There are legitimate reasons for denying increased security. One of them is the Congressional favorite excuse for things not being done that should be, the budget. If there isn’t the budget for increased security, then a denial would be expected. A very vocal portion of Congress loves to talk about their about shrinking the budget all the damned time. One of the consequences of that is not having the budget to react to changing circumstances.
It does, because that’s what department heads do, they take the fall in situations like this. Even if the root cause wasn’t related to them. It’s an expectation of the position.
Denying the request for more security is the problem here, I think.
There are legitimate reasons for denying increased security. One of them is the Congressional favorite excuse for things not being done that should be, the budget. If there isn’t the budget for increased security, then a denial would be expected. A very vocal portion of Congress loves to talk about their about shrinking the budget all the damned time. One of the consequences of that is not having the budget to react to changing circumstances.
Maybe so, but she is still the one who took the heat for it. And the buck sort of stops with her here.
It does, because that’s what department heads do, they take the fall in situations like this. Even if the root cause wasn’t related to them. It’s an expectation of the position.