Gary Johnson Alepwnd again: cant name a foreign leader

[Fanatical Meat]

Foreign leaders that I admired? I would name a few. (past and present)... Dalai Lama, Churchill, Suu Kyi

There was a qualifier. Someone who is alive or recent history.

 

[dullard]

There was a qualifier. Someone who is alive or recent history.

Two of those are alive*, and I would say that Churchill is recent history.

* Assuming he was talking about the latest Dalai Lama that most of us alive think about.

 

[theeedude]

Trump could at least name one foreign leader, Obama

 

[Svnla]

There was a qualifier. Someone who is alive or recent history.

Some of my (edited) examples are still alive and/or recent.

The qualification of "admired" is a tough one. I can have a long list of foreign leaders but hard to find ones that I really admire.

Two of those are alive*, and I would say that Churchill is recent history.

* Assuming he was talking about the latest Dalai Lama that most of us alive think about.

This is who I am talking about.

 

[soulcougher73]

If this is his "flaw" id take that over the other 2 candidates on going issues or corruption and idiocy.

 

[Meghan54]

The qualification of "admired" is a tough one. I can have a long list of foreign leaders but hard to find ones that I really admire.

When Johnson was blaming a brain freeze on being unable to remember his most admired foreign leader, Matthews then made the question even easier by asking Johnson to name one foreign leader....any foreign leader.

Johnson stumbled around trying to name Fox, which was surprising to most since Johnson was governor of NM when Fox was elected pres. of Mexico. You'd think a governor of a state that borders another country that just elected a new president, a country his state interacts with constantly, would have any problem remembering at least Fox's last name, never mind his first name.

 

[ivwshane]

The Presidency isn't a spelling bee where recalling facts is the sole objective. I'll take him having better principles than Clinton or Trump every day over him knowing the name of one more obscure country's capital city or Prime Minister. If that sort of thing is important to you in a President then vote accordingly but not everyone is going to care.

Yeah, I kind of hold my presidential candidates to higher standard than just simply having good principals. While that's certainly an important trait, it's a trait anyone can have. So I also expect the potential next leader of this great nation to actually have solid plans behind their agendas. I also expect them to be smarter than me and to at least have a pretty good idea of the world since one of the primary functions of the president is to deal with the rest of the world.

You apparently don't have such standards.

 

[werepossum]

The choice to send reinforcements comes from the military commanders, not the Secretary of State. Deferring to the experts in theater is actually the dictionary definition of a good choice.

Unless you're the guys dying on the ground. Then maybe the choice to not send reinforcements might not seem like such a good choice. Ditto the choice to not HAVE reinforcements prepared to send. Or any method to send them. Or even the choice to totally ignore standard procedures and requirements for security for an American ambassador. To the guys dying, none of those choices are likely to inspire any desire to promote Hillary.

As far as Johnson whiffing, meh. This is what happens when one runs a pot company. At least he didn't pass out or set a nation into civil war.

 

[DrDoug]

Jill Stein wants to get in on the free publicity...

Stein attempts to mock Johnson's gaffe — but also fails to name a current world leader: https://t.co/mHT9Ucnh5K pic.twitter.com/mNzwbZEVOk

— The Hill (@thehill) September 29, 2016

 

[werepossum]

Trump could at least name one foreign leader, Obama

lol +1

 

[DrDoug]

Johnson wants everyone to know that he's still thinking about it.

Gov. Gary Johnson ✔ @GovGaryJohnson
It’s been almost 24 hours…and I still can’t come up with a foreign leader I look up to.

I think Gar has smoked one too many doobs...

 

[fskimospy]

Unless you're the guys dying on the ground. Then maybe the choice to not send reinforcements might not seem like such a good choice. Ditto the choice to not HAVE reinforcements prepared to send. Or any method to send them. Or even the choice to totally ignore standard procedures and requirements for security for an American ambassador. To the guys dying, none of those choices are likely to inspire any desire to promote Hillary.

As far as Johnson whiffing, meh. This is what happens when one runs a pot company. At least he didn't pass out or set a nation into civil war.

