logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Is Hillary throwing Obama under the bus?
Bikerdad
post Oct 26 2012, 09:18 PM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,829
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Report: Hillary Asked For More Security in Benghazi, Obama Said No

QUOTE
Last night, it was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al-Qaeda but President Obama denied the request.


Questions for debate:

1} Does this look like Hillary is prepping to "under-bus" Obama?

2} Do you consider this report to be credible? Why or why not?

3} Will this get coverage in the mainstream media outlets?

4} Is this likely to have any effect on the election?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 30)
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 28 2012, 02:37 PM
Post #21


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 28 2012, 08:30 AM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 28 2012, 06:05 AM) *
...
... this is the most press coverage I can remember about embassy attacks in general since the Iranians took over an embassy in 1980. There were 12 during the last administration, could anyone list five without the help of Google? I'll bet the majority of people couldn't have even listed one. Don't remember a single thread addressing an embassy attack specifically in the last decade I've been here.

Which of these incidents that you "[d]on't remember a single thread addressing" involved the death of a U.S. ambassador/consul?


The death of a US ambassador does indeed make the incident unusual.
The deaths of US citizens during an attack on our embassy does not. How many lives is one ambassador/consul equal to and at what point would such an attack merit even 1/10th the coverage? And if the distinction is that important, why is everyone talking about an attack on the embassy rather than an attack on the ambassador (to include the quote I was responding to).

On top of it all are strange assertions that make me wonder where in the world everyone has been...private contractors the problem? Welcome to reality the role of private contractors has expanded with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (and all other security for that matter) since 1994 and even before. They don't have the option not to use them there simply aren't any resources available. Per other security, anyone still in active duty can probably tell you those units are undermanned too (ones I'm familiar with in the USAF are operating at 60 percent capacity, that's 40 percent fewer people than technically needed to function). This isn't the fault of any one person or administration it took an economic crisis, extremely poor longterm planning, and many years to make this happen.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 28 2012, 04:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 28 2012, 05:14 PM
Post #22


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,311
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 28 2012, 04:04 AM) *
But in the end, President Obama will get another term. This whole thing then becomes moot, which is what it is anyway.


The President of the United States NOT coming to the aid of personnel overseas, and apparently making sure no one did, and then lying and covering it up, is a moot point???!!!!! Really????

QUOTE
I can come up with only one explanation: It's all they've got, and it's a little bit better than throwing in the towel. It's a hail Mary pass with nobody in the end zone.


No, it is deriliction of duty, borderline treasonous, and quite likely impeachable. You need to take off those extra double thick rose colored glasses, AM. Would you be making these same statements were, say, Bush, to have done the same thing? No, of course not. To borrow a line from Tombstone "Apparently, your hypocrisy knows no bounds" Exactly when did troops dying overseas become so blase? Oh ya, when YOUR guy was at the helm. Amazing how that works, isn't it.

QUOTE
Basically, there's very little benefit of the doubt left. This comes off as yet one more dirty trick, but hey, keep pushing it. Who knows, maybe the undecided will get sick of it and vote for President Obama just because the other side smells so bad.


It would be pretty much impossible for the stench to be worse than this.... but you keep inhaling the perfume and calling it glorious.

QUOTE
Somebody over there should really think this stuff through.


That would put it several steps above the current administration, as this scenario is seeming to point to the Democratic party being under the control of a sack of poo. Also, thinking it through is exactly what they don't want you to do, as the more one does that, the worse the situation looks for them. No, buy the rhetoric and don't go any deeper, THAT is what they want everyone to do. Their spin machine is in overdrive on this, they're tossing mud everywhere they can, and you see it as candy. Much like the human batteries in The Matrix, you are believing the dream world they are concocting.

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 28 2012, 09:37 AM) *
The death of a US ambassador does indeed make the incident unusual.
The deaths of US citizens during an attack on our embassy does not. How many lives is one ambassador/consul equal to and at what point would such an attack merit even 1/10th the coverage? And if the distinction is that important, why is everyone talking about an attack on the embassy rather than an attack on the ambassador (to include the quote I was responding to).


At the point where it appears that aid could have been rendered, but not only wasn't, but was specifically ordered not to.

And this would be the case regardless of who was in the administration.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 28 2012, 05:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 28 2012, 05:20 PM
Post #23


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 28 2012, 01:14 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 28 2012, 09:37 AM) *
The death of a US ambassador does indeed make the incident unusual.
The deaths of US citizens during an attack on our embassy does not. How many lives is one ambassador/consul equal to and at what point would such an attack merit even 1/10th the coverage? And if the distinction is that important, why is everyone talking about an attack on the embassy rather than an attack on the ambassador (to include the quote I was responding to).


