Mitt Romney exploits the death of a Navy seal.

[Schmide]

Yes, I see what you're saying: "If the state department requests funding and they dumb it down, you bet they will have to deny requests for security."

And what I'm saying is that regardless of what the numbers are, if you're sending people into a hot zone, you can send them properly protected at a $1.934B budget. There are no 'deny requests for security' when going into a ME shithole. Don't do something in some other place that's stable so you can do what you need to do in some place that is not stable.

Chuck

That's not the budget we're talking about. FFS. They actually restored some funding to 2012 but 2011 was pretty unfunded. If you think funding moves at the speed of light you're solely mistaken. There is a lag between funding and action.

There are always deny requests when budgets are not fully funded. Just ask Donald Rumsfeld.

It's real real easy to say what you're saying. Kind of selfish too.

 

[chucky2]

Then what budget are you talking about when bringing up those numbers? Why even bring them up?

Kind of selfish? I'm not the people who sent good people out into the wild to accomplish something drastically underprotected. I would never have done that. What I would have done is made sure when they went in, they had requisite protection. If that means I need to pull people from one secure low intensity place and send them with the State folks, then, so be it. If that means I don't have the funding moved around quite yet by the bean counters, so be it. When it comes down to my peoples lives vs. bean counters, it's not even a consideration.

Yeah, I'm super selfish...

Chuck

 

[Schmide]

Then what budget are you talking about when bringing up those numbers? Why even bring them up?

Read the previous posts and article. I'm not here to hold your hand. Fcking Doc brought them up and made a big case that was woefully misleading. You're the one sticking all this drama of choice into it.

Kind of selfish? I'm not the people who sent good people out into the wild to accomplish something drastically underprotected. I would never have done that. What I would have done is made sure when they went in, they had requisite protection. If that means I need to pull people from one secure low intensity place and send them with the State folks, then, so be it. If that means I don't have the funding moved around quite yet by the bean counters, so be it. When it comes down to my peoples lives vs. bean counters, it's not even a consideration.

Yeah, I'm super selfish...

Chuck

Do you truly think Benghazi is the only place in this shell game? You know not what constraints were placed on who and where, yet you are fully qualified to blame them. Get off your high horse.

I'm here to talk about the budgets anyways.

Yeah they probably could of sent more people, they could of funded it too. You'd never admit that though, you're just here to make political points.

 

[chucky2]

Read the previous posts and article. I'm not here to hold your hand. Fcking Doc brought them up and made a big case that was woefully misleading. You're the one sticking all this drama of choice into it.

I will go back and re-read, but there is no 'choice drama'. There is no 'choice'. You're sending State people in? You send them in with proper protection. Done. The End.

Do you truly think Benghazi is the only place in this shell game? You know not what constraints were placed on who and where, yet you are fully qualified to blame them. Get off your high horse.

I'm here to talk about the budgets anyways.

Yeah they probably could of sent more people, they could of funded it too. You'd never admit that though, you're just here to make political points.

I could care less what other places there are in the shell game. Guaranteed that out of all the places we have and need State, Benghazi needs far more protection and resources for State than the UK, France, or Germany. Cancel the annual ball in France I'm sure we throw and instead send in a couple of platoons of Marines - armed to the teeth. F'ing Figure It Out. It doesn't take funding, the funding is there in Billions. It takes assessing Risks correctly, and mitigating those Risks.

That wasn't done here. Getting off tangent on some money BS is pointless. The only thing that needs to be done is find out why the decision was made to send in State (and I keep saying State, but, it really doesn't matter who, we should always support them) w/o adequate protection.

I don't even need to see people axed over it, bad decisions happen. What we should see is someone explaining why that decision was made, what was learned from it, and that it won't be done again.

If that scores 'political points' then I'm all for it, since that means scoring points for US folks...I'm all for that...

Chuck

 

[Jhhnn]

It is factual that enhanced security was requested at least 2 times and denied both times. Will it make any real difference to you if I show citations to prove that what I stated is indeed fact?

And it was Issa & cronies who cut funding for that security, so figure it out. The Admin can't deliver more security than Congress authorizes.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bingo.

Even if the "budget" claim was correct, which it isn't, it's an issue of resource allocation. Skimping in Libya with all the known threats (e.g., British Ambassador attacked etc.) demonstrates extremely poor judgement.

