Larry Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Never claimed more teams wouldn't have helped....I did claim(and clearly supported) that funding was not the reason for the team not being replaced/extended.(if we are to believe the man that ok's funding for them) I assume you're correct. It certainly looks to me like the guy could have tried to blame Congress, and chose not to. Any time I see somebody passing up a chance to blame somebody else, I assume he's being honest. Which then brings us to, if this person says it wasn't because of a lack of funding or manpower, then what does he say the reason WAS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I assume you're correct. It certainly looks to me like the guy could have tried to blame Congress, and chose not to. Any time I see somebody passing up a chance to blame somebody else, I assume he's being honest. Which then brings us to, if this person says it wasn't because of a lack of funding or manpower, then what does he say the reason WAS? different priorities http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/africa/cables-show-requests-to-state-dept-for-security-in-libya-were-focused-on-tripoli.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 In an agreement between the Pentagon and the State Department, the military team was extended twice — December 2011 and March 2012 — but when it came to a third extension, Eric A. Nordstrom, the former chief security officer in Libya, said he was told he could not request another extension beyond August. Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, said at the hearing that a request from Mr. Nordstrom to extend the military team was only a recommendation and that the State Department had been right not to heed it. Ms. Lamb also testified that budget considerations played no part in considering additional security. Decisions on diplomatic security went no higher than Ms. Lamb and, in limited cases, Mr. Kennedy, officials said. The broader strategy, Ms. Lamb said, was to phase out the American military team and rely more on the Libyan militiamen who were protecting the compound along with a small number of American security officers. Ms. Lamb said this model of relying on locally hired guards had worked at the United States Embassy in Yemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 you deflecting again the fact funding was not the reason security was lax?.......whoop there he goes again I'm deflecting? You dismiss congress putting severe cuts in the state departments security budget based upon testomony from the deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, and I'm deflecting... What about the under secretary? What about the secretary of state? what about the VP, what about ranking senators in the intelligence comitee? What about your own freaking articles which say the security detal in Behnghazi had already been extened prior to leaving... and that they didn't have enough of those security teams.... Think 100 million dollars cut from your security persenell budget could have addressed soom of those shortcomings.. Of coarse not..? Turns out in 2010 and 2011 the GOP congress cut 500 million dollars out of the State Departments 1 billion dollar security budget proposal. You claim their security was inadiquate but dismiss the congress cutting half the security budget!! What idd the former secretary of defense Robert Gates say about The GOP Critisms of the State Department http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0512/Robert-Gates-Obama-made-right-decisions-night-of-Benghazi-attack Robert Gates: Obama made right decisions night of Benghazi attackFormer Defense Secretary Robert Gates says those urging a military response the night of the Benghazi attack have 'a cartoonish impression of military capabilities.' Republicans in Congress want to grill former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as part of a special inquiry. Foreign Policy Magazine Congress began cutting the department’s security budget (which comes under two accounts, either Worldwide Security Protection or Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance). Relative to the department’s requests, Congress cut $129 million for fiscal year 2011 and $341 million for fiscal year 2012. House Republicans were the driving force behind the cuts and had proposed deeper cuts ($131 million for FY 2011 and $520 million for FY 2012) than those that eventually came out of the conference committees. (For fiscal year 2013, the House has proposed cutting the request by $316 million and the Senate by $70 million.) For a suggestion of the base-line funding behind these appropriations, recall that Robert Gates, when he was secretary of defense, repeatedly lamented the inadequate funding of the State Department. Remember as well that a 1985 recommendation by the Advisory Panel on Overseas Security to replace or renovate 126 high-risk posts within seven years has yet to be fully implemented. http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2012/10/30/security-in-benghazi/ What about the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 aren't budget REQUESTS usually cut? are you seriously gonna claim we could not afford to pay for security personnel?...despite the testimony,despite funding being increased? You really want to talk about where State spends it's funding? Issa: State Dept. sitting on $2 billion-plus for embassy security http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/10/issa-state-dept-sitting-on-billionplus-for-embassy-138402.html want to know what they spent on tripe? State and USAID – FY 2012 Budget "o $650.6 million to address the environmental, human security, economic, andpolitical threat of global climate change..."http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/156763.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Issa: State Dept. sitting on $2 billion-plus for embassy security http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/10/issa-state-dept-sitting-on-billionplus-for-embassy-138402.html I see were now not only claiming, but trying to support, the notion that a federal agency doesn't spend it's budget every year. AND trying to complain that that's somehow a BAD thing. ---------- different priorities OK, then. Let's assume that that question has now been answered. What's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 What's the problem? What"s the problem with not providing effective security....is that your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 What"s the problem with not providing effective security....is that your question? Funny you can't answer my question without trying to change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Commenting on Sec Gates quote from above. I do not know what decisions Pres Obama made or did not make the night of the incident. However I do not think that the Administrations errors took place that night. Evaluation of exactly what happened that night at both the consulate and the annex is tactical in nature in my opinion. There should be extensive after action review with sustains and improves that can be carried forward. That evaluation will largely be fairly narrow in my opinion and will largely focus on specific actions of specific people that worked and didn't. My problems with the Administration are with what happened prior to that night. I suspect that DSS does a threat assessment on every single diplomatic mission in the world. If they don't then they should. I would hope that our assessment of Beijing, Brasilia, and Benghazi are not all the same. Mitigations should therefore be different as well. There should be a plan for all the places and specifically missions in high threat areas that were recently in the midst of a civil war. We could "militarize" it(unless there was a reluctance to have "boots on the ground" for political reasons). We could shut it down. We could at a minimum have a PLAN IN PLACE to respond to something of that nature. Losing the Ambassador is not an "unfortunate situation" in my opinion. It is significant. It is REALLY significant. Chris Stevens was not just some guy out there...he was THE representative of our country. He was President Obama's personal representative in that country. Did Fox News and the like try to score "political points"? Yeah, they did. That is what they do. But the "left" certainly appears more interested in preventing Sean Hannity from "scoring a point" then understanding how the administration failed Chris Stevens and the mission they charged him to carry out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Funny you can't answer my question without trying to change it. Funny you think asking for clarification is a problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Clarification: We now have a theory, proposed by you, that what happened, prior to Bengazi, was that some SD bureaucrat decided to allocate a limited resource, somewhere else. You have asserted that this decision was made due to "other priorities". You have not mentioned what these priorities supposedly were, but you have staunchly announced that the fact that said limited resources were, in fact, limited, cannot possibly have been one of the factors. This insistence, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that said responses were limited by a political party which can never do anything wrong. OK, I'm willing to agree that this sounds like something that actually happened. So what? Some bureaucrat made a bureaucratic decision. And something bad, happened, somewhere. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 So what? Some bureaucrat made a bureaucratic decision. And something bad, happened, somewhere. What's your point? That Benghazi was preventable had the Administration taken reasonable steps in response to known and inferred threats. How about that? Fox News is so predictable...they are going to find something wrong with everything the Adminstration does. Sometimes they will even be right that the Administration did "something" wrong even if they miss on what that "something" is. The dedicated Fox opposition is also predictable. Neither have "truth" high on their list of desired outcomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 aren't budget REQUESTS usually cut? are you seriously gonna claim we could not afford to pay for security personnel?...despite the testimony,despite funding being increased? THEY CUT THE BUDGET FOR THE SECURITY PERSONELL IN HALF!! They didn't increase funding... and the only statements you presented to cooroborate your claims are from people who made the cuts and the deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security while ignoreing statements from The administrations spokesman The Secretary of State The Under Secretary of State The deputy Secreatary of State The Secretary of Defense Ranking members of the Foreign Services Comittee And what your own resources are saying about the limited number of resources available You really want to talk about where State spends it's funding? Issa: State Dept. sitting on $2 billion-plus for embassy security http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/10/issa-state-dept-sitting-on-billionplus-for-embassy-138402.html Yeah I would go with Issa because he's been proven to be sooo truthful in the recent past... He's the guy who tried to deny he cut the security budget in the first place! As usual Issa is giving you half truths. State does have more than 2 security budgets. But state isn't free to use them anyway they want... The funds Issa and you are discussing stem from a 1985 recommendation by an Advisory Panel on Overseas Security to replace or renovate 126 high-risk posts within seven years. Congress has yet to fully fund that initiative. They are doing it piece meal over now three decades. That building fund does have money in it as you say and does have to do with security.. But if state department tried to use that for extra security personell that official would go to jail. They can't even use it beyond the 126 sites designated.. Complaining about the State Deptments budget is a joke, Congress mandates what funds can be used for what, and Congress knocked the funds for security personell in half. Cut 500 million in 2011. want to know what they spent on tripe? State and USAID – FY 2012 Budget "o $650.6 million to address the environmental, human security, economic, and political threat of global climate change..." http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/156763.pdf So you are suggesting their budget is poorly designed? But you want to hold harmless the folks to wrote that budget and set the priorities in that budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Commenting on Sec Gates quote from above. I do not know what decisions Pres Obama made or did not make the night of the incident. However I do not think that the Administrations errors took place that night. Evaluation of exactly what happened that night at both the consulate and the annex is tactical in nature in my opinion. There should be extensive after action review with sustains and improves that can be carried forward. That evaluation will largely be fairly narrow in my opinion and will largely focus on specific actions of specific people that worked and didn't. The comments were directed at critics of the actions taken that evening who suggested (1) they should have deployed a special forces unit which was several hours away the night of the attack, going to the aid of the consulate blind hours after the assult. (2) The DoD should have put a fighter over Benghazi consulate to fly low over the compound and intimidate the attackers.... Gates said the folks making those suggestions had a commic book understanding of security. My problems with the Administration are with what happened prior to that night. I suspect that DSS does a threat assessment on every single diplomatic mission in the world. If they don't then they should. I would hope that our assessment of Beijing, Brasilia, and Benghazi are not all the same. Mitigations should therefore be different as well. There should be a plan for all the places and specifically missions in high threat areas that were recently in the midst of a civil war. We could "militarize" it(unless there was a reluctance to have "boots on the ground" for political reasons). We could shut it down. We could at a minimum have a PLAN IN PLACE to respond to something of that nature. Losing the Ambassador is not an "unfortunate situation" in my opinion. It is significant. It is REALLY significant. Chris Stevens was not just some guy out there...he was THE representative of our country. He was President Obama's personal representative in that country. They did have a mitigation plan. There was no government forces in Benghazi so we had a militia which we had supplied arms too during the uprising supporting the Consulate. When the attacks began though the militia proved to be unreliable.. We had private security contractors at the embassy... they prooved to be inadiquate without the militia support. We had special forces fire teams there prior to the attack, but they were in short supply and their deployment had been extended once already.. and they could not be extended again. Did Fox News and the like try to score "political points"? Yeah, they did. That is what they do. But the "left" certainly appears more interested in preventing Sean Hannity from "scoring a point" then understanding how the administration failed Chris Stevens and the mission they charged him to carry out. Fox News didn't score any points.. because nobody believes them. The folks who read the Washington Post, Washington Times, NY Times, LA Times; hell even Foreign Affairs Magazine are more important. At least those readers are trying to understand what happenned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 That Benghazi was preventable had the Administration taken reasonable steps in response to known and inferred threats. How about that? Of course it was. 9/11 was preventable, too. So was Pearl Harbor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 That Benghazi was preventable had the Administration taken reasonable steps in response to known and inferred threats. How about that? Of course it was. 9/11 was preventable, too. So was Pearl Harbor. I'm not sure what reasonable steps could have been taken in either of those situations. Perhaps we could discuss them in a thread about 9/11 or Pearl Harbor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I'm not sure what reasonable steps could have been taken in either of those situations. Perhaps we could discuss them in a thread about 9/11 or Pearl Harbor? Ah, got it. When the topic is that something bad could have been prevented (if only we'd known about it in advance), then the fact that every time something bad happens, it could have been prevented, if only, is not relevant, and may not be pointed out. ---------- Am I permitted to point out that it's only taken us, what, 17 Congressional "investigations", and probably 20 Tailgate threads, to come up with this stunning news that Captain Obvious could have told us about, from the very beginning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Ah, got it. When the topic is that something bad could have been prevented (if only we'd known about it in advance), then the fact that every time something bad happens, it could have been prevented, if only, is not relevant, and may not be pointed out. ---------- Am I permitted to point out that it's only taken us, what, 17 Congressional "investigations", and probably 20 Tailgate threads, to come up with this stunning news that Captain Obvious could have told us about, from the very beginning? You are permitted to do whatever you would like. I have listed some very specific actions that not only could have been taken, but SHOULD have been taken, to prevent the death of Ambassador Stevens. You have contributed that 9/11 and Pearl Harbor could have been prevented also. Valuable contributions for sure. The Holocaust and the AIDS Epidemic could have been prevented as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 The key point to all of this back and forth is this: The GOP/conservative yelling about Benghazi began on the very next day after the attack, and consisted of "COVERUP SCANDAL OBAMA TOLD THEM TO STAND DOWN OBAMA WOULDN'T GET HIS LAZY AZZ OUT OF BED HE WANTED THEM TO DIE." Now that all of that bull has been blown out of the water, they have smoothly segued into "we're just asking questions... why don't you even care that an ambassador died?" And people like ABQ Cowboy don't even notice the change. I care that an ambassador died. I want to see it prevented in the future. I also care that one party and its fervent conservative bloggers and talking heads tried to use this tragic incident in a disgusting, shameless and dishonest "scandal" attack, and they won't own up to what they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 You have contributed that 9/11 and Pearl Harbor could have been prevented also. Valuable contributions for sure. The Holocaust and the AIDS Epidemic could have been prevented as well. Now you're catching on. Glad you agree with my point. ---------- I also care that one party and its fervent conservative bloggers and talking heads tried to use this tragic incident in a disgusting, shameless and dishonest "scandal" attack, and they won't own up to what they did. Disagree with your use of the past tense, there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 The comments were directed at critics of the actions taken that evening who suggested (1) they should have deployed a special forces unit which was several hours away the night of the attack, going to the aid of the consulate blind hours after the assult. (2) The DoD should have put a fighter over Benghazi consulate to fly low over the compound and intimidate the attackers.... Gates said the folks making those suggestions had a commic book understanding of security. I agree that advocating the execution of a plan that did not exist on the night of the attack indicates a comic book understanding of how this stuff works in reality. I wonder what Secretary Gates would say to someone who likens the capability of the modern US military to that which existed in 1969? Probably something similar. They did have a mitigation plan. There was no government forces in Benghazi so we had a militia which we had supplied arms too during the uprising supporting the Consulate. When the attacks began though the militia proved to be unreliable.. We had private security contractors at the embassy... they prooved to be inadiquate without the militia support. We had special forces fire teams there prior to the attack, but they were in short supply and their deployment had been extended once already.. and they could not be extended again. So the units that were there before but not anymore are part of this plan that you are talking about? I am not sure if you are confused or misspeaking when you refer to the security contractors at the "embassy". Are you referring to the Embassy which is in Tripoli? The State compound in Benghazi(a.k.a Consulate)? Or the CIA compund in Benghazi(a.k.a. Annex)? Based on your description of "the plan" the entirety of "the plan" was to rely on a local militia? And if that didn't work then well....nothing else? You talk about this "relief column"(a term I have never heard used by anyone else)...what was the plan to reinforce the various facilities? Or did nobody even consider that the militia well they may not be all that reliable? Fox News didn't score any points.. because nobody believes them. The folks who read the Washington Post, Washington Times, NY Times, LA Times; hell even Foreign Affairs Magazine are more important. At least those readers are trying to understand what happenned.I didn't say Fox News scored any points. I said they try to. And there are others that work just as hard to prevent that. And in the end not many people really care about what happened....because 9/11 happened also. Now you're catching on. Glad you agree with my point. ---------- Disagree with your use of the past tense, there. Yes, and what a worthless point it is. The key point to all of this back and forth is this: The GOP/conservative yelling about Benghazi began on the very next day after the attack, and consisted of "COVERUP SCANDAL OBAMA TOLD THEM TO STAND DOWN OBAMA WOULDN'T GET HIS LAZY AZZ OUT OF BED HE WANTED THEM TO DIE." Now that all of that bull has been blown out of the water, they have smoothly segued into "we're just asking questions... why don't you even care that an ambassador died?" And people like ABQ Cowboy don't even notice the change. I care that an ambassador died. I want to see it prevented in the future. I also care that one party and its fervent conservative bloggers and talking heads tried to use this tragic incident in a disgusting, shameless and dishonest "scandal" attack, and they won't own up to what they did. And the "good guys" immediately turned to protecting their candidate for President. Except they haven't "pivoted". It is equally disgusting, shameless, and dishonest. What was that you said was the salient learning point of "Benghazi"? That the right would try to score political points. Yes, that is all we should take away from it. And if we can prevent one thing in the future...make sure the right doesn't ever score political points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 It is at this point extremely pointless to debate this on a granular level. The only reason politicians and media continue to focus on this story is in order to frame it as it relates to the 2016 presidential election. It has ceased to be about reality and policy, it is now 100% about perception and optics. Everyone in this thread already knows how they are voting in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 And the "good guys" immediately turned to protecting their candidate for President. Except they haven't "pivoted". It is equally disgusting, shameless, and dishonest. What was that you said was the salient learning point of "Benghazi"? That the right would try to score political points. Yes, that is all we should take away from it. And if we can prevent one thing in the future...make sure the right doesn't ever score political points No, the salient learning point was not that the "right would try to score political points." The salient learning point was that they DID try to score political points - by completely making up a pile of crap. I've got news for you - pointing out that someone is screaming a total lie at the top of their lungs is not "equally disgusting, shameless and dishonest" as the act of screaming out the lie in the first place. Are you really trying to argue that there is something wrong with pointing out that a political "scandal" has been completely made up is a bad thing, and is just as bad a thing as making up a scandal? Really? That's taking the "both sides do it" nonsense to a whole new level of sophistry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 No, the salient learning point was not that the "right would try to score political points." The salient learning point was that they DID try to score political points - by completely making up a pile of crap. I've got news for you - pointing out that someone is screaming a total lie at the top of their lungs is not "equally disgusting, shameless and dishonest" as the act of screaming out the lie in the first place. Are you really trying to argue that there is something wrong with pointing out that a political "scandal" has been completely made up is a bad thing, and is just as bad a thing as making up a scandal? Really? That's taking the "both sides do it" nonsense to a whole new level of sophistry. Nope, never pointed out or stated that "both sides do it". Pointed out that neither side appears to care about the truth. And that much they do "both do". Your concern is that everyone knows that Sean Hannity is full of crap. He is. He always will be. It is what he does. Now...can we talk about what the Administration DID do wrong and SHOULD have done better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Actually, I wouldn't mind at all, a reasonable discussion as to what, if any, changes should be made. Although I'll also confess that I'm absolutely unqualified to discuss things in anything but vague generalities. But if some reasonable people were to have some reasonable discussion, maybe I could read along, and maybe learn something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 And there it is.... Congress who cut the State Dept's security budgets bares no responsibility... the responsibility lies with Obama who accepted there budget rather than let teh entire governemnt shutdown. Congress can do no wrong... even when they do wrong they are excused.... your link says the security detail in question had already been extened once and there was a shortage of those teams.... Again, Seems cutting the number of overall teams was part of the problem. it it your contention there was neither funding nor competent security personnel available to the State dept if they saw a need? competent added for the unsure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.