Nope, politicians deciding what should be done over the in theater military experts is a bad idea. This should be obvious. If politicians are better judges than theater commanders then we should eliminate theater commanders and save the taxpayers money.

 

[agent00f]

The Presidency isn't a spelling bee where recalling facts is the sole objective. I'll take him having better principles than Clinton or Trump every day over him knowing the name of one more obscure country's capital city or Prime Minister. If that sort of thing is important to you in a President then vote accordingly but not everyone is going to care.

So essentially you don't want a president smarter than you. Must've loved bush & palin.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

So essentially you don't want a president smarter than you. Must've loved bush & palin.

Pretty much nailed it. These are people who have a massive anti-intellectual streak (and a lot of resentment over it too). They're the "I'd have a beer with him" crowd. "Y'know...morons," to quote Blazing Saddles.

 

[werepossum]

Nope, politicians deciding what should be done over the in theater military experts is a bad idea. This should be obvious. If politicians are better judges than theater commanders then we should eliminate theater commanders and save the taxpayers money.

Try telling us with a straight face that "military experts" decided to park an American ambassador into an unsecurable compound in the most dangerous city of the most dangerous country in the world without adequate security, with zero backup and no quick reaction force and no in-country transportation. That's pure politician.

 

[agent00f]

Try telling us with a straight face that "military experts" decided to park an American ambassador into an unsecurable compound in the most dangerous city of the most dangerous country in the world without adequate security, with zero backup and no quick reaction force and no in-country transportation. That's pure politician.

Voted by conservatives as most important person of all time several years running.

 

[ivwshane]

Try telling us with a straight face that "military experts" decided to park an American ambassador into an unsecurable compound in the most dangerous city of the most dangerous country in the world without adequate security, with zero backup and no quick reaction force and no in-country transportation. That's pure politician.

No that's pure ambassador. You know, the guy on the ground in the thick of things.

 

[werepossum]

No that's pure ambassador. You know, the guy on the ground in the thick of things.

lol Sure it is. I mean, we lose so many of those guys, right? 'Cause they are "on the ground in the thick of things."

Only other ambassadors we've lost in my lifetime have been killed while travelling (always when a VIP is most vulnerable) except for one (Noel) kidnapped from a Saudi embassy and one (Davies) killed by sniper fire in our (perhaps poorly chosen, but in Nicosia . . .) embassy in Afghanistan. Ambassadors don't camp out "in the thick of things", they choose the safest locations and travel routes possible. Because they are targets. Everyone knows this. Literally everyone. Except you and, apparently, Hillary.

I haven't made a big deal out of Benghazi because I don't know if this was a major screw-up (or more properly, several major screw-ups - we were unable to intervene in an eight hour attack, which indicates multiple serious failures in planning) or a calculated risk for some secret program. But only a total moron would attempt to pass it off as just business as usual.

 

[agent00f]

lol Sure it is. I mean, we lose so many of those guys, right? 'Cause they are "on the ground in the thick of things."

Only other ambassadors we've lost in my lifetime have been killed while travelling (always when a VIP is most vulnerable) except for one (Noel) kidnapped from a Saudi embassy and one (Davies) killed by sniper fire in our (perhaps poorly chosen, but in Nicosia . . .) embassy in Afghanistan. Ambassadors don't camp out "in the thick of things", they choose the safest locations and travel routes possible. Because they are targets. Everyone knows this. Literally everyone. Except you and, apparently, Hillary.

I haven't made a big deal out of Benghazi because I don't know if this was a major screw-up (or more properly, several major screw-ups - we were unable to intervene in an eight hour attack, which indicates multiple serious failures in planning) or a calculated risk for some secret program. But only a total moron would attempt to pass it off as just business as usual.

"I don't know anything about Benghazi and don't make a big deal about Benghazi but let me tell you about Benghazi in this thread that has zero connection to Benghazi".

 

[fskimospy]

Try telling us with a straight face that "military experts" decided to park an American ambassador into an unsecurable compound in the most dangerous city of the most dangerous country in the world without adequate security, with zero backup and no quick reaction force and no in-country transportation. That's pure politician.

Nice attempt to change the scope of discussion! By means show me what decisions by Clinton you think led to this. Be specific.

It is painfully obvious that an armchair general like you was excited to second guess the decisions of military commanders on the ground there because the secretary was someone you disagreed with politically.

You're a ponce. Gross.

 

[Maxima1]

Also, why is Johnson a superior choice? He wants to return to the gold standard, which would probably cause a worldwide economic depression. That seems to be a pretty horrible principle to me.

You nailed it. He's a nutcase just like Ron Paul was.

 

[werepossum]

Nice attempt to change the scope of discussion! By means show me what decisions by Clinton you think led to this. Be specific.

It is painfully obvious that an armchair general like you was excited to second guess the decisions of military commanders on the ground there because the secretary was someone you disagreed with politically.

You're a ponce. Gross.

Gross? What are you, seven?

Here's a couple of factors. First, Stevens was in Benghazi specifically because Clinton wanted to be able to announce that the US had a permanent base in Benghazi, that being the center of the anti-Qaddafi Libyan revolutionaries who were supposedly keen on democracy.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...112-so-clinton-could-announce-upcoming-libyan

Amb. Thomas Pickering and Admiral Mike Mullen, the co-chairs of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board that investigated the Benghazi attack--and that omitted from its public report any mention of Stevens traveling to Benghazi because Clinton wanted to make it a permanent post—have refused requests from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to testify in the committee or even speak informally with it.

Hicks, who was the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli on Sept. 11, 2012 (and thus was second in command to Amb. Chris Stevens), told multiple members at the Wednesday hearing that Clinton’s desire to make Benghazi a permanent State Department facility was one of the motivations for Amb. Stevens' trip there last September.

“Did you tell the Accountability Review Board about Secretary Clinton's interest in establishing a permanent presence in Benghazi?” Rep. Thomas Massie (R.-Ky.) asked Hicks. “Because, ostensibly, wasn't that the reason that the ambassador was going to Benghazi?”

“Yes, I did tell the Accountability Review Board that Secretary Clinton wanted the post made permanent,” said Hicks. “Ambassador Pickering looked surprised. He looked both ways on the--to the members of the board, saying, ‘Does the 7th floor know about this?’ (The secretary of state and other top State Department officials have their offices on the seventh floor of the department's headquarters.)

“And another factor,” Hicks continued in his sworn testimony, “was our understanding that Secretary Clinton intended to visit Tripoli in December.”

“So Pickering was surprised that this was his [Amb. Stevens’] mission was to establish a permanent facility there?” asked Rep. Massie.

“Yes,” testified Hicks.

“That is your impression?” asked Rep. Massie.

“Yes,” Hicks repeated.

Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa followed up on this exchange to clarify the point.

“I just want you to say it unambiguously--if that's the correct way to say it--without a flaw, one more time,” said Issa. “The reason the ambassador was in Benghazi, at least one of the reasons was x?”

“At least one of the reasons he was in Benghazi was to further the secretary's wish that, that post become a permanent constituent post, and also there, because we understood that the secretary intended to visit Tripoli later in the year,” said Hicks. “We hoped that she would be able to announce to the Libyan people our establishment of a permanent constituent post in Benghazi at that time.”

The State Department Accountability Review Board chaired by Pickering and Mullen omitted any mention of this purpose for Amb. Stevens’ Sept. 11 presence in Benghazi. The report said the ambassador had dinner with the Benghazi city council on the night of Sept. 10, 2012, and had a briefing that day at the Annex, a facility operated by the CIA.

“Ambassador Stevens was scheduled to remain in Benghazi until September 14, and his visit was timed in part to fill the staffing gaps between TDY [temporary duty] principal officers as well as to open an American Corner at a local school and to reconnect with local contacts,” the report also said.

"The Board found that Ambassador Stevens made the decision to travel to Benghazi independently of Washington, per standard practice," said the report. "Timing for his trip was driven in part by commitments in Tripoli, as well as a staffing gap between principal officers in Benghazi."

Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa noted at the beginning of the hearing that Accountability Review Board co-chairman Pickering and Mullen refused to testify to the committee or even informally talk to it.

“On February 22nd, this committee wrote to Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen, who, as required by law, were appointed by Secretary Clinton and co-chair the accountability review board investigation,” said Chairman Issa. “We asked them to testify about their investigation and findings. They refused, and our minority said nothing.

“When we asked Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen to speak with us and our committee informally,” said Issa, “they again refused, and again there was silence by the minority.”

Hicks—who appeared before the committee as a “whistleblower” as opposed to a witness officially sanctioned to appear before Congress by the State Department—repeated to several members questioning him in the committee that one of the reasons Amb. Stevens was in Benghazi on Sept. 11 was because Secretary Clinton was pushing to convert it into a permanent State Department facility.

“Mr. Hicks, why was ambassador Stevens headed to Benghazi? There were a lot of concerns about him,” asked Rep. James Lankford (R.-Okla.). “There were a lot of security issues that Mr. Nordstrom had listed in numerous reports leading up to his trip there. Why was the ambassador headed there?”

“According to [Amb.] Chris [Stevens], Secretary Clinton wanted Benghazi converted into a permanent constituent post,” said Hicks. “Timing for this decision was important. Chris needed to report before September 30th, the end of the fiscal year, on the physical---the political and security environment in Benghazi to support an action memo to convert Benghazi from a temporary facility to a permanent facility.

“In addition, Chris wanted to make a symbolic gesture to the people of Benghazi that the United States stood behind their dream of establishing a new democracy.”

Lankford asked: “What was the time line on trying to make this a permanent facility or was there anything pending that had to be accomplished by a certain deadline?”

“We had funds available that we could, that could be transferred from an account set aside for Iraq and could be dedicated to this purpose,” said Hicks. “They had to be obligated by September 30th.”

“OK. And where did those instructions come from?” asked Lankford.

“This came from the executive office of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs,” said Hicks, referring to a division of the main State Department in Washington.

Hicks reiterated his testimony that Amb. Stevens was in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012 to work toward making it a permanent State Department post—a mandate he had received from Secretary of State Clinton.

“He went there to do his job,” Hicks told Rep. Tony Cardenas (D.-N.M.). “He felt that he had a political imperative to go to Benghazi and represent the United States there in order to move the project forward to make the Benghazi consulate a permanent constituent post.”

Hicks told Rep. Doug Collins (R.-Ga.) that Secretary Clinton had personally told Amb. Stevens that she wanted him to make Benghazi a permanent State Department post in the discussion she had with him when he departed Washington, D.C., for Tripoli to become ambassador.

“Mr. Hicks I have a question,” said Collins. “It has been asked before, in discussion about a permanent presence in Benghazi give me sort of a quick flavor of what was those discussions like. Would they say, ‘You do this?’ How was that going out?”

Said Hicks: “Chris told me that in his exit interview with the secretary after he was sworn in, the secretary said, ‘We need to make Benghazi a permanent post,’ and Chris said, ‘I'll make it happen.’”

Second, Clinton specifically waived the required security procedures on the grounds that since she had not officially notified the Libyan government of the consulate - in spite of having that fledgling government provide "security forces" - it did not fall under SECCA. Remember, SECCA specifically requires that ONLY the SecState can waive SECCA's security requirements AND that this responsibility cannot be delegated.

What SECCA says: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/4865

22 U.S. Code § 4865 - Security requirements for United States diplomatic facilities
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

• US Code
• Notes

prev | next
(a)In generalThe following security requirements shall apply with respect to United States diplomatic facilities and specified personnel:
(1)Threat assessment
(A)Emergency Action Plan
The Emergency Action Plan (EAP) of each United States mission shall address the threat of large explosive attacks from vehicles and the safety of employees during such an explosive attack. Such plan shall be reviewed and updated annually.

(B)Security Environment Threat List
The Security Environment Threat List shall contain a section that addresses potential acts of international terrorism against United States diplomatic facilities based on threat identification criteria that emphasize the threat of transnational terrorism and include the local security environment, host government support, and other relevant factors such as cultural realities. Such plan shall be reviewed and updated every six months.

(2)Site selection
(A)In general
In selecting a site for any new United States diplomatic facility abroad, the Secretary shall ensure that all United States Government personnel at the post (except those under the command of an area military commander) will be located on the site.

(B)Waiver authority
(i)In general
Subject to clause (ii), the Secretary of State may waive subparagraph (A) if the Secretary, together with the head of each agency employing personnel that would not be located at the site, determine that security considerations permit and it is in the national interest of the United States.

(ii)Chancery or consulate building
(I)Authority not delegable
The Secretary may not delegate the waiver authority under clause (i) with respect to a chancery or consulate building.

(II)Congressional notification
Not less than 15 days prior to implementing the waiver authority under clause (i) with respect to a chancery or consulate building, the Secretary shall notify the appropriate congressional committees in writing of the waiver and the reasons for the determination.

(iii)Report to Congress
The Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees an annual report of all waivers under this subparagraph.

(3)Perimeter distance
(A)Requirement
Each newly acquired United States diplomatic facility shall be sited not less than 100 feet from the perimeter of the property on which the facility is to be situated.

(B)Waiver authority
(i)In general
Subject to clause (ii), the Secretary of State may waive subparagraph (A) if the Secretary determines that security considerations permit and it is in the national interest of the United States.

(ii)Chancery or consulate building
(I)Authority not delegable
The Secretary may not delegate the waiver authority under clause (i) with respect to a chancery or consulate building.

(II)Congressional notification
Not less than 15 days prior to implementing the waiver authority under subparagraph (A) with respect to a chancery or consulate building, the Secretary shall notify the appropriate congressional committees in writing of the waiver and the reasons for the determination.

(iii)Report to Congress
The Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees an annual report of all waivers under this subparagraph.

(4)Crisis management training
(A)Training of headquarters staff
The appropriate personnel of the Department of State headquarters staff shall undertake crisis management training for mass casualty and mass destruction incidents relating to diplomatic facilities for the purpose of bringing about a rapid response to such incidents from Department of State headquarters in Washington, D.C.

(B)Training of personnel abroad
A program of appropriate instruction in crisis management shall be provided to personnel at United States diplomatic facilities abroad at least on an annual basis.

(5)Diplomatic security trainingNot later than six months after November 29, 1999, the Secretary of State shall—
(A)
develop annual physical fitness standards for all diplomatic security agents to ensure that the agents are prepared to carry out all of their official responsibilities; and
(B)
provide for an independent evaluation by an outside entity of the overall adequacy of current new agent, in-service, and management training programs to prepare agents to carry out the full scope of diplomatic security responsibilities, including preventing attacks on United States personnel and facilities.
(6)State Department support
(A)Foreign Emergency Support TeamThe Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) of the Department of State shall receive sufficient support from the Department, including—
(i)
conducting routine training exercises of the FEST;
(ii)
providing personnel identified to serve on the FEST as a collateral duty;
(iii)
providing personnel to assist in activities such as security, medical relief, public affairs, engineering, and building safety; and
(iv)
providing such additional support as may be necessary to enable the FEST to provide support in a post-crisis environment involving mass casualties and physical damage.
(B)FEST aircraft
(i)Replacement aircraft
The President shall develop a plan to replace on a priority basis the current FEST aircraft funded by the Department of Defense with a dedicated, capable, and reliable replacement aircraft and backup aircraft to be operated and maintained by the Department of Defense.

(ii)Report
Not later than 60 days after November 29, 1999, the President shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees describing the aircraft selected pursuant to clause (i) and the arrangements for the funding, operation, and maintenance of such aircraft.

(iii)Authority to lease aircraft to respond to a terrorist attack abroad
Subject to the availability of appropriations, when the Attorney General of the Department of Justice exercises the Attorney General’s authority to lease commercial aircraft to transport equipment and personnel in response to a terrorist attack abroad if there have been reasonable efforts to obtain appropriate Department of Defense aircraft and such aircraft are unavailable, the Attorney General shall have the authority to obtain indemnification insurance or guarantees if necessary and appropriate.