I suspect many of the requested security measures were denied for the sake of appearances: Small footprint so as not to offend Arab sensibilities.

Fern

Illustrate that "skimping" occurred in Libya.

 

[HomerJS]

From the article linked.


Yes, but less then the Obama administration is.

Who are we going to believe, you or the mother of the Seal?

 

[zinfamous]

guys, this whole line of argument about who is to blame for these murders is pretty sickening, really.

I mean, even though the Reps in Congress now appear to be primarily responsible for denying funding to our embassies, and we know full well what would happen if Ryan were allowed to enact his well-publicized budget plans (hint: even less money than what congress already denied for foreign security), this is all quite petty.

Yeah, I'm as curious as the next guy to see tonight how Ryan is going to worm his way out of owning up to his real policy, yet again, but this is the last place we need to see politics.

 

[zinfamous]

Obama's administration denied the security to the consulate that they were asking for. I think it is perfectly fine to degrade Obama in this case.

Nope.

 

[Fern]

Illustrate that "skimping" occurred in Libya.

Security was inadequate, of that there is no argument to be made.

Check out CNN's site, they have a "what we now" type article. You'll security measures requested and denied. IIRC some measures or personnel were actually cut back. I'd call that skimping.

Fern

 

[Fern]

guys, this whole line of argument about who is to blame for these murders is pretty sickening, really.
-snip-

I think it a legitimate issue for discussion. It touches on foreign policy and terrorism, two things squarely under the President's area of responsibility.

Bush catches h3ll for putting troops in harms way, but somehow the same thing is done with an ambassador and staff and it's not?

Bush catches h3ll for "mission complete" but Obama shouldn't for prematurely assuring us AQ was on it's heels etc?

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

I can just see the administration responding to a shortage here by creating one there and having something happen not here but there. The Republicans would crucify them.

Try to understand this isn't about truth but about winning at any cost. The scum think they own the office of President.

 

[zinfamous]

I think it a legitimate issue for discussion. It touches on foreign policy and terrorism, two things squarely under the President's area of responsibility.

Bush catches h3ll for putting troops in harms way, but somehow the same thing is done with an ambassador and staff and it's not?

Bush catches h3ll for "mission complete" but Obama shouldn't for prematurely assuring us AQ was on it's heels etc?

Fern

I fully agree.

So, when is Obama responsible for killing terrorists, and bringing bin Laden to justice? If he is not responsible for these acts, then is he equally responsible (or not) for what happened in Benghazi? it seems the levels of responsibility for those events would be comparable; but if not worthy of discussion, at least warrant those making such claims examine their own logical framework for how they form such arguments, no?

Why are Issa and Chutzka--those who are spear-heading this attack against the admin for embassy security--not yet getting pilloried for voting, twice, to deny funding for embassy security?

wait a tic...aren't republicans, then, actually responsible for this mess?

sure, let's discuss it, but let's consider the facts, at least...

Hypocrites and Liars. Let's not make them avatars of justice, or anything.

 

[Fern]

Nope.

Umm. Yeah:

Were proper security measures in place?

A source familiar with Stevens' thinking told CNN that in the months leading up to his death, the ambassador worried about what he called the security threats in Benghazi and a rise in Islamic extremism.

The timing of those concerns, first reported by CNN, coincided with a request by the State Department's top security official in Libya asking for extra security for the consulate in Benghazi.

The official received no response from superiors, according to documents obtained by CNN.

Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer in Libya until July, had conveyed concerns about the Libyan government's ability overall to protect American diplomatic facilities.

Moreover, he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and again in July requesting additional security agents for the Benghazi post, but did not receive any response, according to a summary of his interview with House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Democrats that was obtained by CNN.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/what-we-know-about-the-libya-attack/?hpt=hp_bn2

Probably should just keep following this because I get the sense there is some finger pointing going on between various people in the administration and State Dept.

The "facts" regarding this seem to change a little too often.

Fern

 

[buckshot24]

Nope.

Congress denied funding to buy that prison in Illinois and yet dear leader was able to purchase it. But now, mean old congress just wouldn't allow the level of forces that Obama wanted because they cut under 15% of the total budget for embassy security? Obama knows how to get around congress when he really wants to but in this case they were just too stingy and stubborn.

 

[buckshot24]

I'd like to know what intelligence agency told ambassador Rice that a video had anything to do with the attack.

 

[zinfamous]

Umm. Yeah:



http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/what-we-know-about-the-libya-attack/?hpt=hp_bn2

Probably should just keep following this because I get the sense there is some finger pointing going on between various people in the administration and State Dept.

The "facts" regarding this seem to change a little too often.

Fern

It does suck....and what are they supposed to do when these paragons of security spending in Congress twice voted to cut the budget to provide them security? How are we supposed to respond to such requests, when congress has already voted to not allow a proper response to these requests?

Who is to blame, Fern?

for fucks sake....how the holy FUCK do you guys not see how pitiful and petty this issue has become? None of this is about fixing a problem--it's about scoring points for one side.

 

[Jhhnn]

Security was inadequate, of that there is no argument to be made.

Check out CNN's site, they have a "what we now" type article. You'll security measures requested and denied. IIRC some measures or personnel were actually cut back. I'd call that skimping.

Fern

Heh. I'm sure that every security chief in every post wants more security, and can document their requests after something goes wrong. Standard CYA.

The attack in Libya was totally unanticipated, and was done in force-

The assault on the U.S. compound was "an unprecedented attack by dozens of heavily armed men," Kennedy said.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/politics/congress-libya-attack/index.html?hpt=wo_c2

More security personnel short of a small army probably wouldn't have made any difference, no matter how much detractors of the Admin want to paint the situation as otherwise.

 

[buckshot24]

Why are Issa and Chutzka--those who are spear-heading this attack against the admin for embassy security--not yet getting pilloried for voting, twice, to deny funding for embassy security?

Maybe he wouldn't be getting treated so "unfairly" if he didn't start lying about a video from day one?

 

[zinfamous]

Maybe he wouldn't be getting treated so "unfairly" if he didn't start lying about a video from day one?

he?

lying about a video?

huh?

 

[HomerJS]

he?

lying about a video?

huh?

I know, "he". Part of the right wing lie machine

 

[monovillage]

Who are we going to believe, you or the mother of the Seal?

You don't have to believe me, you just have to believe in facts. You're not allowed your own facts and in this particular case the facts have a Republican tilt. Security for ambassadors and for the Libyan mission rested solely on the administration and this administration failed badly.
It happens, they did a poor job of security and then tried to cover it up and stonewall investigations. I don't give a rats ass how angry you get about it, those are the facts.

 

[HomerJS]

You don't have to believe me, you just have to believe in facts. You're not allowed your own facts and in this particular case the facts have a Republican tilt. Security for ambassadors and for the Libyan mission rested solely on the administration and this administration failed badly.
It happens, they did a poor job of security and then tried to cover it up and stonewall investigations. I don't give a rats ass how angry you get about it, those are the facts.

Tell that to the mother. I'm just relaying the message.
BTW - Kinda tough to claim stonewall since the massacre happened just one month ago. How long did it take the Bush admin to convene the 9/11 commission before they were against it???

 

[Jhhnn]

You don't have to believe me, you just have to believe in facts. You're not allowed your own facts and in this particular case the facts have a Republican tilt. Security for ambassadors and for the Libyan mission rested solely on the administration and this administration failed badly.
It happens, they did a poor job of security and then tried to cover it up and stonewall investigations. I don't give a rats ass how angry you get about it, those are the facts.

Security did rest on the Admin, to best allocate resources granted by Congress...

Just because security failed doesn't mean that they weren't doing the best they could with the resources they had, or that more security short of a small army would have repulsed a well planned attack by dozens of fighters, either.

Stonewall investigations? You mean not playing into Issa's grandstanding, I take it...

What you represent to be facts aren't facts at all, but rather partisan spin attempting to exploit a tragedy.

 

[monovillage]

Tell that to the mother. I'm just relaying the message.
BTW - Kinda tough to claim stonewall since the massacre happened just one month ago. How long did it take the Bush admin to convene the 9/11 commission before they were against it???

Fuck Bush, this is now, the Obama administration is stonewalling and covering up their major foreign policy and security fuck-ups and you just kiss their asses.