Was increased funding to protect Benghazi before the attack denied by Congress. If so, who voted against it?
I have only followed this topic in the newspapers and on television, so no in-depth analysis here.For nearly the last 6 years the House and later the Senate has been repub controlled. The House approves budgets. Both repub chambers have been loath to spend money, especially for ‘speculative’ good, like consular outpost security, or in a repub state case the cheap water treatment that would have prevented the Flint, MI lead poisoning fiasco.If I remember correctly, Hillary’s State Dept. requested more federal funds for State Dept. security upgrades. This was denied during the budget allocating process, I assume, in the House. The repub-controlled House.As an aside, Ambassador Stevens death was a bad luck-of-the-draw side-effect of a general property attack by the terrorists. Stevens was in charge of Libyan diplomacy and, contrary to warnings, he went from the secure embassy in Tripoli to the much less secure Benghazi outpost on 09/11. Not really a careless but an unlucky decision that would have been fine on hundreds of other days. Stevens death was caused by smoke inhalation from Molotov fire bombs. Not a particularly sophisticated attack.The later attack on the nearby CIA annex was more sophisticated. The attackers used AK-47s and mortars. That suggests that the annex was the planned and real target. The annex had some contractor security, but the 2 guys with automatic rifles were overwhelmed when they got bombed out.To answer the question, the Congressional (and state) repubs are trying damn hard not to promote wasteful spending. If only they were good at it I would totally agree.In the Benghazi and Flint situations it was that pennywise wisdom that cost American health and lives. A snap NO that really is only a plan to keep taxes in-line and not burden their leash holders, the 1%/ campaign contributors. I believe that snap reflex will cost more lives in the future.PSNothing here addresses the CIA annex security. That is a separate issue that cost 2 lives (½ of those lost that day), was nowhere near Hillary's responsibility lane, and the secrecy of its existence probably contributed to the confused stories in the follow-up.Notice that the annex it is still not a TOPIC.Hillary will draw scrutiny that the CIA is glad to let her have.
Why is Hillary getting sued by Benghazi victims?
Anyone can bring a lawsuit. This is America.However, despite the sacrifice of their family members, there is little chance that the lawsuit will be upheld in a civil court for wrongful death. There were many culpable actors in the Benghazi debacle. One of whom was the ambassador himself, who minimized the danger being there, while increasing his visibility upon his arrival, against security force’s wishes. Which is why Ambassador Stevens’ family holds no grudge against Secretary of State Clinton.The persons killed were members of a military force. They cannot sue either their commanders or any hierarchical entity for either their assignment or their eventual death, resulting from practically anything. They signed up voluntarily. Even if they didn’t volunteer, they couldn’t. Imagine the protracted mess if every military soldier killed in action sued the officers and commanders for fruitless/tragic operations? (They are countless and unreported on the whole.) You wouldn’t have an armed forces.Political appointees, such as the Secretary of State (Clinton’s role at the time) cannot be sued for doing their jobs in the normal course of operations which results in death to a subordinate of armed forces members of the Department of Defense. Either can the Department of Defense.It would be impossible to demonstrate intent. That Secretary Clinton INTENDED for the soldiers to be killed. WT?How could a court ever limit the eventual liability? What about Congress’s refusal to fund the security increases that had been requested? Do we hold each of them responsible, because they could have foreseen a terrorist attack? Each member who voted no to be tried in civil court for the results of their legislative refusals. Where would it end?Benghazi was a tragic and largely unpredictable outcome, given the politics of the region and Ambassador Stevens’ propensity and likelihood of exposing himself to danger, through his interest in meeting and greeting local players outside the diplomatic outpost.All of the soldiers should be honored for their bravery and sacrifice. Without them, and others like them, the United States would not survive during these times. Likewise, the scores of soldiers and embassy employees killed during the Bush administrations should also be honored for their brave sacrifices.