Benghazi hearing?

[Wamitoria]

They're discussing it on Facebook. Apparently it's old new, and the Obama administration wants to discuss more current events, like Bush policies.

(Image)

That is in terrible taste.

[Arkinesia]

I'm just going to C&P part of my blog post on this to respond to the whole “cover-up” schtick (some of the original is paraphrased from ASB's timeline post):

Why were we leaving only some standing militiamen and a small complement of Special Activities Division foot soldiers with our ambassador in a nation best known for having a LOT of terrorist training facilities?

[Farnhamia]

I'm just going to C&P part of my blog post on this to respond to the whole “cover-up” schtick (some of the original is paraphrased from ASB's timeline post):

Why were we leaving only some standing militiamen and a small complement of Special Activities Division foot soldiers with our ambassador in a nation best known for having a LOT of terrorist training facilities?

Because the Ambassador was at a consulate in a different part of the country, not at the embassy? At the embassy he's in a fortress. Since we don't actually have military access to Libya, he couldn't exactly move around guarded by the 101st Airborne and the Big Red One.

[Arkinesia]

I'm just going to C&P part of my blog post on this to respond to the whole “cover-up” schtick (some of the original is paraphrased from ASB's timeline post):

Why were we leaving only some standing militiamen and a small complement of Special Activities Division foot soldiers with our ambassador in a nation best known for having a LOT of terrorist training facilities?

Because the Ambassador was at a consulate in a different part of the country, not at the embassy? At the embassy he's in a fortress. Since we don't actually have military access to Libya, he couldn't exactly move around guarded by the 101st Airborne and the Big Red One.

We shouldn't have even had such a poorly-guarded mission operational in a country like Libya.

The whole setup was asking for trouble, and anyone saying otherwise is simply in denial.

[Ixzara]

I'm just going to C&P part of my blog post on this to respond to the whole “cover-up” schtick (some of the original is paraphrased from ASB's timeline post):

Why were we leaving only some standing militiamen and a small complement of Special Activities Division foot soldiers with our ambassador in a nation best known for having a LOT of terrorist training facilities?

Because the Ambassador was at a consulate in a different part of the country, not at the embassy? At the embassy he's in a fortress. Since we don't actually have military access to Libya, he couldn't exactly move around guarded by the 101st Airborne and the Big Red One.

So Clifford is Persona non Grata in Libya, damn. You really do learn things every day...

[Farnhamia]

Because the Ambassador was at a consulate in a different part of the country, not at the embassy? At the embassy he's in a fortress. Since we don't actually have military access to Libya, he couldn't exactly move around guarded by the 101st Airborne and the Big Red One.

We shouldn't have even had such a poorly-guarded mission operational in a country like Libya.

The whole setup was asking for trouble, and anyone saying otherwise is simply in denial.

Yeah, yeah, hindsight, I wish my eyes were that good, would-a, could-a, should-a.

[Arkinesia]

We shouldn't have even had such a poorly-guarded mission operational in a country like Libya.

The whole setup was asking for trouble, and anyone saying otherwise is simply in denial.

Yeah, yeah, hindsight, I wish my eyes were that good, would-a, could-a, should-a.

Hindsight my left nut.

Libya has been crawling with terrorists for decades. Five SAD foot guys weren't going to be of any value in what was still basically the Wild West.

[Farnhamia]

Yeah, yeah, hindsight, I wish my eyes were that good, would-a, could-a, should-a.

Hindsight my left nut.

Libya has been crawling with terrorists for decades. Five SAD foot guys weren't going to be of any value in what was still basically the Wild West.

Decades? I doubt Gaddafi allowed rampant terrorists to wander around killing Westerners. Try again. And the Wild West was not that wild. Stop watching John Wayne movies.

[Occupied Deutschland]

We shouldn't have even had such a poorly-guarded mission operational in a country like Libya.

The whole setup was asking for trouble, and anyone saying otherwise is simply in denial.

Yeah, yeah, hindsight, I wish my eyes were that good, would-a, could-a, should-a.

...
Somehow, I'd think somebody, somewhere would think "Y'know this country that just went through a violent rebellion? Maybe we should have security there with our guys."

Then, in this hypothetical, said somebody would go to superiors and advise them to have security there with the guys. Or failing that, to not have the guys there.

Hypothetically, seeing the good sense this made, said somebody's superiors would then take said advice.