(7)Rapid response procedures
The Secretary of State shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Defense setting out rapid response procedures for mobilization of personnel and equipment of their respective departments to provide more effective assistance in times of emergency with respect to United States diplomatic facilities.

(8)Storage of emergency equipment and records
All United States diplomatic facilities shall have emergency equipment and records required in case of an emergency situation stored at an off-site facility.

(b)Statutory construction
Nothing in this section alters or amends existing security requirements not addressed by this section.

Instead, Secretary Clinton chose to neither comply with SECCA's security nor reporting requirements. In a deadly version of "we have to pass the law so we can see what's in it", her explanation was that it was a temporary facility, and would remain so until she officially notified the Libyan government that it was a permanent facility.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...clinton-admits-she-broke-u-s-law-in-benghazi/

Brooks: But I have to ask you, if you’re familiar with the facts that in the wake of the 1998 bombing attacks in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam, Congress passed something referred to as the SECCA, the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act, which requires the Secretary of State to issue a waiver under two conditions: if the U.S. government personnel work in separate facilities, or if U.S. oversees facilities do not meet the security setback distances specified by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The law specifies that only the Secretary of State may sign these waivers, and that requirement is not to be delegated. Was a waiver issued for the temporary mission in Benghazi and the CIA annex, after the temporary mission compound was authorized through december of 2012? And did you sign that waiver, Madam Secretary?

Clinton: I think that the, the CIA annex I had no responsibility for. So I cannot speak to what the decisions were with respect to the CIA annex. That is something i know other committees have–

Brooks: But you acknowledge you were responsible for the temporary mission compound.

Clinton: Yes, of course. But you put them together. I just wanted to clarify that I had no responsibility for the CIA annex, obviously. The compound in Benghazi was neither an embassy nor a consulate. Those are the only two facilities for which we would obtain a formal diplomatic notification. And those were the only kinds of facilities that we would have sought waivers for at the time, because we were trying to–as has been testified to earlier–understand whether we were going to have a permanent mission or not. That means you have to survey available facilities, try to find a secure facility. and the standards that are set by the interagency Overseas Security Policy Board are the goals we try to drive for. But it is, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to do that in the immediate aftermath of a conflict situation. The temporary mission in Benghazi was set up to try to find out what was going on in the area, to work with the CIA where appropriate, and to make a decision as to whether there would be a permanent facility. So we could not have met the goals under the Overseas Security Policy Board. Nor could we have issued a waiver because we had to set up operations in order to make the assessments as to whether or not we would have a permanent mission, whether that mission would remain open. We made extensive and comprehensive improvements to the physical security, which I mentioned before.


Brooks: Madam Secretary, thank you. So it is obvious that a waiver was not signed, and you’ve given a defense as to why a waiver was not signed, and it was temporary because it was made up. It was something different. The compound had never become official. And so, therefore, you did not sign a waiver. Which, when most of our people are stationed in such dangerous places–let me get into that, with respect to the dangerous places–we know that Libya , you’ve testified before, was incapable of providing host nation support. And that involves protecting our diplomats and other U.S. government officials who travel there. So if the Libyan people didn’t have a government capable of providing security, and we didn’t have U.S. military in Libya, then we have two options: we either leave when it gets too dangerous, or the State Department makes sure that they provide that protection.

Should be axiomatic that Ambassadors do not "survey available facilities" or "try to find a secure facility". Those tasks are done by security professionals.
In addition, Secretary Clinton was specifically warned by her own aides that the security situation was rapidly deteriorating and that the Ambassador had repeatedly requested additional security. Even supposing that she was having nap time when every one of our allies pulled out of the city, she had to willfully ignore this information, whether or not she cared to set the security or review it initially. I can accept her claim that she did not; setting security levels at diplomatic missions, even those with an Ambassador, does not seem to me like something a SecState would do. http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary...to-be-released-by-state-department-1432309888

The newly released emails show at least some of the details about the worsening security environment in Benghazi that were presented directly to her.

