Hillary

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please.

Which "people" would that be? Half the people in this country criticize the other half's politics on a regular basis. Politicians have to go through the smoke screen of various channels and regulations before they can act with "impunity." Except when they can get away with cover-ups of malfeasance. Iraq and Afghanistan required a great deal cooperation and not done with impunity. There was and still is much push-back against those wars and prices to be paid politically as well as in blood and treasure. It is, by the way, becoming easier and easier for our governments to act against the will of the American people with greater degrees of impunity since the old bounds that limited government were breached.

The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader.

Why would we agree to such a partnership that does not allow us to defend our own in a dangerous part of the world?

And I don't see how you can describe Libya as a "hotbed of terrorism" in fact I think that's something that Jim just made up.

Don't blame it on Jim. I was uncharacteristically being relativistic. Compared to Ames Iowa, Libya is a "hotbed" of terrorism. Compared to Afghanistan, maybe not so much.

Ambassador Stevens used to go running outside in the streets of Benghazi. Certainly the security conditions were deteriorating but a "hotbed?". Does anyone think Stevens would have traveled on his own free will to a lightly protected facility if he thought it was a "hotbed of terrorism?"

-spence

Yeah, conditions were "deteriorating." He asked for help. Guess he was worried and maybe stopped running outside in the streets. Probly second-guessed his free will decision to go to a "lightly protected facility."

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Which "people" would that be? Half the people in this country criticize the other half's politics on a regular basis. Politicians have to go through the smoke screen of various channels and regulations before they can act with "impunity." Except when they can get away with cover-ups of malfeasance. Iraq and Afghanistan required a great deal cooperation and not done with impunity. There was and still is much push-back against those wars and prices to be paid politically as well as in blood and treasure. It is, by the way, becoming easier and easier for our governments to act against the will of the American people with greater degrees of impunity since the old bounds that limited government were breached.

People being the citizenry. An interesting book that deals with this subject I've mentioned before is Andrew Bacehvich's "The New American Militarism."

Why would we agree to such a partnership that does not allow us to defend our own in a dangerous part of the world?

We have diplomatic personelle in many if not all dangerous nations and can't freely operate our military. Hence, actions are either covert, with some approval like in Yemen or a calculated risk like Pakistan.

Don't blame it on Jim. I was uncharacteristically being relativistic. Compared to Ames Iowa, Libya is a "hotbed" of terrorism. Compared to Afghanistan, maybe not so much., conditions were "deteriorating." He asked for help. Guess he was worried and maybe stopped running outside in the streets. Probly second-guessed his free will decision to go to a "lightly protected facility."

Compared to Ames Iowa, Philadelphia is a "hotbed" of terrorism

Yeah, conditions were "deteriorating." He asked for help. Guess he was worried and maybe stopped running outside in the streets. Probly second-guessed his free will decision to go to a "lightly protected facility."

It's worth noting that the security situation wasn't one where the threat of Islamic terrorism was a big topic. One problem was the local militias providing security didn't agree with the US endorsing certain political candidates. A lot of violence was the result of militias clashing to settle property or economic disputes. Not necessarily directed at Western interests...

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

People being the citizenry. An interesting book that deals with this subject I've mentioned before is Andrew Bacehvich's "The New American Militarism."

You said that "people have become so used to acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do whatever we please. Now, by "people" you mean the citizenry. A whole lot of the citizenry that I'm familiar with and whose opinions I've read or heard in various media have a different view. We did not act with impunity. Many "people" (citizenry) feel that we were too restrained and too bound by restrictive rules of engagement. And we did not act alone, but with others and with a great deal of worldwide and U.N. approval as well as with congressional consent. We paid a tremendous price for those incursions. That was not impunity. And many paid a political price as well. That was not impunity.

That some "people" got the notion that we acted with impunity may be the result of anti-American, anti-war, anti-capitalistic, and academic propaganda. Maybe even from books like bacehvich's The New American Militarism.

