Movie 13 Hours will re-open Benghazi discussion

[wdmso]

appeasement the favorite Conservative buzz word when we cant do what we want to do in someone else's country

appeasement definition. A political policy of conceding to aggression by a warlike nation.

Respecting a countries border's and their sovereignty is not appeasement

[ecduzitgood]

I wonder if the request for additional security and it's being denied was being read by anyone who could of hacked into her server and thus they picked the softer target?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

I wonder if the request for additional security and it's being denied was being read by anyone who could of hacked into her server and thus they picked the softer target?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That would have been a classified request and sent on a secure system.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That would have been a classified request and sent on a secure system.

Spence, is Hilary a serial liar? Yes or no?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, is Hilary a serial liar? Yes or no?

No.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No.

Bill didn't cheat on me, we are the victims of a vast right wing conspiracy.

These girls claiming that Bill assaulted them, are just looking for publicity.

We were broke when we left the White Houses (they found the tens of thousands to re-pay the National Park Service for everything they pillaged from the White House on their way out)

I came under sniper attack, and had to dive - DIVE! - into the Humvee

All the deleted emails were personal - yoga classes, Chelsea's wedding plans, things like that.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

appeasement the favorite Conservative buzz word when we cant do what we want to do in someone else's country

appeasement definition. A political policy of conceding to aggression by a warlike nation.

Respecting a countries border's and their sovereignty is not appeasement

Good catch. That was a sloppy use of the word "appeasement" on my part. Should have used a more accurate description. Something more suggesting concession or compromise. As in compromising the security of Americans in order to get along or in order to not appear to be humiliating or bullying or insulting (to the Libyans).

Didn't occur to me appeasement was a conservative buzz word. Do only non-conservatives use appeasement to mean appeasement?

As for respecting Libya's sovereignty, it depends on what the Benghazi compound was officially considered to be. It was quite often referred to in the Press as a consulate or diplomatic mission. As such it would have been immune to local laws. And if it wasn't either of those two things, what the heck was it? We had an Ambassador operating there.

Some conspiracy theorists claim it was actually a CIA operation doing secret things that we're not supposed to know about. And that the State dept. is taking flack in order to cover for the CIA. I don't know if that makes it better or worse.

What is for sure is that it was a bungle. As was found to be the case in the lots of "investigations." Not a feather in the cap of one who is running for President.

Wait a minute. I rechecked my use of appeasement. I said "an attempt to appease the sensitivities of Libyans". "Appease the sensitivities" was used as a personally concocted term of art. And it was in that manner that I said " that type of appeasement." It's OK to do that if we're not strictly using legal terminology.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As for respecting Libya's sovereignty, it depends on what the Benghazi compound was officially considered to be. It was quite often referred to in the Press as a consulate or diplomatic mission. As such it would have been immune to local laws. And if it wasn't, what the heck was it? We had an Ambassador operating there.

Some conspiracy theorists claim it was actually a CIA operation doing secret things that we're not supposed to know about. And that the State dept. is taking flack in order to cover for the CIA. I don't know if that makes it better or worse.

It was a mission. We already had an embassy and this was an outpost to extend our diplomatic reach. The Ambassador had taken a personal interest in helping Benghazi, he was there specifically for a meeting (certainly to smuggle manpads )...

For all the Clinton-Hate fueled blame game people shouldn't forget the 30,000 Libyan locals who protested Steven's death.

Why would they do this?

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

It was a mission. We already had an embassy and this was an outpost to extend our diplomatic reach. The Ambassador had taken a personal interest in helping Benghazi, he was there specifically for a meeting (certainly to smuggle manpads )...

For all the Clinton-Hate fueled blame game people shouldn't forget the 30,000 Libyan locals who protested Steven's death.

Why would they do this?

I haven't seen the video but perhaps they were just out for a walk.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It was a mission. We already had an embassy and this was an outpost to extend our diplomatic reach. The Ambassador had taken a personal interest in helping Benghazi, he was there specifically for a meeting (certainly to smuggle manpads )...

For all the Clinton-Hate fueled blame game people shouldn't forget the 30,000 Libyan locals who protested Steven's death.

Why would they do this?

Ahh . . . now I get it. Part of the security planning for the diplomatic mission--have 30,000 Libyan locals protest Stevens' death if he were, unfortunately, to be killed. Brilliant. Now THAT is what success looks like. This is the kind of stuff that great Presidents are made of.

