US State Department was Warned of Embassy Attacks Three Years Ago

Also: 

• Americans Don't Want a War in the Middle East, but their Conspiratorial Leaders and their Zionist Handlers Do  

• The NED - A US Congress & State Dept Conduit for Funding Subversion & Violence in Foreign Nations

Hillary Yes! Embassies No! Middle East War Yes, by any Means!



[SNIPPET]

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Diplomatic Security dedicates 72 special agents to provide a 24-hour 

protective detail for the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Best bet is Hillary is on her way to a choice job at the UN - she's proven her worth to the Conspiracy

November 2009: 

State Department: 

Diplomatic Security's Recent Growth Warrants Strategic Review: 

GAO-10-156: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-10-156, a report to the Subcommittee on Oversight of 
Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of 
Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 
Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

State Department’s (State) Bureau of Diplomatic Security (Diplomatic 
Security) is responsible for the protection of people, information, and 
property at over 400 foreign missions and domestic locations. 
Diplomatic Security must be prepared to counter threats such as crime, 
espionage, visa and passport fraud, technological intrusions, political 
violence, and terrorism. GAO was asked to assess (1) how Diplomatic 
Security’s mission has evolved since 1998, (2) how its resources have 
changed over the last 10 years, and (3) the challenges it faces in 
conducting its missions. GAO analyzed Diplomatic Security data; 
reviewed relevant documents; and interviewed officials at several 
domestic facilities and 18 international missions. 

What GAO Found: 

Diplomatic Security’s mission, to ensure a safe environment for the 
conduct of U.S. foreign policy, involves activities such as the 
protection of people, information, and property overseas, and dignitary 
protection and passport and visa fraud investigations domestically. 
These activities have grown since 1998 in reaction to a number of 
security incidents. 

Diplomatic Security funding and personnel have also increased 
considerably over the last 10 years. In 1998, Diplomatic Security’s 
budget was about $200 million; by fiscal year 2008, it had grown to 
approximately $1.8 billion, of which over $300 million was for security 
in Iraq (see figure). In addition, the size of Diplomatic Security’s 
direct-hire workforce has doubled since 1998 and will likely continue 
to expand. Recently, Diplomatic Security’s reliance on contractors has 
grown to fill critical needs in high-threat posts. 

Figure: Diplomatic Security Budget, 1998-2009: 

[Refer to PDF for image: line graph] 

Year: 1998: (Bombings of U.S. Embassies in Africa); 
Budget: $172 million. 

Year: 1999: 
Budget: $784 million. 

Year: 2000: 
Budget: $538 million. 

Year: 2001: (September 11 attacks); 
Budget: $571 million. 

Year: 2002: 
Budget: $579 million. 

Year: 2003: 
Budget: $630 million. 

Year: 2004: (State initiates diplomatic presence in Iraq); 
Budget: $836 million. 

Year: 2005: 
Budget: $1,274 million. 

Year: 2006: 
Budget: $1,657 million. 

Year: 2007: 
Budget: $1,678 million. 

Year: 2008: 
Budget: $1,760 million. 

Year: 2009: 
Budget: $2,266 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of Diplomatic Security data. 

[End of figure] 

Diplomatic Security faces several challenges that could affect the 
bureau’s ability to provide security and use its resources efficiently. 
First, State’s policy to maintain missions in increasingly dangerous 
posts requires a substantial amount of resources. Second, although 
Diplomatic Security’s workforce has grown considerably over the last 10 
years, staffing shortages in domestic offices and other operational 
challenges—such as inadequate facilities, language deficiencies, 
experience gaps, and balancing security needs with State’s diplomatic 
mission—further tax its ability to implement all of its missions. 
Finally, Diplomatic Security’s tremendous growth has been in reaction 
to events and does not benefit from adequate strategic guidance. 
Neither State’s departmental strategic plan nor Diplomatic Security’s 
bureau strategic plan specifically addresses the bureau’s resource 
needs or management challenges. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Secretary of State review the Bureau of 
Diplomatic Security—as part of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and 
Development Review (QDDR) or separately—to ensure that its mission 
addresses the department’s priority needs. This review should address 
challenges such as: (1) operating with adequate staff, (2) securing 
facilities that do not meet security standards, (3) staffing foreign 
missions with officials who have appropriate language skills, (4) 
operating programs with experienced staff, and (5) balancing security 
with State’s diplomatic mission. 

State agreed with GAO’s recommendation and stated that it is completely 
committed to ensuring that Diplomatic Security's mission will benefit 
from the QDDR. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-156] or key 
components. For more information, contact Jess T. Ford at (202) 512-
4128 or fordj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Diplomatic Security's Mission Has Grown in Reaction to a Number of 
Major Security Incidents: 

Diplomatic Security Funding Has Increased Considerably, and Personnel 
Has Doubled Since 1998: 

Dangerous Environments, Staffing Shortages, and Reactive Planning 
Challenge Diplomatic Security: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Diplomatic Security Service: 

Appendix III: Security Infrastructure: 

Appendix IV: Countermeasures: 

Appendix V: Executive Office: 

Appendix VI: Office of Foreign Missions: 

Appendix VII: Funding Allocations, Other: 

Appendix VIII: Diplomatic Security Collaborates with Other U.S. 
Government Agencies to Meet Its Mission: 

Appendix IX: Attacks against U.S. Embassies and Consulates (excluding 
Baghdad), 1998-2008: 

Appendix X: Comments from the U.S. Department of State: 

Appendix XI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

GAO-10-156, State Department: Diplomatic Security's Recent Growth Warrants Strategic Review
More>> GAO-10-156, State Department: Diplomatic Security's Recent Growth Warrants Strategic Review