Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
That's the point. It is not new. What responsibility for "systemic Problems" does a CEO have? What kind of management by the top people allows for confusion? Where does the buck stop? In the real world CEO's are fired for allowing the "system" to be problematic, and for not attending to the confusion in performance of those beneath them.
|
If every CEO was fired for a problem within their organization you'd have monthly turnover. In this situation did Clinton's strategy or directive lead to the shortcomings? I've not read this was the case.
Also, the Ambassador appears to have had a lot of control over the security situation and seemed comfortable with local militias providing security at the Mission. From what I've read at least the problems were communication within the CIA and State that prevented the deteriorating situation from being fully understood by even those beneath the Secretary.
Many regard Clinton as a very strong and positive Secretary of State. Does the event in Libya make her unfit to serve? I don't think anyone has connected those dots yet.
Quote:
|
Are we to believe that some innocent, normal run-of-the-mill usually peaceful Muslims decided to orderly protest an embassy (which had been under threat), but all of a sudden, in the midst of peaceful protest decided, hey let's go kill and burn? Yeah, you can bet that the "short order" planning was a result of a larger plan to use the video as a tool and to be ready to respond to any opportunity it presented.
|
Nobody has ever claimed that. Remember that in fact thousands of Benghazi's protested the attackers in support for the Ambassador and the USA.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/world/...unter-protest/
For some reason people keep forgetting to include this fact in their assessment of the "situation on the ground."
Ultimate, a complex and confused situation like this will never be clear once it's politicized.
-spence
Threaded Mode