Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode