Republicans, Benghazi, blah blah blah

[JSt0rm]

Bucky likes it both ways, he tries to act like a bad ass in one thread then a pacifist in another.

There has to be a way to frame a thread that he would argue he is gay. hmmmm

 

[ivwshane]

In this day and age of internet, I have no idea why people choose to be ignorant.

About those security requests.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...er-security-what-this-statistic-really-means/

 

[buckshot24]

Bucky likes it both ways, he tries to act like a bad ass in one thread then a pacifist in another.

Not a pacifist by any stretch, I just don't get joy when any person is killed.

 

[buckshot24]

According to Democratic House Oversight Committee staff, the amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).
A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

That really has nothing to do with what the ambassador wanted, now does it?

 

[JSt0rm]

That really has nothing to do with what the ambassador wanted, now does it?

Nope. The ambassador was simply asking for things that dont cost anything.

 

[werepossum]

According to Democratic House Oversight Committee staff, the amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).
A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

too bad the gop cut funding. hahahahaahah HAHAHAHAAHAHAHH hail satan

And of course, the logical place to cut funds is in security in the most dangerous city in the world for Americans. Because Republicans.

It's worth pointing out that we WERE spending money on security. We were hiring the Libyan fanatics we had put into power - all of whom mysteriously disappeared right before the attack and did not reappear until the thirteen hour attack had run its course.

Nope. The ambassador was simply asking for things that dont cost anything.

Strangely, every one of our allies chose to pull out their people in the weeks running up to this massacre. I suppose because they don't have Republicans to blame.

 

[JSt0rm]

And of course, the logical place to cut funds is in security in the most dangerous city in the world for Americans. Because Republicans.

It's worth pointing out that we WERE spending money on security. We were hiring the Libyan fanatics we had put into power - all of whom mysteriously disappeared right before the attack and did not reappear until the thirteen hour attack had run its course.


Strangely, every one of our allies chose to pull out their people in the weeks running up to this massacre. I suppose because they don't have Republicans to blame.

Well we could walk this all the way back to bush jr destabilizing the region and still blame you for voting for him. This black cloud will go with you to your graves.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Well we could walk this all the way back to bush jr destabilizing the region and still blame you for voting for him. This black cloud will go with you to your graves.

We actually should walk it all the way back to WW1. Iraq under Saddam Hussein and other such despots in the Middle East was not unlike the former Yugoslavia under Tito. My guess was that sectarian violence in the Middle East was inevitable, although perhaps preventable.

Bush was simply the moron that had America set the chain reaction in motion.

 

[JSt0rm]

Bush was simply the moron that had America set the chain reaction in motion.

And thats why he and all who voted for him are to blame. It was "fixed" before he turned it into his own personal lego set.

 

[werepossum]

Well we could walk this all the way back to bush jr destabilizing the region and still blame you for voting for him. This black cloud will go with you to your graves.

Destabilizing the region? Jesus wept.

Invest in a map and learn to locate Libya, sir.

 

[JSt0rm]

Destabilizing the region? Jesus wept.

Invest in a map and learn to locate Libya, sir.

butterfly effect.

 

[werepossum]

butterfly effect.

Ain't no butterflies in the desert, brother.

 

[emperus]

And of course, the logical place to cut funds is in security in the most dangerous city in the world for Americans. Because Republicans.

It's worth pointing out that we WERE spending money on security. We were hiring the Libyan fanatics we had put into power - all of whom mysteriously disappeared right before the attack and did not reappear until the thirteen hour attack had run its course.


Strangely, every one of our allies chose to pull out their people in the weeks running up to this massacre. I suppose because they don't have Republicans to blame.

Who or what are you mad at? Do you think these people were purposefully left there to die? People's anger so this issue always seems so dis-proportionate to everything that has happened since and on Sept 11.

 

[werepossum]

Who or what are you mad at? Do you think these people were purposefully left there to die? People's anger so this issue always seems so dis-proportionate to everything that has happened since and on Sept 11.

Why must I be mad at anyone in particular?

My view is this: Somebody fucked up big time. Probably several somebodies; failures this big are seldom single point failures.

Fuck-up #1: Grossly inadequate security. Over two hundred requests for additional security were made on the record; all were denied, even though State's own specialists told them that people were going to die there.