Too bad the 30,000 Libyan locals couldn't, actually, have prevented Stevens' death. But that would have effed up the plan.

[PaulS]

Sorry, I'm not understanding that 2 sentences. Can you pls. clarify them.

So Bush doesn't bear any responsibility even though people in his cabinet that reported directly to him where notified that OBL was trying to attack us and he received classified briefings that were entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S?" Wasn't he Pres. for over 9 months before 9/11?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Sorry, I'm not understanding that 2 sentences. Can you pls. clarify them.

So Bush doesn't bear any responsibility even though people in his cabinet that reported directly to him where notified that OBL was trying to attack us and he received classified briefings that were entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S?" Wasn't he Pres. for over 9 months before 9/11?

I don't need to clarify my sentences.
I was just stating the fact that the people ultimately responsible for 9/11 have been served justice . Can you say the same about Benghazi ?
I don't think you would ever hear President Bush deny that it happened on his watch or try to blame another president or anyone else for what happened .
Can you say the same about Benghazi or President Obama ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

I think you don't want to answer bc you know you will sound like a hypocrite. You can't blame Pres. Obama for Bengazi w/o putting the blame for 9/11 firmly on Pres. Bush's shoulders.

The person ultimately responsible for 9/11 served justice bc they had a seal team put a bullet in them.

Has Pres. Obama or Sec. Clinton denied that Bengazi happened when they were in office?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I think you don't want to answer bc you know you will sound like a hypocrite. You can't blame Pres. Obama for Bengazi w/o putting the blame for 9/11 firmly on Pres. Bush's shoulders.

The person ultimately responsible for 9/11 served justice bc they had a seal team put a bullet in them.

Has Pres. Obama or Sec. Clinton denied that Bengazi happened when they were in office?

Bush deserves some blame for 09/11, it happened on his watch, and the buck stops with him. However, I don't recall that we had any actionable intelligence at the time to suggest that 09/11 was in the works, and you can't defend against every possible scenario, we don't have resources for that.

Benghazi happened after 09/11, and by that time, any sane Westerner knew we are at war with radical jihad, and that we need to safeguard against that. Specific to Benghazi...as I have said, and you have ignored, several nations (and the Red Cross) evacuated theeir people from benghazi, becaus ethey concluded it was too dangerous. Stevens also sensed that, and asked for additional security, which was denied.

Prior to 09/11, we didn't see other countries grounding airplanes because they suspected Al Queda was going to use them as missiles. Had other countries done that, and we ignored it, THEN Bush would be similarly accountable (and stupid) as Obama and Clinton.

You said it was a good hitng that we didn't follow the herd out of Benghazi, because that's what you call "leadership". That is way, way, way beneath you.

Was General Pickett (Confederate General at Gettysburgh) what you would call an effective leader, because he led his men into an ambush that sealed the fate of the South?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Bush deserves some blame for 09/11, it happened on his watch, and the buck stops with him. However, I don't recall that we had any actionable intelligence at the time to suggest that 09/11 was in the works, and you can't defend against every possible scenario, we don't have resources for that.

Benghazi happened after 09/11, and by that time, any sane Westerner knew we are at war with radical jihad, and that we need to safeguard against that. Specific to Benghazi...as I have said, and you have ignored, several nations (and the Red Cross) evacuated theeir people from benghazi, becaus ethey concluded it was too dangerous. Stevens also sensed that, and asked for additional security, which was denied.

The 9/11 commission had some minor items in the IC that indicated something was afoot but it was low and not very clear. Hindsight allowed people to put is all together after the fact and see what clues were there - among thousands of bits of disjointed and contradictory intel.

Blame lives with Clinton and Bush. Both had opportunities to shape things, both had opportunities missed. But the enemy gets a vote too. You can feign ingnorance or indifference all you want but when your enemy is interested in you, you better be interested in him (see current GeoPol situations).

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Prior to 09/11, we didn't see other countries grounding airplanes because they suspected Al Queda was going to use them as missiles. Had other countries done that, and we ignored it, THEN Bush would be similarly accountable (and stupid) as Obama and Clinton.

You said it was a good hitng that we didn't follow the herd out of Benghazi, because that's what you call "leadership". That is way, way, way beneath you.

Still preventable. Warning signs were ignored because: politics. Question is was the truth manipulated because: politics.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Was General Pickett (Confederate General at Gettysburgh) what you would call an effective leader, because he led his men into an ambush that sealed the fate of the South?

