When is Jim in NJ

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Doesn't it say the incident was avoidable? That there were unheeded warnings, so on and so forth, same old stuff . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah. Oh . . . but there was a mess up. Who shall we blame? Let's see, the buck . . . stops . . . here! (finger pointing to incompetent underlings). Funny how that never works in the real world . . . only in the la-la land of collegial politics.

Could have been avoided? Well, that's a surprise. The review from a year ago already took State to task for systemic problems that contributed. Stevens turned down two offers for more protection from the military and at other times requested more from State. It appears to have been a confusing situation. What else is new?

And hasn't there just been some declassified testimony by a general that the administration was told pronto, before the administration kept blaming the video, that it was a terrorist attack, not a response to a video? Not hearing much about it. Maybe just dreamed it.

The new Senate report reads.

"It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning."

This follows the initial evidence that the video was a catalyst exploited by heavily armed extremists. Didn't Obama use the word "terror" just the following day?

What may be new in the report is that it goes deeper into into a potential military response finding there were no feasible options.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Could have been avoided? Well, that's a surprise. The review from a year ago already took State to task for systemic problems that contributed. Stevens turned down two offers for more protection from the military and at other times requested more from State. It appears to have been a confusing situation. What else is new?

That's the point. It is not new. What responsibility for "systemic Problems" does a CEO have? What kind of management by the top people allows for confusion? Where does the buck stop? In the real world CEO's are fired for allowing the "system" to be problematic, and for not attending to the confusion in performance of those beneath them. There were continuing problems and threats which were not addressed properly resulting in mission snafu. There was the inability to differentiate between friend and foe, or to understand the influence of Al Qaeda either by ignorance or by willful denial to support the narrative that Al Qaeda was no longer a serious threat. There was not a clear perception of what was going on in Benghazi and in Lybia after the overthrow of Qadaffi. There were obvious problems which others beside State and the Administration clearly saw. Wouldn't a competent commander in chief take heed of all the differing views, the confusion, the dangers, and at the very least, provide the proper security? Or was the agenda more important than the safety? And is the viability of the agenda now even less clear that policy is in tatters?

Leading from behind waits for disaster to happen in order to "fix" it.

The new Senate report reads.

"It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning."

This follows the initial evidence that the video was a catalyst exploited by heavily armed extremists. Didn't Obama use the word "terror" just the following day?

Language can be so deceptive. Replace the word "catalyst" with the word "tool", and the connection between the video and the attack becomes more plausible.

Are we not made to understand that "insults" to Islam will result in violent response. We were told in the NY Times article that "someone" had translated the video into Arabic, and then it was disseminated. Now why would "someone" do that? Wasn't "someone" aware of what would happen? Is it not more plausible that "someone" actually wanted the video to produce useful violent reactions for the cause of Jihad--that "someone" would actually be looking for such videos or articles or cartoons or anything else to use to provoke anger against the West? The video was disseminated as a "U.S." product, not just by some person who should have a fatwa placed on him and hunted and done away with. It would be interesting to find out who the "someone" is. Al Qaeda brand?

Are we to believe that some innocent, normal run-of-the-mill usually peaceful Muslims decided to orderly protest an embassy (which had been under threat), but all of a sudden, in the midst of peaceful protest decided, hey let's go kill and burn? Yeah, you can bet that the "short order" planning was a result of a larger plan to use the video as a tool and to be ready to respond to any opportunity it presented.

What may be new in the report is that it goes deeper into into a potential military response finding there were no feasible options.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, poor planning (as opposed to the better planning by the Al Qaeda brand) will result in "no feasible options".

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That's the point. It is not new. What responsibility for "systemic Problems" does a CEO have? What kind of management by the top people allows for confusion? Where does the buck stop? In the real world CEO's are fired for allowing the "system" to be problematic, and for not attending to the confusion in performance of those beneath them.

If every CEO was fired for a problem within their organization you'd have monthly turnover. In this situation did Clinton's strategy or directive lead to the shortcomings? I've not read this was the case.

Also, the Ambassador appears to have had a lot of control over the security situation and seemed comfortable with local militias providing security at the Mission. From what I've read at least the problems were communication within the CIA and State that prevented the deteriorating situation from being fully understood by even those beneath the Secretary.

Many regard Clinton as a very strong and positive Secretary of State. Does the event in Libya make her unfit to serve? I don't think anyone has connected those dots yet.

Are we to believe that some innocent, normal run-of-the-mill usually peaceful Muslims decided to orderly protest an embassy (which had been under threat), but all of a sudden, in the midst of peaceful protest decided, hey let's go kill and burn? Yeah, you can bet that the "short order" planning was a result of a larger plan to use the video as a tool and to be ready to respond to any opportunity it presented.

Nobody has ever claimed that. Remember that in fact thousands of Benghazi's protested the attackers in support for the Ambassador and the USA.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/world/...unter-protest/

For some reason people keep forgetting to include this fact in their assessment of the "situation on the ground."

Ultimate, a complex and confused situation like this will never be clear once it's politicized.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

If every CEO was fired for a problem within their organization you'd have monthly turnover. In this situation did Clinton's strategy or directive lead to the shortcomings? I've not read this was the case.

"A problem"???? This was not merely "a problem." CEOs are fired for failures not problems. Granted, there is that current model where CEOs that are given raises even when their companies fail. I don't think We The People want our governments to follow that model. On the other hand, when those governments give us goodies, many of us, like the corrupt minions of failing corporations, choose to support the hand that feeds us, at least until it all collapses. And, anyway, it appears to keep lasting. And if it lasts long enough to cover our life span, who cares--that "Apres mois la deluge" syndrome.

And to which of Clinton's strategies or directives do you refer? If their were any, they certainly failed. If there were none, the omission is glaring in light of the failure.

Also, the Ambassador appears to have had a lot of control over the security situation and seemed comfortable with local militias providing security at the Mission.

And who appointed such an ignorant Ambassador? And when he requested security did he not get it because he was deemed to be correct in the first place but ignorant in the second? And why wasn't Clinton aware of the real danger and warnings that she should merely accept her underling's assessment? Why was it all such a surprise when what they thought they knew was untrue? Would you like to work for such bosses in such situations?

From what I've read at least the problems were communication within the CIA and State that prevented the deteriorating situation from being fully understood by even those beneath the Secretary.

Is it not the Secretary's responsibility to recognize a problem of communication and to correct it?

Many regard Clinton as a very strong and positive Secretary of State. Does the event in Libya make her unfit to serve? I don't think anyone has connected those dots yet.

Has anyone connected the dots of why Clinton is "a very strong and positive Secretary of State"? I don't know of what she's done to connect those dots. If the "event" in Libya is one of those dots, I cannot see how it would be a recommendation. And why she is such a front-runner for the Democrat presidential candidate is also curious.

Nobody has ever claimed that. Remember that in fact thousands of Benghazi's protested the attackers in support for the Ambassador and the USA.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/world/...unter-protest/

For some reason people keep forgetting to include this fact in their assessment of the "situation on the ground."

Ultimate, a complex and confused situation like this will never be clear once it's politicized.

-spence

None of the warm and fuzzy that we're supposed to get from your article has lessened the Al Qaeda brand jihadist activity in Libya. The final two sentences of the article are an amazing beatification of a dangerous and ugly "event." John McCain is quoted as saying
"Somewhere Chris Stevens is smiling . . . This is what we knew . . . about Libya."

Apparently, we didn't "know," at least other than some Pollyanna types, what we needed to know . . . about Libya.