Fuck-up #2: We totally ignored all our available intelligence AND all the intelligence shared by our allies, ALL of whom recognized the increasing danger and pulled out their own people.

Fuck-up #3: There was zero go to hell plan in place, no designated quick reaction force, no reserve force, no attached transportation assets or plan for the two ad hoc forces that could be assembled. Consequently, our forces were told to stand down, for sending them in would have put their movements totally at the pleasure of the people we knew were attacking. Casualties might well have been severe, coupled with unacceptably high civilian casualties. Think Mogadishu in Blackhawk Down.

There are two possible branches I see here. First is an honest fuck-up; State wanted so badly to show that the Obama-Clinton strategery was working that it accepted a patently unacceptable situation and made it worse through intentional lack of planning. Note that there is a near-by CIA base which at various times had significant numbers of shooters. Given the CIA's habitual secrecy and State's habitual arrogance, I think it's possible that the people making this decision assumed that if and when the shit hit the fan, they could count on the CIA base to be the cavalry. Of course, when that happened the CIA base was judged barely strong enough (if that) to defend itself and thus sent no help, but if those at State had some knowledge of the CIA base, it might have seemed reasonable. If this branch is truth, then the bad decisions MIGHT have come from Clinton and Obama, but could also be a routine matter judged at a lower level. At whom then should I be mad? Obviously somebody fucked up - probably several somebodies - but not necessarily anyone whose name I'd recognize.

The second branch is an intentional fuck-up, meaning not that State wanted these people dead but that they were doing something clandestine and probably illegal, with or without Stevens' knowledge, which required Stevens' proximity. Something that Clinton and Obama judged important enough to risk an American ambassador's life with practically no security in the most dangerous city in the world, and also so clandestine and/or illegal that even now they cannot admit its existence. Jaskalas has posted some compelling links with evidence of weapons running, which may or may not be involved. Again, at whom then should I be mad if this is true? Such a scenario absolutely requires that Clinton and Obama made the decisions that got these brave men murdered. Were those decisions wrong? Absolutely - in hind sight. Yet Presidents regularly have to make such calls, risk assets, and sometimes the risks don't pay off. He who risks nothing, gains nothing. Was it wrong to take that risk? How can I have an informed opinion on that without knowing the things I cannot know?

You ask me at whom I am mad. I am angry that they smeared Stevens' name by claiming that he was offered security off the record and turned it down - after requesting security ON the record over 200 times. I am angry that Obama and Clinton conspired to lie to the American public for their own political gain. I am angry that Team Romney did the same, by blaming this squarely on Obama without any way to know if that is the truth. But this is all after the fact; those men are already dead either way, and basically, my anger is at the system that makes such behavior not only profitable but pretty much necessary, on both sides. And mostly I am angry at the Islamic assholes who murdered these brave men after we helped them overthrow a dictator.

EDIT: Note that none of that justifies people making stupid statements to attack one side or the other.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Why must I be mad at anyone in particular?

My view is this: Somebody fucked up big time. Probably several somebodies; failures this big are seldom single point failures.

Fuck-up #1: Grossly inadequate security. Over two hundred requests for additional security were made on the record; all were denied, even though State's own specialists told them that people were going to die there.

Fuck-up #2: We totally ignored all our available intelligence AND all the intelligence shared by our allies, ALL of whom recognized the increasing danger and pulled out their own people.

Fuck-up #3: There was zero go to hell plan in place, no designated quick reaction force, no reserve force, no attached transportation assets or plan for the two ad hoc forces that could be assembled. Consequently, our forces were told to stand down, for sending them in would have put their movements totally at the pleasure of the people we knew were attacking. Casualties might well have been severe, coupled with unacceptably high civilian casualties. Think Mogadishu in Blackhawk Down.