He led his men over the objections of his his boss to his boss's boss. Thank god.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Bush deserves some blame for 09/11, it happened on his watch, and the buck stops with him. However, I don't recall that we had any actionable intelligence at the time to suggest that 09/11 was in the works, and you can't defend against every possible scenario, we don't have resources for that.I agree we don't have resources for that and that is why I don't hold him responsible for 9/11. However, he clearly was given briefings about OBL and we also warned airlines about OBL's desire to hijack planes. And that is the same reason I don't hold Pres. Obama or SOS Clinton responsible for Benghazi. Pres. Bush's reports had 000s of pieces of data to sort through just as Pres. Obama's reports had prob. 000s of requests for $.

Benghazi happened after 09/11, and by that time, any sane Westerner knew we are at war with radical jihad, and that we need to safeguard against that. Specific to Benghazi...as I have said, and you have ignoredI have not ignored and have repeatedly stated that just bc some other country (and the Red Cross isn't even a country) leaves somewhere, doesn't mean we should. I have said multiple times, I wouldn't want our policies dictated by what the French or Italy (or the Red Cross) does. , several nations (and the Red Cross) evacuated theeir people from benghazi, becaus ethey concluded it was too dangerous. Stevens also sensed that, and asked for additional security, which was denied. And Pres. Obama and SOS Clinton where not informed of this. As you yourself said, "you can't defend against every possible scenario, we don't have resources for that"

Prior to 09/11, we didn't see other countries grounding airplanes because they suspected Al Queda was going to use them as missiles. Had other countries done that, and we ignored it, THEN Bush would be similarly accountable (and stupid) as Obama and Clinton. Yet we warned the transportation dept. - see below.

You said it was a good hitng that we didn't follow the herd out of Benghazi, because that's what you call "leadership". That is way, way, way beneath you.

Was General Pickett (Confederate General at Gettysburgh) what you would call an effective leader, because he led his men into an ambush that sealed the fate of the South?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651&page=1


U.S. intelligence officials warned President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack American planes, but White House officials stressed the threat was not specific.

A White House official acknowledged to ABCNEWS that the information prompted administration officials to issue a private warning to transportation department and national security agencies weeks before the attacks

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651&page=1


U.S. intelligence officials warned President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack American planes, but White House officials stressed the threat was not specific.

A White House official acknowledged to ABCNEWS that the information prompted administration officials to issue a private warning to transportation department and national security agencies weeks before the attacks

I can't disagree with much of what you said, except this...you are placing zero weight, NONE, on the fact that other nations evacuated Benghazi, and that Stevens asked for more security. Clearly the state department knew that other nations fled Benghazi, they knew why, and they knew that Stevens asked for more security.

And knowing all that, not only did we leave Stevens there, but we had no help to send him within a 13 hour flight radius. Hilary was in charge of that organization, and if she sucked that bad, she's not fit to be promoted.

I am deeply critical of Bush, in that it took the feds so long to respond to Katrina. I could have filled my car with water, and driven to New Orleans before the feds got there, and there is zero excuse for that. I also blame New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, because we all knew a week ahead of time that the storm was coming, and he failed to evacuate. THAT, to me, is comparable to how badly Benghazi was bungled. Right before Benghazi, we knew a lot more, than Bush knew on 09/10/01. I don't see how you can compare the two.

I admit it looks hypocritical on my end, because I am more critical of Obama/Clinton than I am of Bush...but the fact is, the Red Cross has no sophisticated intelligence mechanisms, and they knew they needed to evacuate. If the State Dept is less informed than the Red Cross (which they were in this case, that's not debateable), then whoever is in charge of the State Dept, is failing miserably.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you are placing zero weight, NONE, on the fact that other nations evacuated Benghazi, and that Stevens asked for more security. Clearly the state department knew that other nations fled Benghazi, they knew why, and they knew that Stevens asked for more security.

I'm not ignoring that at all. I just think as the most powerful nation on earth, our actions, interests, etc. are different from other entities.

