Libya

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've never seen any reporting that indicates Biden or Obama were aware of any security requests. Even in the investigation it appears the issue never got past the State Department.

Additionally, it appears that the additional security that was requested was actually for Tripoli and not even at the embassy.

The size of the requests don't appear to have been large enough to have stopped the attack regardless.

An interesting element here that appears to be under reported is that the Libyan government doesn't want a big American footprint on their soil. They've prohibited the use of private contractors and the State employees have to rely on their private security teams and the Libyan military for protection.

Conflating the real situation with a talking point about Obama not attending briefings doesn't help either....

Because you're making it up.

-spence

"I've never seen any reporting that indicates Biden or Obama were aware of any security requests. Even in the investigation it appears the issue never got past the State Department."

Spence, in the aftefrmath of Hurricane Katrina, remember how everyone blamed Bush for the slow federal response? Well, I bet none o fthe people at the Superdome called Bush personally. Yet somehow people felt justified in blaming Bush, and they were obviously correct to do so. The buck truly does stop with Obama/Biden.

Along the same lines, Obama wasn't with Seal Team 6 when they killed Bin Laden, but Obama likes to take credit for that.

You want to give Obama credit for every good thing that happens, and no blame for the bad things. Can't have it both ways.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, in the aftefrmath of Hurricane Katrina, remember how everyone blamed Bush for the slow federal response? Well, I bet none o fthe people at the Superdome called Bush personally. Yet somehow people felt justified in blaming Bush, and they were obviously correct to do so. The buck truly does stop with Obama/Biden.

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

Along the same lines, Obama wasn't with Seal Team 6 when they killed Bin Laden, but Obama likes to take credit for that.

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

You want to give Obama credit for every good thing that happens, and no blame for the bad things. Can't have it both ways.

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

-spence

[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

Keep moving those goalposts Spence, until it looks as though your man-crush has scored a goal.

If Bush is to be blamed for appointing Mr Brown to head FEMA, what do you say about Obama picking everyone's Krazy Unkle Joe as Vice President? Afetr repeatedly making an ass out of himself at the debate, you dismissed it as Biden being his bombastive self. Fine. When Palin put her foot in her mouth every day in 2008, did you so casually dismiss that as Palin being her folksy self? Or did you make the claim that her behavior made her unfit.

When Joe is an idiot, he's just being Joe. When Palin is an idiot, she's truly an idiot.

Unbelievable hypocrisy. You just keep those goalposts on a dolly so you can roll them wherever you need to.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If Bush is to be blamed for appointing Mr Brown to head FEMA, what do you say about Obama picking everyone's Krazy Unkle Joe as Vice President? Afetr repeatedly making an ass out of himself at the debate, you dismissed it as Biden being his bombastive self. Fine. When Palin put her foot in her mouth every day in 2008, did you so casually dismiss that as Palin being her folksy self? Or did you make the claim that her behavior made her unfit.

Biden may have been over the top but he brought a lot of substance to the debate. Agree or disagree I can't see how anybody would assert he doesn't know his stuff.

Palin couldn't even name a newspaper she had recently read.

Your comparisons are nearing non sequitur calibre. I thought I told you, ScottW is NOT a good role model

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

-spence

not exactly...


At the urging of Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 Navy SEAL mission, according to an explosive new book scheduled for release August 21.

In ”Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him,“ Richard Miniter writes that Obama canceled the “kill” mission in January 2011, again in February, and a third time in March. Obama’s close adviser Valerie Jarrett isn't that "General Jarrett?" persuaded him to hold off each time, according to the book.

Miniter, a two-time New York Times best-selling author, cites an unnamed source with Joint Special Operations Command who had direct knowledge of the operation and its planning.

Obama administration officials also said after the raid that the president had delayed giving the order to kill the arch-terrorist the day before the operation was carried out, in what turned out to be his fourth moment of indecision. At the time, the White House blamed the delay on unfavorable weather conditions near bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

But when Miniter obtained that day’s weather reports from the U.S. Air Force Combat Meteorological Center, he said, they showed ideal conditions for the SEALs to carry out their orders.

.......................

Former U.S. Attorney Michael Mukasey told the Fox News Channel that the Navy SEAL mission to kill Osama bin Laden was preceded by “a highly lawyered memo” from CIA Director Leon Panetta — one designed to insulate President Barack Obama if the operation failed.


...................

we're talking about a guy that is shameless in taking credit for things that go right and whose three favorite words are I, Me and My....... and who is very quick to blame others when things go wrong or when he wants to deflect criticism...claiming that he "took accountability for the outcome good or bad"...is Joe Biden funny= comically sad and disturbing

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

not exactly...

From the author of a book that talks about how 24 is realistic.

Whats next? Dr Seuss for foreign policy advisor?

[spence]

Originally Posted by likwid

From the author of a book that talks about how 24 is realistic.

Whats next? Dr Seuss for foreign policy advisor?

Even better is the text Scott pasted, it appears to assert that Obama's indecision led to many aborted attempts, then mentions the good weather on the last.

This would almost -- I mean if Obama wasn't such an idiotic fraudulent probably sleeps in a burka sort of guy -- suggest that there were reasons for possibly calling earlier attempts?

Seriously, is anyone thinking in this forum?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Seriously, is anyone thinking in this forum?

-spence

yes, which is why you've been struggling for weeks now with your various assertions, I don't believe that many are "thinking" that Obama would have taken any accountability for the Osama raid going badly or anything else going badly for that matter....this has been demonstrated repeatedly, and you would have repeated whatever story they came up with ad nauseum, that much we do know

is Valerie Jarrett a weatherman too?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

yes, which is why you've been struggling for weeks now with your various assertions, I don't believe that many are "thinking" that Obama would have taken any accountability for the Osama raid going badly or anything else going badly for that matter....this has been demonstrated repeatedly, and you would have repeated whatever story they came up with ad nauseum, that much we do know

Had the Bin Laden raid gone awry, and it almost did, Obama wouldn't have been able to escape the $h!t storm.

And you know this.

-spence

[likwid]

Originally Posted by spence

Even better is the text Scott pasted, it appears to assert that Obama's indecision led to many aborted attempts, then mentions the good weather on the last.

This would almost -- I mean if Obama wasn't such an idiotic fraudulent probably sleeps in a burka sort of guy -- suggest that there were reasons for possibly calling earlier attempts?

Seriously, is anyone thinking in this forum?

-spence

Now now, its obvious that Obama is a horrible idiotic half muslim half swahili nazi sympathizer with aryan-chinese roots. I mean its not like tactical missions have a hundred advisors and a thousand ways to go wrong and run on probability of success.

[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

[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.