One cautionary email sent to her long before the Sept. 11, 2012, terror attack came from longtime aide Huma Abedin. The April 24, 2011, note cited reports that hotels in Benghazi were being targeted for attack.

The note said U.S. diplomat Christopher Stevens—who would later become ambassador and die the following year in the Benghazi attack—would be meeting with Libya’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to make “a written request for better security at the hotel and for better security-related coordination.”

About two months later, in a June 10, 2011, email from Mr. Sullivan, Mrs. Clinton was told of a “credible threat…against the hotel that our team is using.” The note said security officials would be moving personnel out to alternative locations

Mrs. Clinton has taken broad responsibility for the deadly assault on the diplomatic compound where Mr. Stevens and other Americans were killed, an episode that threatens to complicate her 2016 presidential bid. At the same time, she has said that officials lower in the State Department chain of command were the ones who made decisions about protecting diplomatic posts overseas.

In her memoir published last year, “Hard Choices,” she said that as secretary of state she wouldn’t necessarily learn about requests for beefed-up security in dangerous places where the State Department operates. “It’s just plain impossible for any secretary of any cabinet agency to take that on,” she wrote.

The emails to Mrs. Clinton were far from the only evidence of deteriorating security in Benghazi. In April, 2012, five months before the attack, a small improvised explosive device was thrown over the wall of the diplomatic compound, and two months later, a bomb “exploded near the main gate,’’ a Senate report said. Attacks were also carried out that year on a U.N. convoy, on Red Cross offices and a convoy carrying Britain’s ambassador.

Victoria Toensing, attorney for Greg Hicks, the deputy chief of the Libya mission, said on Friday that Mr. Stevens’ pleas for additional security staff went unheeded.

“The State Department repeatedly rejected the pleas of two U.S. ambassadors asking for more security in Libya,” Ms. Toensing said. “Instead, Department of State hierarchy reduced security in the summer of 2012, from 38 to nine personnel. Responsibility for the deaths of four Americans lies with the department.”

Notice that absolutely none of that involved any decisions by "military commanders on the ground" as you allege. On the contrary, most of the problem here was that we had NO military commanders on the ground, as noted by Congresscritter Susan Brooks. Instead, we had politicians and their civilian underlings. So instead of multiple go-to-hell scenarios with assets in place, we had political-based faith that things wouldn't go all the way to hell. Now perhaps that was just simple incompetence or a calculated risk for State or clandestine purposes. I don't know, and clearly both happen; nobody wins every time. But clearly these are decisions by Clinton that directly led to this. Again, we had NO military commanders on the ground, nor any of the contingency plans and assets mandated by law.

 

[agent00f]

So literally everything in werepossum's post previous to the one above was a lie. Quite an accomplishment in self-ownage.

 

[glenn1]

So essentially you don't want a president smarter than you. Must've loved bush & palin.

He's running for President of the United States and not MENSA. I find it rather odd that the same left that complains about standardized testing in schools wants POTUS candidates to spend their time memorizing lists of names. As if Putin is going to call on the red phone and say "I'm going to nuke Chicago unless you can name the prime minister of Tuvalu in less than 5 seconds."

Or to put it in a simpler way you understand, if not being "smart" enough to not remember names is the price I pay for someone with enough common sense and common decency to be against bullsh!t like NSA spying, killing U.S. citizens via drone strike without a trial, and continuing to wage proxy war (if not direct war) in Syria and elsewhere then sign me up to vote for the 'stupid' guy rather than the 'smart' woman. One who evidently is 'smart' enough to remember a list of names but not that it's illegal to have your own personal email server to avoid discovery of your official records via FOIA request.

 

[dullard]

He's running for President of the United States and not MENSA. I find it rather odd that the same left that complains about standardized testing in schools wants POTUS candidates to spend their time memorizing lists of names. As if Putin is going to call on the red phone and say "I'm going to nuke Chicago unless you can name the prime minister of Tuvalu in less than 5 seconds."

It wasn't "can you name the prime minister of Tuvalu". It was, can you name one single foreign leader. This isn't rote memorizing of names. It is a question asking if he knows a single thing, anything, about foreign politics. The answer seems to be "no".