[PaulS]

Jim, you're an actuary. Actuarial pricing is known as being as much an art as a science. No actuary can price something perfectly - there are too many unknowns. You look at risk and the potential payout for different scenarios. You don't have perfect information and there are things you know are so remote they are unlikely to happen - however, occasionally they do. When those outliers occur, your company is going to take a big hit for that. Katrina was 1 of those outliers and many Insurance Companies went out of business bc their reserves were not adequate – they did not anticipate a hurricane of that magnitude and thus didn’t reserve for that many claims. Our embassies are always going to be vulnerable bc we want them to show how open we are as a society. They are going to always be vulnerable to a mortar being shot into them. As much as we like, we can’t put them on an island with a dome over them.

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Our embassies are always going to be vulnerable bc we want them to show how open we are as a society.

Take a look at the US embassy in Iraq, it looks like a fortress.

I think the situation in Libya was exacerbated by the fact that they wanted to keep a low profile, but also this was likely for security reasons.

As you said, it's a complex calculation.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

As you said, it's a complex calculation.

No,it's not. Your hero is just too dense to see the simplicity of it. There are a few places in the world, where there are a fair number of people who are dedicated to killing Americans, for no reason other than we happily encourage our wives to pursue their dreams, we don't force them to dress like ninjas, and we don't all wear ZZ Top beards. For that and other similarly stupid reasons, they want to exterminate us, and there's nothing we can do about it except either (1) appease them, or (2) kill them.

The current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, thought he could diffuse the situation because his skin is darker than his predecessor, he thought he was more charming than his predecessor, and because he thinks he can wave his hand and stop the oceans from rising. Unfortunately for us, he was only 1 for 3.

He has no stomach for this. He wants to deal with issues that are intellectually stimulating to him. He should've stayed in a university faculty room. I think Hilary will be more effective in dealing with terrorists, I don't think she's as aloof and clueless as Obama is, she just needs to regurgitate all his talking points to get the nomination of her party.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim, you're an actuary. Actuarial pricing is known as being as much an art as a science. No actuary can price something perfectly - there are too many unknowns. You look at risk and the potential payout for different scenarios. You don't have perfect information and there are things you know are so remote they are unlikely to happen - however, occasionally they do. When those outliers occur, your company is going to take a big hit for that. Katrina was 1 of those outliers and many Insurance Companies went out of business bc their reserves were not adequate – they did not anticipate a hurricane of that magnitude and thus didn’t reserve for that many claims. Our embassies are always going to be vulnerable bc we want them to show how open we are as a society. They are going to always be vulnerable to a mortar being shot into them. As much as we like, we can’t put them on an island with a dome over them.

Paul, as usual, you sound like you know what you are talking about. As an actuary, I also know that I need to allow for the unknown, for contingencies. I learned that my first month of my first semester at UCONN. If I told my boss that all our claims were paid and closed and told him we could therefore give ourselves huge bonuses...and then another $25 million claim comes in and now there's no money to pay for it, I'd get fired on the spot, no questions. Similarly, when you send peole to the few places on the planet that are legitimately dangerous, you cannot have the cavalry more than a 13 hour flight time away. You just can't. When you ask people to go into harm's way, you owe them more than that. You don't need a PhD in international relations to know that. If Hilary doesn't know that, she needs to stay on the lecture circuit. Just my $0.02.

"When those outliers occur, your company is going to take a big hit for that. Katrina was 1 of those outliers "

true. Which is why you need to have money set aside to pay for those outliers. You know they will occur, you just can't know when. So you set up a rainy day fund. Which is precisely what Obama/Clinton did NOT do here. We can't predict when and where the jihadists will strike. What we can do, what we must do, is have a quick recation force that i snever more than a few hours' away, if someon needs to call the cavalry. That i snot beyond our capabilities. We chose not to have that set up, because the administration didn't want there to be any outliers. Not wanting them, doesn't mean they won't occur.

I get that you can't predict every possible event. But you don't need to be Nostradamus (spelling?) to know that when you send Americans to the Middle East in a public capacity, that they are potential targets.

I think you are every bit as upset as I am over what happened. I don't claim that my side has a monopoly on empathy for the families. I just think there was evidence to suggest that teh threat was there.

"we can’t put them on an island with a dome over them."

No one suggested that. But the closest help cannot be half a world away either, it just can't.

I don't want my kids dealing with this, and they will be. Pisses me off.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What we can do, what we must do, is have a quick recation force that i snever more than a few hours' away, if someon needs to call the cavalry. That i snot beyond our capabilities. We chose not to have that set up, because the administration didn't want there to be any outliers. Not wanting them, doesn't mean they won't occur.