At the point where it appears that aid could have been rendered, but not only wasn't, but was specifically ordered not to.

And this would be the case regardless of who was in the administration.


Could you point me to some tangible proof of that one? That's a very serious claim. Please proceed.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 28 2012, 05:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 28 2012, 05:25 PM
Post #24


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,311
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 28 2012, 09:37 AM) *
On top of it all are strange assertions that make me wonder where in the world everyone has been...private contractors the problem? Welcome to reality the role of private contractors has expanded with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (and all other security for that matter) since 1994 and even before. They don't have the option not to use them there simply aren't any resources available. Per other security, anyone still in active duty can probably tell you those units are undermanned too (ones I'm familiar with in the USAF are operating at 60 percent capacity, that's 40 percent fewer people than technically needed to function). This isn't the fault of any one person or administration it took an economic crisis, extremely poor longterm planning, and many years to make this happen.


If it turns out that we were unable to render aid, as opposed to unwilling, then yes, that situation was systemic, and actions could be taken to fix it. That is a completely different matter, and one which did NOT occur in any of the other incidents you brought up, that I can recall. Mostly because none of the other attacks lasted anywhere near this long, so there was no opportunity to send much aid, and when there was, it was sent.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 28 2012, 05:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 28 2012, 05:33 PM
Post #25


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 28 2012, 01:25 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 28 2012, 09:37 AM) *
On top of it all are strange assertions that make me wonder where in the world everyone has been...private contractors the problem? Welcome to reality the role of private contractors has expanded with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (and all other security for that matter) since 1994 and even before. They don't have the option not to use them there simply aren't any resources available. Per other security, anyone still in active duty can probably tell you those units are undermanned too (ones I'm familiar with in the USAF are operating at 60 percent capacity, that's 40 percent fewer people than technically needed to function). This isn't the fault of any one person or administration it took an economic crisis, extremely poor longterm planning, and many years to make this happen.


If it turns out that we were unable to render aid, as opposed to unwilling, then yes, that situation was systemic, and actions could be taken to fix it. That is a completely different matter, and one which did NOT occur in any of the other incidents you brought up, that I can recall. Mostly because none of the other attacks lasted anywhere near this long, so there was no opportunity to send much aid, and when there was, it was sent.


If? Sounds like you made up your mind above. I honestly want to know how you've come to this conclusion, and for the love of God please tell me it wasn't from watching Glen Beck.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 28 2012, 05:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 28 2012, 05:40 PM
Post #26


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,311
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 28 2012, 12:20 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 28 2012, 01:14 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 28 2012, 09:37 AM) *
The death of a US ambassador does indeed make the incident unusual.
The deaths of US citizens during an attack on our embassy does not. How many lives is one ambassador/consul equal to and at what point would such an attack merit even 1/10th the coverage? And if the distinction is that important, why is everyone talking about an attack on the embassy rather than an attack on the ambassador (to include the quote I was responding to).


At the point where it appears that aid could have been rendered, but not only wasn't, but was specifically ordered not to.

And this would be the case regardless of who was in the administration.


Could you point me to some tangible proof of that one? That's a very serious claim. Please proceed.



Ty Wood, the CIA operative who eventually did go to their aid, and was killed, requested permission several times to do so, and was denied. There are numerous other reports of resources being told to stand down. If Panetta knew, and decided, Obama must have been informed...why wouldn't he have been? Panetta specifically said that it was decided not to send troops in because they didn't have enough information. You combine those reports with Panetta's statement, where does that leave you? Certainly at a place where very serious questions need to be asked, and claims could be made. Proof? No. Serious questions? Absolutely. Enough to make the claim? Yes, until something comes out indicating it isn't valid--because there seems to be lots of evidence out there that it is. Which is why the administrations story keeps changing so rapidly...because as more facts come out, they keep contradicting the stories they have put out.

A good synopsis of information, from abcnews:

QUOTE
Panetta said the US military had responded quickly by deploying forces to the region. “We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency. And certainly had forces in place to do that.” But Panetta said the “basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”


So, even according to Panetta, we had troops and other resources available, but specifically decided NOT to deploy them...in fact, we "certainly has forces in place to do that". Now, there might be good reasons they weren't, but a vague statement about not having real-time info on exactly what was occurring isn't one of them. When would we? How would we get such information without deploying forces? What did we know? That the embassy was under severe attack, and issuing mulitiple requests for assistance. Put those two together---they KNEW our embassy was being overrun, they HAD forces they could have deployed, and they DECIDED not to assist them.