We are left with odd choices here. Either these hypotheticals happened, in which case said somebody's superiors were being idiots of the highest caliber, or the hypothetical didn't happen and we now know that every single person in the Libya section and their superiors at the state Department couldn't find their way out of their own ass with a map, lighter, compass and GPS device.

It's a libertarians wet-dream. Either somebody high in government screwed the pooch royally, or there's clear evidence of everyone in governmnet being ridiculously stupid.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Hindsight my left nut.

Libya has been crawling with terrorists for decades. Five SAD foot guys weren't going to be of any value in what was still basically the Wild West.

Decades? I doubt Gaddafi allowed rampant terrorists to wander around killing Westerners. Try again. And the Wild West was not that wild. Stop watching John Wayne movies.

No, but he did give them money to wander around somewhere else killing westerners, after he trained them in his military bases.

[Arkinesia]

Hindsight my left nut.

Libya has been crawling with terrorists for decades. Five SAD foot guys weren't going to be of any value in what was still basically the Wild West.

Decades? I doubt Gaddafi allowed rampant terrorists to wander around killing Westerners. Try again. And the Wild West was not that wild. Stop watching John Wayne movies.

The CIA repurposed old terrorist training sites dotting the Libyan landscape to train the rebels.

So…yeah, there kind of had been a shitload of terrorists training in Libya. I know, it's a disappointing reality to face.

[Farnhamia]

Decades? I doubt Gaddafi allowed rampant terrorists to wander around killing Westerners. Try again. And the Wild West was not that wild. Stop watching John Wayne movies.

No, but he did give them money to wander around somewhere else killing westerners, after he trained them in his military bases.

Yes, but we're not talking about somewhere else, are we?

[New England and The Maritimes]

Yeah, yeah, hindsight, I wish my eyes were that good, would-a, could-a, should-a.

...
Somehow, I'd think somebody, somewhere would think "Y'know this country that just went through a violent rebellion? Maybe we should have security there with our guys."

Then, in this hypothetical, said somebody would go to superiors and advise them to have security there with the guys. Or failing that, to not have the guys there.

Hypothetically, seeing the good sense this made, said somebody's superiors would then take said advice.

We are left with odd choices here. Either these hypotheticals happened, in which case said somebody's superiors were being idiots of the highest caliber, or the hypothetical didn't happen and we now know that every single person in the Libya section and their superiors at the state Department couldn't find their way out of their own ass with a map, lighter, compass and GPS device.

It's a libertarians wet-dream. Either somebody high in government screwed the pooch royally, or there's clear evidence of everyone in governmnet being ridiculously stupid.

Congress is in control of the budget. Congress did not increase embassy security funding. In fact, congress has reduced it.

[EnragedMaldivians]

They're discussing it on Facebook. Apparently it's old new, and the Obama administration wants to discuss more current events, like Bush policies.

(Image)

All I can say, Sib. You know the feeling.

Like Wami said, that was in terrible taste.

[Farnhamia]

Decades? I doubt Gaddafi allowed rampant terrorists to wander around killing Westerners. Try again. And the Wild West was not that wild. Stop watching John Wayne movies.

The CIA repurposed old terrorist training sites dotting the Libyan landscape to train the rebels.

So…yeah, there kind of had been a shitload of terrorists training in Libya. I know, it's a disappointing reality to face.

I think the disappointing reality that some people (but not Arkinesia: this is in no way intended to include him in any way whatsoever) refuse to face is that sometimes people make mistakes, and that not every mistake is a conspiracy or a cover-up. The former Secretary of State took responsibility for the lack of security and the way the incident was handled. Investigations have been held. New ones are not needed, except by people who need to scramble to recover from a bad election loss.

[Arkinesia]

...
Somehow, I'd think somebody, somewhere would think "Y'know this country that just went through a violent rebellion? Maybe we should have security there with our guys."

Then, in this hypothetical, said somebody would go to superiors and advise them to have security there with the guys. Or failing that, to not have the guys there.

Hypothetically, seeing the good sense this made, said somebody's superiors would then take said advice.

We are left with odd choices here. Either these hypotheticals happened, in which case said somebody's superiors were being idiots of the highest caliber, or the hypothetical didn't happen and we now know that every single person in the Libya section and their superiors at the state Department couldn't find their way out of their own ass with a map, lighter, compass and GPS device.

It's a libertarians wet-dream. Either somebody high in government screwed the pooch royally, or there's clear evidence of everyone in governmnet being ridiculously stupid.

