Obama pushes for diplomatic security funding
May 16th, 2013
01:04 PM ET
1 year ago

Obama pushes for diplomatic security funding

(CNN) - President Barack Obama called Thursday for Congress to fully fund his administration's budget requests to increase security at diplomatic facilities in the aftermath of the terrorist attack last year in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.


Filed under: President Obama
soundoff (10 Responses)
  1. Bill

    Any bets that the GOP demands these be offset by cuts elsewhere? After all their bluster and garbage about Benghazi, if they refuse to allot more funds for security, they will look even more foolish than they already do. The GOP is devoid if principles, ideas, or the concept of doing what is right for the American people. And they wonder why they can not win the White House.

    May 16, 2013 01:16 pm at 1:16 pm |
  2. Liberal Sense (Or lack thereof)

    They didn't need it before according to the administration.

    California has cut unemployment by 17.69%. California is completely run by democrats. THANKS BROWN

    May 16, 2013 01:17 pm at 1:17 pm |
  3. Rick McDaniel

    Perhaps you should consider saving some of those billions, we don't have, that you have been giving away, to every foreign country on the planet, including those who harbor terror.

    That would prevent you from having those funding issues.

    May 16, 2013 01:17 pm at 1:17 pm |
  4. 82ndABNVET

    So.................8 months AFTER Benghazi...................they now want to increase security. Not before. Not right after (0-3 months after). But, right NOW (8 months after).

    And this only comes out after the Benghazi "Scandal" has gotten more attention.

    So, would he want to increase funding if the past 2 weeks never happend? I think it is a valid question.

    May 16, 2013 01:17 pm at 1:17 pm |
  5. pkMyt1

    Wasn't the protection of our embassies once the responsibility of the Marines? Why doesn't our military provide this?

    May 16, 2013 01:22 pm at 1:22 pm |
  6. Rudy NYC

    The Tea Party cut State Department security funding by $450 million in 2011, over the objections and warnings of Sec'y Clinton.

    May 16, 2013 01:29 pm at 1:29 pm |
  7. just sayin

    but the state dept. had plenty of money but they chose to spend it on electric cars and recharging stations. you know, the important stuff. state dept. people have already testified under oath that cuts were made to security in libya but money was not the reason. so what was the reason? because it would not have portrayed libya as a big obama victory if the country was in chaos. obama just wants to deflect from his and hillary's complete incompetence that got 4 americans killed by terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11 in a known al quada hotbed.

    May 16, 2013 01:36 pm at 1:36 pm |
  8. Dutch/Bad Newz, VA -aka- Take Back The House -aka- No Redemption Votes

    You can ask for all the security funding you want Mr. President, that republican House is going to deny your request as they did when you requested money for embassy security. Ooooops! Did I just let the cat out of the bag?

    May 16, 2013 01:43 pm at 1:43 pm |
  9. rs

    Lost in the GOP's failed attempt to create a controversy over the deaths of diplomats in Libya by altering WH e-mails and leaking CIA information, is the reality that it was the GOP that cut the funds that are actually used to defend those diplomats and their embassies and consulates. I suppose now that their gambit failed (big time), the GOP will drive home their disdain for diplomacy by filibustering the funding bill.

    May 16, 2013 01:52 pm at 1:52 pm |
  10. RIchard Long

    Why should he be pushing for more security at US Embassies? The Benghazi "attacks" were a random group of protestors that were upset about the film that was put up on YouTube. That is what the Adminstration told us and that is the TRUTH!

    Wait... It was a planned attack by a heavily armed force with ties to terrorist groups? Lies! Lies! And more lies!

    May 16, 2013 02:19 pm at 2:19 pm |