That DEFINITELY calls for strong questioning. It may turn out the decision was justified. It may turn out that it wasn't the right decision, but it was made for good reasons. It may turn out that they were simply very slow to react or realize the gravity of the situation. It may turn out that they put other factors as a higher priority (not violating Libyan sovereignty, not risking that much collateral damage, etc). We don't know which of these situations is true, but any and all of them would justify a higher level of scrutiny, questioning, and information forthcoming than has been the case. If the President said he wanted a report in a week, he'd get one. They don't appear to have much interest in getting one that fast (ie, prior to the election). That could be because they want a thorough investigation....or it could be because they don't, at least right now. Given the level of conflicting stories they've put out, I don't see why much benefit of the doubt should be given until evidence is put out that supports it.

FWIW, this is hardly the first time that the degree of conflicting stories, and apparently misinformation, put out by this administration was very high. That alone should be a major story, shouldn't it? Not nearly as damning, but still a story that you'd think the press would be putting out.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 28 2012, 09:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 28 2012, 08:44 PM
Post #27


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 28 2012, 10:37 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 28 2012, 08:30 AM) *

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 28 2012, 06:05 AM) *

...
... this is the most press coverage I can remember about embassy attacks in general since the Iranians took over an embassy in 1980. There were 12 during the last administration, could anyone list five without the help of Google? I'll bet the majority of people couldn't have even listed one. Don't remember a single thread addressing an embassy attack specifically in the last decade I've been here.

Which of these incidents that you "[d]on't remember a single thread addressing" involved the death of a U.S. ambassador/consul?

The death of a US ambassador does indeed make the incident unusual.


"Unusual" is certainly one way to describe an incident involving the first murder of an American ambassador in 33 years. Another, and much closer to the mark, is "exceedingly rare".

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 28 2012, 10:37 AM) *
...
... The deaths of US citizens during an attack on our embassy does not. How many lives is one ambassador/consul equal to and at what point would such an attack merit even 1/10th the coverage?
...

Do you really find it puzzling, for instance, that Gabby Giffords got 10 (20? 50? 100?) times as much news coverage as the 6 people who died (can you name them without using Google?) and the 13 other people who were wounded during said massacre, combined?

If, say, the Florida Governor's mansion had happened to burn down to the ground this weekend, would you find it puzzling that news coverage thereof would be 10 (20? 50? 100?) greater than that of all of the "regular folk" homes in the entire state that did, combined?

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 28 2012, 10:37 AM) *
...
... And if the distinction is that important, why is everyone talking about an attack on the embassy rather than an attack on the ambassador (to include the quote I was responding to).
...

Actually, everyone is talking about BOTH the attack on the embassy AND the ambassador (as well as the other 3 Americans who died, of course). For the simple reason that the ambassador was killed during the attack on the embassy. As opposed to, for instance, while sipping coffee and reading the morning paper at a cafe in downtown Benghazi.

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 28 2012, 10:37 AM) *
...
On top of it all are strange assertions that make me wonder where in the world everyone has been...private contractors the problem? Welcome to reality the role of private contractors has expanded with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (and all other security for that matter) since 1994 and even before. They don't have the option not to use them there simply aren't any resources available. Per other security, anyone still in active duty can probably tell you those units are undermanned too (ones I'm familiar with in the USAF are operating at 60 percent capacity, that's 40 percent fewer people than technically needed to function). This isn't the fault of any one person or administration it took an economic crisis, extremely poor longterm planning, and many years to make this happen.

None of the above (as per the Wood, Nordstrom and Lamb October 10 Congressional testimonies) had anything to do with the State Department's (et al.'s?) decision to pull Lt. Col. Wood's 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force from Libya a month before the 9/11 attack on the Benghazi consulate.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 28 2012, 09:56 PM
Post #28


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,345
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 28 2012, 01:14 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 28 2012, 04:04 AM) *
But in the end, President Obama will get another term. This whole thing then becomes moot, which is what it is anyway.


The President of the United States NOT coming to the aid of personnel overseas, and apparently making sure no one did, and then lying and covering it up, is a moot point???!!!!! Really????

QUOTE
I can come up with only one explanation: It's all they've got, and it's a little bit better than throwing in the towel. It's a hail Mary pass with nobody in the end zone.


No, it is deriliction of duty, borderline treasonous, and quite likely impeachable. You need to take off those extra double thick rose colored glasses, AM. Would you be making these same statements were, say, Bush, to have done the same thing? No, of course not. To borrow a line from Tombstone "Apparently, your hypocrisy knows no bounds" Exactly when did troops dying overseas become so blase? Oh ya, when YOUR guy was at the helm. Amazing how that works, isn't it.

QUOTE
Basically, there's very little benefit of the doubt left. This comes off as yet one more dirty trick, but hey, keep pushing it. Who knows, maybe the undecided will get sick of it and vote for President Obama just because the other side smells so bad.


It would be pretty much impossible for the stench to be worse than this.... but you keep inhaling the perfume and calling it glorious.

QUOTE
Somebody over there should really think this stuff through.


That would put it several steps above the current administration, as this scenario is seeming to point to the Democratic party being under the control of a sack of poo. Also, thinking it through is exactly what they don't want you to do, as the more one does that, the worse the situation looks for them. No, buy the rhetoric and don't go any deeper, THAT is what they want everyone to do. Their spin machine is in overdrive on this, they're tossing mud everywhere they can, and you see it as candy. Much like the human batteries in The Matrix, you are believing the dream world they are concocting.


The shrillness of this is telling. Are you aware that your own amplitude is coming from a strong desire to nail President Obama before the election is over?

The reason I write that this will become moot after the election is that the energy from the Republicans will diminish very quickly due to not having anything left to get but an impeachment. Remember the last time that was tried? Yep, so do I. I also remember writing straight out that President Clinton was a <insert cuss word of choice> fool for having blown (er, okay, leave it) his chances to make positive changes in the country. I've also written that the diversion from terrorism likely caused 9/11 to happen, but not intentionally. At least I hope not after having seen the neocons' manifesto.

The reasons I see this as the final fireworks before Election Day is that it follows along the course of other attempts to build scandals out of nothing. Fast & Furious fell quickly and without fanfare. The birther thing went into the far corners of the muttering blogosphere. Trump's lame attempt got some attention, but from Conan O'Brian.

If there is anything to this, and you're not being impacted by election season jitters, why so much impatience? I don't see any reason other than the jitters. Spare me your concern for our military personnel overseas. I don't buy it due to, ah, being in favor of the liberation of Iraq? Maybe arguing long and hard about President GW Bush's decisions that resulted in the loss of thousands of troops? It's got to be something.

Another way this could become moot is if Romney, by some strange twist of odds and fate, bumps out the Obama admin. Then I suppose if any charges come at the displaced former POTUS, someone in the old admin will take the fall.

There's precedence for that.

Anyway, this thing isn't what's going to sway votes Romney's way. After all, he comes off as less trustworthy on just about everything. Why would anyone expect more of him? Well, among the undecided?

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Oct 28 2012, 09:58 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 28 2012, 11:05 PM
Post #29


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,311
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 28 2012, 04:56 PM) *
The shrillness of this is telling. Are you aware that your own amplitude is coming from a strong desire to nail President Obama before the election is over?


MY shrillness? Have you read YOUR posts?

QUOTE
The reason I write that this will become moot after the election is that the energy from the Republicans will diminish very quickly due to not having anything left to get but an impeachment. Remember the last time that was tried? Yep, so do I. I also remember writing straight out that President Clinton was a <insert cuss word of choice> fool for having blown (er, okay, leave it) his chances to make positive changes in the country. I've also written that the diversion from terrorism likely caused 9/11 to happen, but not intentionally. At least I hope not after having seen the neocons' manifesto.


You keep relating this back to the election. Interesting that you are so much more concerned about that than you are for what occurred in Libya. Speaking of being telling....

QUOTE
The reasons I see this as the final fireworks before Election Day is that it follows along the course of other attempts to build scandals out of nothing.


Your repeated assertions that one of our embassies being overrun while nothing was done, along with the apparent coverup following, is 'nothing' is duly noted.

QUOTE
If there is anything to this, and you're not being impacted by election season jitters, why so much impatience?


Because I am highly suspcious of the reasons for the delays, given the vast disparity between the various stories being put out by the administration, and with the facts coming out. If there is indeed a thorough and impartial investigation (and when is that EVER the case) being performed, in full and reasonable haste, then ok. But why so little information? Why no press conferences? There is only one reason for this---the Obama administration is very concerned about the fallout. Why might that be? And why are you so willing to give them a pass on it?

QUOTE
If there is anything to this, and you're not being impacted by election season jitters, why so much impatience? I don't see any reason other than the jitters.


No, of course you don't....those rose colored glasses again.

QUOTE
spare me your concern for our military personnel overseas.


I will have to, as you clearly have none, nor any concern with any lies, misstatements, or coverups regarding them---which is a remarkable about face, I'm sure you'll agree.


QUOTE
Another way this could become moot is if Romney, by some strange twist of odds and fate, bumps out the Obama admin. Then I suppose if any charges come at the displaced former POTUS, someone in the old admin will take the fall.