Congress is in control of the budget. Congress did not increase embassy security funding. In fact, congress has reduced it.

And yet the Democrats didn't have the solitary brain cell needed to know that the Benghazi mission should have consequently been shut down.

If people raised a stink about it, hey, just politicize the budget problem just like all the others.

[Arkinesia]

The CIA repurposed old terrorist training sites dotting the Libyan landscape to train the rebels.

So…yeah, there kind of had been a shitload of terrorists training in Libya. I know, it's a disappointing reality to face.

I think the disappointing reality that some people refuse to face is that sometimes people make mistakes, and that not every mistake is a conspiracy or a cover-up. The former Secretary of State took responsibility for the lack of security and the way the incident was handled. Investigations have been held. New ones are not needed, except by people who need to scramble to recover from a bad election loss.

Where in the hell did I say it was a cover-up or a conspiracy?

I demand that you quote the exact post where I called it such. Now.

[Farnhamia]

I think the disappointing reality that some people refuse to face is that sometimes people make mistakes, and that not every mistake is a conspiracy or a cover-up. The former Secretary of State took responsibility for the lack of security and the way the incident was handled. Investigations have been held. New ones are not needed, except by people who need to scramble to recover from a bad election loss.

Where in the hell did I say it was a cover-up or a conspiracy?

I demand that you quote the exact post where I called it such. Now.

Oh, stop. As if you've never made a generalized statement using someone's post. Please. Italics are fun, aren't they?

[Arkinesia]

Where in the hell did I say it was a cover-up or a conspiracy?

I demand that you quote the exact post where I called it such. Now.

Oh, stop. As if you've never made a generalized statement using someone's post. Please. Italics are fun, aren't they?

You strongly implied that I called this a conspiracy or a cover-up, when I clearly did no such thing. Are you going to admit that you strawmanned me worse than a goddamn TEAbagger, or are you going to keep playing your bullshit game?

[Farnhamia]

Oh, stop. As if you've never made a generalized statement using someone's post. Please. Italics are fun, aren't they?

You strongly implied that I called this a conspiracy or a cover-up, when I clearly did no such thing. Are you going to admit that you strawmanned me worse than a goddamn TEAbagger, or are you going to keep playing your bullshit game?

Since you've obviously got veins throbbing at your temples, I'll revise my post to exclude you specifically.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yeah, yeah, hindsight, I wish my eyes were that good, would-a, could-a, should-a.

...
Somehow, I'd think somebody, somewhere would think "Y'know this country that just went through a violent rebellion? Maybe we should have security there with our guys."

Then, in this hypothetical, said somebody would go to superiors and advise them to have security there with the guys. Or failing that, to not have the guys there.

Hypothetically, seeing the good sense this made, said somebody's superiors would then take said advice.

We are left with odd choices here. Either these hypotheticals happened, in which case said somebody's superiors were being idiots of the highest caliber, or the hypothetical didn't happen and we now know that every single person in the Libya section and their superiors at the state Department couldn't find their way out of their own ass with a map, lighter, compass and GPS device.

It's a libertarians wet-dream. Either somebody high in government screwed the pooch royally, or there's clear evidence of everyone in governmnet being ridiculously stupid.

It's a conspiracy-theorists wet dream, and mundane reality to anyone who has ever actually paid any attention to the realities of the world.

Embassies are dangerous. Consulates more so. Diplomacy is a dangerous job.

The reason why Embassies and consulates are dangerous places, and we're were willing to take those risks - is because diplomacy is an alternative to war. A vastly preferable alternative.

And diplomats know this, and they sign up to do the job knowing the risks, because they think it's important.

Even though that often means being in hotspots, putting a brave face and a smile in harm's way. By design.


Search my posts earlier in the thread - look at embassy/consulate/mission attacks during the PREVIOUS presidency - this is just a reality of life. 6 years. 10 diplomatic attacks. 60 dead. Compare that to the last 6 years - we're actually in a lull.

The only reason it's a big deal right now, is because political opportunists are trying to make a big deal out of it.

And unfortunately, they've suckered a lot of people into the lie.

[Occupied Deutschland]

...
Somehow, I'd think somebody, somewhere would think "Y'know this country that just went through a violent rebellion? Maybe we should have security there with our guys."

Then, in this hypothetical, said somebody would go to superiors and advise them to have security there with the guys. Or failing that, to not have the guys there.

Hypothetically, seeing the good sense this made, said somebody's superiors would then take said advice.