To provide this level of coverage in every danger zone simple isn't possible. I believe a few weeks ago it was mentioned by one of our site Iraq vets that even in a full on combat zone he would wait hours for backup.

During the House Armed services committee interviews, Gen Ham who was head of AFRICOM at the time said he intentionally didn't re position fighter aircraft because "he doubted their utility to any
threat his command might face on September 11."

It's also worth noting that several dozen US personnel survived the attack. Reading Jim's post or watching FOX you get the impression that everyone was killed.

Your perspective was, is and likely will continue to be mostly wrong.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

To provide this level of coverage in every danger zone simple isn't possible. I believe a few weeks ago it was mentioned by one of our site Iraq vets that even in a full on combat zone he would wait hours for backup.

During the House Armed services committee interviews, Gen Ham who was head of AFRICOM at the time said he intentionally didn't re position fighter aircraft because "he doubted their utility to any
threat his command might face on September 11."

It's also worth noting that several dozen US personnel survived the attack. Reading Jim's post or watching FOX you get the impression that everyone was killed.

Your perspective was, is and likely will continue to be mostly wrong.

"To provide this level of coverage in every danger zone simple isn't possible"

At any given time, how many places in the world do you think there are, that are dangerous enough where (1) western nations are evacuating their embassies, yet (2) we have vulnerable personnel? Pretty much confined to a small space. We kicked all the Nazis out of western Europe, we drove all the Japanese out of the Pacific, how much more vast in scope was that? We had a much larger military then, obviously, but we are talking about a contained area. So I don't buy that it's not possible.

"even in a full on combat zone he would wait hours for backup." That happens. A few hours. I don't believe that anyone who agrees to go into harm's way, in that narrow slice of geography, needs to be more than a few hours away from help. It doesn't even need to be troops, and armed drone is better than nothing.

""he doubted their utility to any threat his command might face on September 11."

If you don't try, we'll never know, will we? Success in these situation isn't guaranteed. A low-flying jet is better than nothing. You don't just sit on your hands, not if you have a conscience.

"Reading Jim's post or watching FOX you get the impression that everyone was killed."

Pertaining my posts, I'd ask you to refer to any where I implied that the loss of life was larger than 4. Just make it up as you go along, anything to discredit those who dare to question your beloved.

I answered your points. Can you show me the same courtesy?

(1) why does your party have superdelegates?
(2) why did Hilary claim she came under sniper attack?

Off topic I know, but since I have your attention, and you won't respond in the other threads, I figured what the heck.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"To provide this level of coverage in every danger zone simple isn't possible"

At any given time, how many places in the world do you think there are, that are dangerous enough where (1) western nations are evacuating their embassies, yet (2) we have vulnerable personnel? Pretty much confined to a small space. We kicked all the Nazis out of western Europe, we drove all the Japanese out of the Pacific, how much more vast in scope was that? We had a much larger military then, obviously, but we are talking about a contained area. So I don't buy that it's not possible.

"even in a full on combat zone he would wait hours for backup." That happens. A few hours. I don't believe that anyone who agrees to go into harm's way, in that narrow slice of geography, needs to be more than a few hours away from help. It doesn't even need to be troops, and armed drone is better than nothing.

""he doubted their utility to any threat his command might face on September 11."

If you don't try, we'll never know, will we? Success in these situation isn't guaranteed. A low-flying jet is better than nothing. You don't just sit on your hands, not if you have a conscience.

"Reading Jim's post or watching FOX you get the impression that everyone was killed."

Pertaining my posts, I'd ask you to refer to any where I implied that the loss of life was larger than 4. Just make it up as you go along, anything to discredit those who dare to question your beloved.

I answered your points. Can you show me the same courtesy?

(1) why does your party have superdelegates?
(2) why did Hilary claim she came under sniper attack?

Off topic I know, but since I have your attention, and you won't respond in the other threads, I figured what the heck.

Is he going to answer these in order or???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Spence saw the movie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Spence saw the movie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, but I do wonder why Jim thinks he's smarter than the entire Department of Defense.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

No, but I do wonder why Jim thinks he's smarter than the entire Department of Defense.

Well in this particular case most people would've been .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Well in this particular case most people would've been .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Peas in a pod.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, but I do wonder why Jim thinks he's smarter than the entire Department of Defense.

The same Dep of defense that warned Obama not to withdraw from Iraq, that it would be a disaster? Spence, were they correct then? I mean, it seems you think pretty highly of them?