No, this becomes moot if the adminstration becomes much more forthcoming, and it turns out the actions taken were justified, and some explanation is giving for the vast disparity of accounts being given so far, along with the administrations insistence it didn't know what was going on (damning in itself) when clearly it did. Romney's got nothing to do with it.


QUOTE
Anyway, this thing isn't what's going to sway votes Romney's way. After all, he comes off as less trustworthy on just about everything. Why would anyone expect more of him? Well, among the undecided?


Your continued attempt to divert this back to votes is again duly noted....and given these allegations, it is impossible for Romney to come off as less trustworthy---and polls even before this showed most people trusted Romney more on just about every category anyway. Your glasses of course filter that out...

QUOTE
The reason I write that this will become moot after the election is that the energy from the Republicans will diminish very quickly due to not having anything left to get but an impeachment. Remember the last time that was tried?


Yes, I do, and if this comes to that, it would be for far more serious allegations than lying about what one did behind doors with an intern. So, the comparison isn't very relevant. Personally, I hope it doesn't come to that, unless it becomes clear that it is necessary. An impeachment process should never be about politics, although in our system that is really difficult to eliminate.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 29 2012, 03:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 29 2012, 12:29 AM
Post #30


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 28 2012, 04:44 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 28 2012, 10:37 AM) *
...
On top of it all are strange assertions that make me wonder where in the world everyone has been...private contractors the problem? Welcome to reality the role of private contractors has expanded with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (and all other security for that matter) since 1994 and even before. They don't have the option not to use them there simply aren't any resources available. Per other security, anyone still in active duty can probably tell you those units are undermanned too (ones I'm familiar with in the USAF are operating at 60 percent capacity, that's 40 percent fewer people than technically needed to function). This isn't the fault of any one person or administration it took an economic crisis, extremely poor longterm planning, and many years to make this happen.

None of the above (as per the Wood, Nordstrom and Lamb October 10 Congressional testimonies) had anything to do with the State Department's (et al.'s?) decision to pull Lt. Col. Wood's 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force from Libya a month before the 9/11 attack on the Benghazi consulate.


If Lt Colonel's salary (along with that of his team) comes from the Defense budget it has everything to do with it. I'll bet a whole lot of other places in the world have requested additional security in the past six months and few if any of those requests have been filled. More security is needed virtually everywhere.

That said, I wasn't aware of the testimonies when I posted earlier. If assistance was requested, and actually available at the time, it should have been given unless there was some very compelling reason not to do so (and I can't think of any at the moment, protocol or whatever doesn't cut it).

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 29 2012, 12:32 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 29 2012, 03:38 AM
Post #31


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,311
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 28 2012, 07:29 PM) *
That said, I wasn't aware of the testimonies when I posted earlier. If assistance was requested, and actually available at the time, it should have been given unless there was some very compelling reason not to do so (and I can't think of any at the moment, protocol or whatever doesn't cut it).


It is the bolded comment that seems to be in question, but Panetta himself stated that they were. This is where spin gets politicians in trouble, and why their spin keeps changing. When they say no troops were available, suddenly they are questioned on why not. So then when they say there were certainly available, the question becomes 'then why weren't they deployed?'. They have spun themselves into a conundrum, in which any answer they give not only contradicts previous answers, but has serious issues on its own. This is not unique to the Obama administration, but it is certainly their apparent modus operandi on such matters--recall the plethora of different statements regarding the OBL attack, almost all of which seem to be incorrect based on current understandings of the event. This alone is not only troubling, but directly contradicts Obama's continued assertion that he is only interested in determining the truth and getting that out. No, like most politicians, the decision is how to spin any event to their advantage. That is clearly what happened here, and they are getting caught in it. I think they fnally realized they were being their own worst enemies, which is why you see so few statements now---which is exactly why the press and the public should be pressing them on it. I don't mind spin and rhetoric around domestic issues (politics would disapperr without it), but when it starts to involve our personnel overseas, and attacks on sovereign ground, then I think we should be alot more discerning about what is being said, and demanding of accountability. And that seems to be sorely lacking.

FWIW, I'm hardly giddy over this. Disappointed would be a better word. Despite many differences in policy I might have with Obama (and some agreements), I tend to think he's a decent guy. He might still be---but he lacks control over his administration. That has been present since the beginning--Obama himself has even admitted as much. Then when you put the spin in front of the facts on an issue such as this, I think it deserves to be criticized. I said the same thing during the Abu Ghirab scandal, when it was Republicans doing the spinning. It isn't about the politics---it is about handling matters correctly and being upfront about it.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 29 2012, 04:24 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: June 19th, 2018 - 09:45 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.