We are left with odd choices here. Either these hypotheticals happened, in which case said somebody's superiors were being idiots of the highest caliber, or the hypothetical didn't happen and we now know that every single person in the Libya section and their superiors at the state Department couldn't find their way out of their own ass with a map, lighter, compass and GPS device.

It's a libertarians wet-dream. Either somebody high in government screwed the pooch royally, or there's clear evidence of everyone in governmnet being ridiculously stupid.

It's a conspiracy-theorists wet dream, and mundane reality to anyone who has ever actually paid any attention to the realities of the world.

Embassies are dangerous. Consulates more so. Diplomacy is a dangerous job.

The reason why Embassies and consulates are dangerous places, and we're were willing to take those risks - is because diplomacy is an alternative to war. A vastly preferable alternative.

And diplomats know this, and they sign up to do the job knowing the risks, because they think it's important.

Even though that often means being in hotspots, putting a brave face and a smile in harm's way. By design.


Search my posts earlier in the thread - look at embassy/consulate/mission attacks during the PREVIOUS presidency - this is just a reality of life. 6 years. 10 diplomatic attacks. 60 dead. Compare that to the last 6 years - we're actually in a lull.

The only reason it's a big deal right now, is because political opportunists are trying to make a big deal out of it.

And unfortunately, they've suckered a lot of people into the lie.

'State Department fucked up' is a conspiracy theory?

I was certain that that was basically what the original hearings found. Now it seems to be how that fuck-up was handled after the fact in the spotlight.

[Wikkiwallana]

Yeah, yeah, hindsight, I wish my eyes were that good, would-a, could-a, should-a.

...
Somehow, I'd think somebody, somewhere would think "Y'know this country that just went through a violent rebellion? Maybe we should have security there with our guys."

Then, in this hypothetical, said somebody would go to superiors and advise them to have security there with the guys. Or failing that, to not have the guys there.

Hypothetically, seeing the good sense this made, said somebody's superiors would then take said advice.

We are left with odd choices here. Either these hypotheticals happened, in which case said somebody's superiors were being idiots of the highest caliber, or the hypothetical didn't happen and we now know that every single person in the Libya section and their superiors at the state Department couldn't find their way out of their own ass with a map, lighter, compass and GPS device.

It's a libertarians wet-dream. Either somebody high in government screwed the pooch royally, or there's clear evidence of everyone in governmnet being ridiculously stupid.

But we already know who screwed the pooch: the congresspeople who wrote the budget that cut funding for security for diplomatic stations, and those who voted for those cuts.

[Grave_n_idle]

And yet the Democrats didn't have the solitary brain cell needed to know that the Benghazi mission should have consequently been shut down.

That's because it probably shouldn't have been. Diplomacy is a dangerous game.

It actually amazes me how little respect diplomats get in America. They are out there every day, risking their lives every day (okay, maybe not the attache to Paris... not EVERY day) to protect the homeland.

They deserve the same sort of respect as the military, only they have to take the risks, and win every day, without guns and armour.

And yet we've got people crying over a diplomat getting hurt doing his job, and turning it into political theatre.

Frankly, it's disgusting. I'm disgusted by the GOP. I'm disgusted by the extreme rightwing media. And I'm disgusted by people making Ambassador Christopher Stevens' death mean nothing, by ignoring what he was doing out there in the first place.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's a conspiracy-theorists wet dream, and mundane reality to anyone who has ever actually paid any attention to the realities of the world.

Embassies are dangerous. Consulates more so. Diplomacy is a dangerous job.

The reason why Embassies and consulates are dangerous places, and we're were willing to take those risks - is because diplomacy is an alternative to war. A vastly preferable alternative.

And diplomats know this, and they sign up to do the job knowing the risks, because they think it's important.

Even though that often means being in hotspots, putting a brave face and a smile in harm's way. By design.


Search my posts earlier in the thread - look at embassy/consulate/mission attacks during the PREVIOUS presidency - this is just a reality of life. 6 years. 10 diplomatic attacks. 60 dead. Compare that to the last 6 years - we're actually in a lull.

The only reason it's a big deal right now, is because political opportunists are trying to make a big deal out of it.

And unfortunately, they've suckered a lot of people into the lie.

'State Department fucked up' is a conspiracy theory?

I was certain that that was basically what the original hearings found. Now it seems to be how that fuck-up was handled after the fact in the spotlight.

No, 'state department fucked up' is just a lie.

But thanks for not reading the rest of the post. You almost risked learning something.