi during the time of the attack on 9/11 that left four Americans dead. State Department officials said funding had nothing to do with the situation and now, Chairman Darrell Issa has revealed the State Department is sitting on $2 billion for consulate security, but won’t spend it.

From a common sense perspective, this makes no sense, but the rationale is explained later in the article:

Issa (Rep. Darrell Issa , Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee) claims the State Department will not spend the already approved funds because they didn’t want to the appearance of needing increased security.

“The fact is, they [the State Department.] are making the decision not to put the security in because they don’t want the presence of security,” Issa said. “That is not how you do security.”

Four people are dead because the Obama Administration valued appearances more than they valued security.

Enhanced by Zemanta