Libya

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

They blamed Bush because he personally appointed someone with zero direct experience to head FEMA. Heck of a job Brownie...


Big difference, Obama personally made the call and took accountability for the outcome good or bad.


One was a reactive situation, the other was a proactive situation. They are very different and complex in different ways.

-spence

"One was a reactive situation, the other was a proactive situation."

I'm assuming you say Libya was a 'proactive situation'. And in that case, as usual, you are wrong on the facts. The state department (Obama's state dept) decided to pull 2 full security teams out of Libya (12 men each, I believe). The guy in charge of security at the embassy asked the state dept to reconsider, and he pointed to all the recent, documented cases of violence and threats. The state dept (Obama's state dept) was not convinced. You can make a very strong case that 4 superb Americans paid for that stupidity with their lives.

Then, the reaction. Five days afetr the attack, the state dept, the ambassador to the UN, and Jay Carney (Obama's press secretary) said there was no evidence it was anything other than a spontaneous outburst. So I guess Obama believes that protesting students typically carry RPGs, mortars, and mortar tubes in their backpacks?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm assuming you say Libya was a 'proactive situation'. And in that case, as usual, you are wrong on the facts. The state department (Obama's state dept) decided to pull 2 full security teams out of Libya (12 men each, I believe). The guy in charge of security at the embassy asked the state dept to reconsider, and he pointed to all the recent, documented cases of violence and threats. The state dept (Obama's state dept) was not convinced. You can make a very strong case that 4 superb Americans paid for that stupidity with their lives.

No, the Embassy attack would be a reactive situation.

If you bothered to read my posts above I mentioned the restrictions on US security and the policy likely guiding the actions. We were trying to draw down a US presence, not maintain or escalate it.

If this was stupidity or not I'm not sure we know, but if so it would look like a mid-level deputy made a bad call.

Then, the reaction. Five days afetr the attack, the state dept, the ambassador to the UN, and Jay Carney (Obama's press secretary) said there was no evidence it was anything other than a spontaneous outburst. So I guess Obama believes that protesting students typically carry RPGs, mortars, and mortar tubes in their backpacks?

I'm not sure they really knew what the heck had happened to be honest. Look at how long it took the FBI to even get onsite. I do think they could have handled the messaging better early on, be less specific until the facts were more clear etc...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, the Embassy attack would be a reactive situation.

If you bothered to read my posts above I mentioned the restrictions on US security and the policy likely guiding the actions. We were trying to draw down a US presence, not maintain or escalate it.

If this was stupidity or not I'm not sure we know, but if so it would look like a mid-level deputy made a bad call.



I'm not sure they really knew what the heck had happened to be honest. Look at how long it took the FBI to even get onsite. I do think they could have handled the messaging better early on, be less specific until the facts were more clear etc...

-spence

"We were trying to draw down a US presence, not maintain or escalate it."

We did not "try" to reduce the US presence, we did reduce the presence. The resukts speak for themselves, 4 dead.

Spence, do you really think that removing 24 security team members from an ebmassy is going to make these people like us more.

Peace through strength.

God, do you ever get one right, even by accident? Spence, when you have large numbers of armed people trying to kill diplomats, what's the benefit of pulling out the security, but leaving the diplomats behind?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We did not "try" to reduce the US presence, we did reduce the presence. The resukts speak for themselves, 4 dead.

Spence, do you really think that removing 24 security team members from an ebmassy is going to make these people like us more.

A fine example of Monday morning quarterbacking if there ever was one.

God, do you ever get one right, even by accident? Spence, when you have large numbers of armed people trying to kill diplomats, what's the benefit of pulling out the security, but leaving the diplomats behind?

Well, that's not really what appears to have happened.

Here's a pretty interesting write up from the WP.

In Libya, security was lax before attack that killed U.S. ambassador, officials say - The Washington Post

It appears the Benghazi building was nothing more than an outpost and not even hardened well like a formal embassy. Chris Stevens was personally pushing an American presence and had a lot of experience and contacts in the area which likely gave him a false sense of comfort. The guy would go running on the street with minimal security...

Libya is certainly still a dangerous place, but it's also fair to assume he's putting himself in harms way for what he believed in.

How many Americans are in similar positions all over the world? One would think there's probably quite a few. Diplomats to unfortunately fall victim to violence from time to time.

But Benghazi happened right before the election...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

A fine example of Monday morning quarterbacking if there ever was one.



Well, that's not really what appears to have happened.

Here's a pretty interesting write up from the WP.

In Libya, security was lax before attack that killed U.S. ambassador, officials say - The Washington Post

It appears the Benghazi building was nothing more than an outpost and not even hardened well like a formal embassy. Chris Stevens was personally pushing an American presence and had a lot of experience and contacts in the area which likely gave him a false sense of comfort. The guy would go running on the street with minimal security...

Libya is certainly still a dangerous place, but it's also fair to assume he's putting himself in harms way for what he believed in.

How many Americans are in similar positions all over the world? One would think there's probably quite a few. Diplomats to unfortunately fall victim to violence from time to time.

But Benghazi happened right before the election...

-spence

"A fine example of Monday morning quarterbacking if there ever was one."

