Originally Posted by spence
Sure the State department made mistakes, nobody is discounting that, but they were described as systemic mistakes.
Systemic mistakes are made by people's use of the system, unless the system has a flaw that always or often results in mistakes in spite of human deployment. Such a system would not, or should not, last long. Had the system been making Benghazi type mistakes before? If so, every Sec. State newly coming on board would, or should, have reviewed the status and operation of what she was about to direct. I would assume, if the Sec. State and her staff had done due diligence, they would have noticed a record of such egregious systemic failure--if it existed. I don't know of any ongoing previous failure attributable solely to the system itself as designed.
The independent review of the Sep. 11 attacks cited "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies" at the State Department. And a CNN report on the review listed the failures and deficiencies, which all seemed to be more problems of human decision rather than a long standing, prior, system design for State Dept. operational procedure.
The most systemic appearing flaw was what appeared to be a (traditional?) lack of congressional support for State Dept. needs.
The other cited failures seemed to me to be of the leadership and management deficiencies--poor implementation of the State Dept system:
Inadequate diplomatic security.
Lack of transparency, responsiveness, and leadership at the senior levels
Short term nature of the mission's staff, many of whom were inexperienced U.S. personnel, resulted in diminished institutional knowledge, continuity and mission capacity.
Mission was severely under-resourced with regard to certain needed equipment.
Dependence on poorly skilled members of local militia and unarmed guards.
A security plan that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack.
Was Hillary, being head of State, exempt from these leadership and management deficiencies? This was a special mission for which she appointed the ambassador. It was her baby. Or was she detached from it all, just Secretary of State in name only? The whole shebang simply taking care of itself? She took "responsibility" but not the blame.
Did Clinton create any entirely new system when she became Secretary? Did Clinton direct any structural changes that complicated the interdepartmental communication?
She signed, or should have signed, the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya, which were a departure from normal State Dept. system of engagement--the low profile thing which resulted in most of the deficiencies.
The findings were that nobody was derelict in their duty...
Being stupid or incompetent is not a dereliction of duty.
Also, yes, it's not been "proven" it wasn't planned in advance but there's significant evidence that it also wasn't
What "significant" evidence?
and our intelligence agencies have at times believed the video was a motivator.
Believed at times? What kind of rock is that to build your church on? Can that really be called intelligence? And did the "intelligence" agencies "believe" that the video was made in order to incite violence and murder? Is dying your hair red a motive for someone who has unstable, violent reaction to red hair to kill you? In that case anything you do or are is a motivator to violence by anyone who is "offended" by what you do or are. That is pure, unadulterated, toxic BS. The motivator for the attack on Benghazi is ensconced deep in the effed-up heads of the attackers.
Like what?
Do the search.
God is certainly wrong on occasion.
There is ZERO evidence for that.
I've never claimed there is "proof" but there is substantial evidence that it could have been, evidence that was accepted by government analysts and relayed to the Administration.
What "substantial" evidence?
You're contradicting yourself in this paragraph.
Nope.
Additionally, It's not hard to believe that well armed and experienced militants couldn't get this attack together in a few hours.
Now who's contradicting himself? What is so spontaneous about getting an attack together in a few hours?
There certainly could have been an attack in the future, [without the video]
Or at the same time--9/11.
but without the video scandal and a chance to derail a presidential campaign this entire story becomes far less substantial.
Or to create a video scenario in order to prevent the self derailment of a presidential campaign.
If the video was a motivator, even if just influencing the timing or providing encouragement then a lot of the Administration criticism is baseless.
The video cannot , or should not, be a motivator to a rational mind. And if we have to watch our every little step so as not to "motivate" irrational minds, better we should not leave our personal caves and should remain disassociated from the world. Understand this. There is nothing about a non-Muslim which cannot be construed as "motivation" for jihad to a fundamental Islamist. The real "motivator" for so-called "extremist" Muslims is Islam . . . Fundamental Islam. They don't need videos to attack American interests. They only need American interests to exist to be motivated to attack them. Looking to the video as the motivator and not understanding, or accepting, what really motivates Islamists, is the very essence of policy failure.
this by the way, is exactly what the ARB, Senate Intel and House Intel reports suggest.
Poof . . .
The initial low profile in Benghazi was the desire of Amb. Stevens, not directed by the State Department.
Actually the low profile would have to have been OK'd and signed by Sec. State as the State Department Rules of Engagement For Libya. It doesn't matter whose original idea it was. State Dept. is responsible. And the head of State Dept. is ultimately held responsible for any change in the rules of engagement. A competent Sec. State would have overruled Stevens' desire as too dangerous to implement considering the conditions in Libya.
The failure to adequately increase security to match the threat environment has been studied and changes made to improve the process.
The failure should not have happened in the first place.
Why doesn't this have to mean there was a scandal? Oh yes, Clinton.
Is Clinton untouchable? For some reason she is above reproach?
If you were holding Bush to the same standard as you're holding Clinton he would have been invalid for a second term...or worse.
There is ZERO evidence for that.
And unlike Bush, in Libya the United Nations had legal authority.
Then why were we involved, choosing sides, giving aid, and influencing decisions, UN or otherwise? Didn't you say previously that the U.S was the leader or some such power thing in the UN?
First off, this was not a public statement so I don't know what she really said.
Did she say it "off the record"? If not, it was public. And why doubt the father of the killed soldier? And has she denied it? I mean it has made a rather "substantial" splash.
Secondly, on the day (Sept 14) she allegedly said that the CIA analysts were pointing to the video as a key motivator for the attack.
By the CIA, do you mean Director Morrell who had deleted al Qaeda from the first memo, not because al Qaeda and affiliates were not known or "substantially" suspected of being part or more of the attack, but in order to "protect classified information"?
If that was the case one would assume the DOJ would be looking for any legal justification to go after the film maker, which they found, and he was arrested...
Why on earth would the DOJ be looking for "any" legal justification to go after the film maker? Yeah, they found something which was not that the video itself was illegal, and put him in jail.
Shame on the woman for trying to console a grieving parent.
|