We have diplomatic personelle in many if not all dangerous nations and can't freely operate our military. Hence, actions are either covert, with some approval like in Yemen or a calculated risk like Pakistan.

We have diplomatic personnel in nations that are not dangerous and can't freely operate our military their either. But they are allowed to defend themselves and their diplomats if attacked. Or will even if they are not "allowed." If there is no plan or method to protect diplomats in dangerous countries, we should not send them there. That invites exactly what happened. That is not competent.

Compared to Ames Iowa, Philadelphia is a "hotbed" of terrorism

It may be a hotbed of crime, but terrorism--I don't think so. At least not yet.

It's worth noting that the security situation wasn't one where the threat of Islamic terrorism was a big topic.

The administration's version is that Al Qaeda was on the run and ineffective, that the administration had pretty much secured our safety, especially after the killing of bin Laden. That it was not a "big topic" was negligent, incompetent, and unrealistic. It unnecesarily left the diplomats vulnerable

One problem was the local militias providing security didn't agree with the US endorsing certain political candidates. A lot of violence was the result of militias clashing to settle property or economic disputes. Not necessarily directed at Western interests...

-spence

Apparently, the administration was wrong.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It's worth noting that the security situation wasn't one where the threat of Islamic terrorism was a big topic.
-spence

didn't they ban that phrase?....no wonder it wasn't a big topic

the only thing worth noting is that the security situation was deteriorating, help was requested, was not given and Americans ended up dead and the administration and it's surrogates lied repeatedly about it and continue to...there were a number of incidents leading up to this

"The British Foreign Office withdrew all consular staff from Benghazi in late June"


..you can continue to split hairs and regurgitate the talking points....the effect of which reinforces the fact that we have people who aren't nearly as smart as they pretend to be and who are too caught up in their I'm smarter than you posture and ideology to see or acknowledge what is actually going on and who will say and do just about anything to maintain that posture and promote their ideology which makes them a danger to the rest of us .....

Spence...if you deal in facts and truth you don't have to engage in all of the word games and obfuscation.....what happened is very clear...this game that you play serves no purpose but to make you look like a fool....as in the Ayers thread......


btw....Jim posted an article with remarks from a recent speech by Ayers where he made this comparison....



Bill Ayers, the 1960s radical who went on to become a college professor and associate of President Obama, said Saturday the bombings he helped the Weather Underground carry out to protest the Vietnam War bear no resemblance to the deadly Boston Marathon attack.

“How different is the shooting in Connecticut from shooting at a hunting range?” Ayers told a reporter who asked him to compare the incidents . “Just because they use the same thing, there’s no relationship at all.”


I'm sure that you can find some logic in this stupidity Spence but I'm pretty sure that of the four examples...three are illegal and can or could have deadly consequences and shooting at a hunting range is a most absurd comparison....but some are so impressed with their pretend brilliance that they don't realize or care that they look like fools....

"no relationship at all"

[scottw]

Eben...you should read this

National Review Online | Print

The Benghazi Lie
A failure of character of this magnitude corrodes the integrity of the state.
By Mark Steyn

" Truth matters, and character matters. For the American people to accept the Obama-Clinton lie is to be complicit in it."

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Eben...you should read this

National Review Online | Print

The Benghazi Lie
A failure of character of this magnitude corrodes the integrity of the state.
By Mark Steyn

" Truth matters, and character matters. For the American people to accept the Obama-Clinton lie is to be complicit in it."

What a bunch of well written malarkey.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

What a bunch of well written malarkey.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

coming from someone who has been complicit in all of the lies and incompetence to this point....an understandable position

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

coming from someone who has been complicit in all of the lies and incompetence to this point....an understandable position

He quotes the New York Times, but Marc Steyn is full of malarkey! Nor does he specify one thing that is demonstrably false...it's just malarkey cuz it paints the Messiah in an unfavorable light, and that can't possibly have any validity to it.

Steyn is clearly a racist...