There are two possible branches I see here. First is an honest fuck-up; State wanted so badly to show that the Obama-Clinton strategery was working that it accepted a patently unacceptable situation and made it worse through intentional lack of planning. Note that there is a near-by CIA base which at various times had significant numbers of shooters. Given the CIA's habitual secrecy and State's habitual arrogance, I think it's possible that the people making this decision assumed that if and when the shit hit the fan, they could count on the CIA base to be the cavalry. Of course, when that happened the CIA base was judged barely strong enough (if that) to defend itself and thus sent no help, but if those at State had some knowledge of the CIA base, it might have seemed reasonable. If this branch is truth, then the bad decisions MIGHT have come from Clinton and Obama, but could also be a routine matter judged at a lower level. At whom then should I be mad? Obviously somebody fucked up - probably several somebodies - but not necessarily anyone whose name I'd recognize.

The second branch is an intentional fuck-up, meaning not that State wanted these people dead but that they were doing something clandestine and probably illegal, with or without Stevens' knowledge, which required Stevens' proximity. Something that Clinton and Obama judged important enough to risk an American ambassador's life with practically no security in the most dangerous city in the world, and also so clandestine and/or illegal that even now they cannot admit its existence. Jaskalas has posted some compelling links with evidence of weapons running, which may or may not be involved. Again, at whom then should I be mad if this is true? Such a scenario absolutely requires that Clinton and Obama made the decisions that got these brave men murdered. Were those decisions wrong? Absolutely - in hind sight. Yet Presidents regularly have to make such calls, risk assets, and sometimes the risks don't pay off. He who risks nothing, gains nothing. Was it wrong to take that risk? How can I have an informed opinion on that without knowing the things I cannot know?

You ask me at whom I am mad. I am angry that they smeared Stevens' name by claiming that he was offered security off the record and turned it down - after requesting security ON the record over 200 times. I am angry that Obama and Clinton conspired to lie to the American public for their own political gain. I am angry that Team Romney did the same, by blaming this squarely on Obama without any way to know if that is the truth. But this is all after the fact; those men are already dead either way, and basically, my anger is at the system that makes such behavior not only profitable but pretty much necessary, on both sides. And mostly I am angry at the Islamic assholes who murdered these brave men after we helped them overthrow a dictator.

EDIT: Note that none of that justifies people making stupid statements to attack one side or the other.

I'd like to add those who voted against funding that the state department asked for to harden embassies. I'm not sure if it was voted down or filibustered but I am willing to bet there is a Politician who is outraged security was so lax but voted against additional funds for additional security.
That pisses me off.

 

[JSt0rm]

I'd like to add those who voted against funding that the state department asked for to harden embassies. I'm not sure if it was voted down or filibustered but I am willing to bet there is a Politician who is outraged security was so lax but voted against additional funds for additional security.
That pisses me off.

but benghazi!

 

[JSt0rm]

goons died. gop lied.

 

[werepossum]

I'd like to add those who voted against funding that the state department asked for to harden embassies. I'm not sure if it was voted down or filibustered but I am willing to bet there is a Politician who is outraged security was so lax but voted against additional funds for additional security.
That pisses me off.

True, but this wasn't an embassy and would never have been hardened. COULD never have been hardened - it's "safe room" was an exterior room with a metal screen. But I take your point; when we send people into dangerous situations for our common good, we have a responsibility to do everything possible to protect them.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I'd like to add those who voted against funding that the state department asked for to harden embassies. I'm not sure if it was voted down or filibustered but I am willing to bet there is a Politician who is outraged security was so lax but voted against additional funds for additional security.
That pisses me off.

This, absolutely this.

 

[JSt0rm]

True, but this wasn't an embassy and would never have been hardened. COULD never have been hardened - it's "safe room" was an exterior room with a metal screen. But I take your point; when we send people into dangerous situations for our common good, we have a responsibility to do everything possible to protect them.

unless obama the half black man is in office. Then its our duty to block everything.

 

[rudder]

I'd like to add those who voted against funding that the state department asked for to harden embassies. I'm not sure if it was voted down or filibustered but I am willing to bet there is a Politician who is outraged security was so lax but voted against additional funds for additional security.
That pisses me off.

Increasing security... Such as installing several machine gun nests was denied because it would not be aesthetically pleasing and the Clinton state department was worried about the message those machine guns would send.

All I can say is Clinton is damn lucky for the security force the state department had in Benghazi otherwise there would have been about 30 casualties.

 

[feralkid]

Ain't no butterflies in the desert, brother.

I don't think you know what a desert is.