You're so thoughtless. Spence, the head of embassy security in the region, cited dozens of threats and acts of violence against westerners, in the weeks leading up to 09/11/12. That's precisely why he said that those teams needed to remain in place.

"which likely gave him a false sense of comfort"

OK. Sp a lefty rag can no read the mind of a deam ambassador, and even worse, they're saying that the ambassador, and not the incompetent ass that you are in love with, is to blame. That's just great.

"it's also fair to assume he's putting himself in harms way for what he believed in."

Correct. And precisely because he puts himself in harm's way, the Obama administration has the responsibility of not placing him in unnecessary danger. The guy who knows more about this than anyone at the Washington Post, is the head of security who begged for for more security. I guess he is just a Muslim-bashing knuckle-draggingm war monger?

"Diplomats to unfortunately fall victim to violence from time to time"

And that's why they deserve to have security apparatus that's at least equal to (if not overwhelmingly superior to) any credible threat.

You liberal kooks just don't get the notion of 'responsibility', it's just not in your vernacular.

That you would suggest that Stevens recklessly contributed to his own death is beyond repugnant. I almost typed that 'you're better than that', but you're not. You have no shame, there is no level to which you will not sink to protect your true love.

Nothing you say, nothing, passes the common sense test.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

A fine example of Monday morning quarterbacking if there ever was one.


It appears the Benghazi building was nothing more than an outpost and not even hardened well like a formal embassy. Chris Stevens was personally pushing an American presence and had a lot of experience and contacts in the area which likely gave him a false sense of comfort. The guy would go running on the street with minimal security...

Libya is certainly still a dangerous place, but it's also fair to assume he's putting himself in harms way for what he believed in.

How many Americans are in similar positions all over the world? One would think there's probably quite a few. Diplomats to unfortunately fall victim to violence from time to time.not since Carter, what a coincidence


U.S. diplomats killed abroad - The Washington Post


-spence

that's interesting, charge Monday Morning Quarter Backing and then proceed to blame the dead guy....how low can you go?

Denying the Libya Scandal - National Review Online

[Raider Ronnie]

I'm listening to political talk radio in the truck today (as I do most every day) they are saying Bill Clinton is pissed about this situation possibly being dumped on Hillary as a scapegoat and Bill is lining up legal representation.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

I'm listening to political talk radio in the truck today (as I do most every day) they are saying Bill Clinton is pissed about this situation possibly being dumped on Hillary as a scapegoat and Bill is lining up legal representation.

you had to expect this showdown eventually on some matter...should be fantastic...Obama throws everyone under the bus, Clinton's had to figure they'd get run over at some point

went across the pond for this...contracting out the security of our Ambassadors to foreign private firms...wow?...at a time when a "terrorist attack on US consulate in Benghazi was 'a matter of time'"

double WOW

British firm secured Benghazi consulate contract with little experience - Telegraph

Congress told terrorist attack on US consulate in Benghazi was 'a matter of time' - Telegraph\


I was just reading a story indicating that the intelligence community and State have, for sometime, been very frustrated with the Administration and their lack of focus and interest in these matters, the continued veto of previous attempts on OBL by Obama via Valerie Jarrett caused Panetta to assume authority and move ahead in that matter, bringing in O at the last possible moment having penned a legal out for the Pres., leaving him out of the loop , which was why he was dragged off the golf course suddenly and sat off to the side in a chair looking like a kid that had tagged along as the adults(even Biden) sat at the table in the situation room in that now infamous picture... of course he's been spiking the golf club ever since which is par for the course, pardon the puns....guess it's possible that he was completely unaware of what was going on and probably "focused like a laser" on that Nickelodeon interview

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

that's interesting, charge Monday Morning Quarter Backing and then proceed to blame the dead guy....how low can you go?

Denying the Libya Scandal - National Review Online

God damn right. Not only is the paper (and Spence) blaming the dead guy, they are doing it in a way that necessarily means they can read his mind. And conveniently, their explanation (blaming the dead guy) absolves Obama of any responsibility.

It's repugnant.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I do think they could have handled the messaging better early on, be less specific until the facts were more clear etc... -spence

That's one of the more honest things you have posted here. But it's more than a one-time bungle. This administration has, time and time again, refused to label something as a "terrorist attack" when it is clearly just that.

Spence, I have been there, I have interrogated these people, and I have witnesses over 100 interogations. When Obama goes on TV and denies, for example, thatthe Ft Hood massacre was a terrorist attack, it makes him look weak and stupid in the eyes of the enemy. That emboldens them.

we've come a long way from Churchill's "we'll fight them on the beaches" speech...The peoblem is, this enemy is even more determined than the Nazis Churchill referred to, as the Nazis didn't have voluntary suicide bombers.

It's a weak, mixed message Spence. And that's exactly what you do not want to convey in a time of war. Hell, this administration won't even use the phrase 'war on terror', and there's no earthly reason to justify that. I hear liberals refer to the "so-called war on terror" all the time.

Why would anyone deny we are at war with terrororists? Why do liberals want to do that? Can you shed any light on that? We're not rounding up Muslims and putting them in refugee camps, Bush made that clear within hours of the 09/11 attacks.

I don't get it.