Libya

[spence]

Originally Posted by likwid

From the author of a book that talks about how 24 is realistic.

Whats next? Dr Seuss for foreign policy advisor?

Even better is the text Scott pasted, it appears to assert that Obama's indecision led to many aborted attempts, then mentions the good weather on the last.

This would almost -- I mean if Obama wasn't such an idiotic fraudulent probably sleeps in a burka sort of guy -- suggest that there were reasons for possibly calling earlier attempts?

Seriously, is anyone thinking in this forum?

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If Bush is to be blamed for appointing Mr Brown to head FEMA, what do you say about Obama picking everyone's Krazy Unkle Joe as Vice President? Afetr repeatedly making an ass out of himself at the debate, you dismissed it as Biden being his bombastive self. Fine. When Palin put her foot in her mouth every day in 2008, did you so casually dismiss that as Palin being her folksy self? Or did you make the claim that her behavior made her unfit.

Biden may have been over the top but he brought a lot of substance to the debate. Agree or disagree I can't see how anybody would assert he doesn't know his stuff.

Palin couldn't even name a newspaper she had recently read.

Your comparisons are nearing non sequitur calibre. I thought I told you, ScottW is NOT a good role model

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Seriously, is anyone thinking in this forum?

-spence

yes, which is why you've been struggling for weeks now with your various assertions, I don't believe that many are "thinking" that Obama would have taken any accountability for the Osama raid going badly or anything else going badly for that matter....this has been demonstrated repeatedly, and you would have repeated whatever story they came up with ad nauseum, that much we do know

is Valerie Jarrett a weatherman too?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

yes, which is why you've been struggling for weeks now with your various assertions, I don't believe that many are "thinking" that Obama would have taken any accountability for the Osama raid going badly or anything else going badly for that matter....this has been demonstrated repeatedly, and you would have repeated whatever story they came up with ad nauseum, that much we do know

Had the Bin Laden raid gone awry, and it almost did, Obama wouldn't have been able to escape the $h!t storm.

And you know this.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

They blamed Bush because he personally appointed someone with zero direct experience to head FEMA. Heck of a job Brownie...


Big difference, Obama personally made the call and took accountability for the outcome good or bad.


One was a reactive situation, the other was a proactive situation. They are very different and complex in different ways.

-spence

"One was a reactive situation, the other was a proactive situation."

I'm assuming you say Libya was a 'proactive situation'. And in that case, as usual, you are wrong on the facts. The state department (Obama's state dept) decided to pull 2 full security teams out of Libya (12 men each, I believe). The guy in charge of security at the embassy asked the state dept to reconsider, and he pointed to all the recent, documented cases of violence and threats. The state dept (Obama's state dept) was not convinced. You can make a very strong case that 4 superb Americans paid for that stupidity with their lives.

Then, the reaction. Five days afetr the attack, the state dept, the ambassador to the UN, and Jay Carney (Obama's press secretary) said there was no evidence it was anything other than a spontaneous outburst. So I guess Obama believes that protesting students typically carry RPGs, mortars, and mortar tubes in their backpacks?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Had the Bin Laden raid gone awry, and it almost did, Obama wouldn't have been able to escape the $h!t storm.

And you know this.

-spence

I wouldn't put ANYTHING past him, them or you

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm assuming you say Libya was a 'proactive situation'. And in that case, as usual, you are wrong on the facts. The state department (Obama's state dept) decided to pull 2 full security teams out of Libya (12 men each, I believe). The guy in charge of security at the embassy asked the state dept to reconsider, and he pointed to all the recent, documented cases of violence and threats. The state dept (Obama's state dept) was not convinced. You can make a very strong case that 4 superb Americans paid for that stupidity with their lives.

No, the Embassy attack would be a reactive situation.

If you bothered to read my posts above I mentioned the restrictions on US security and the policy likely guiding the actions. We were trying to draw down a US presence, not maintain or escalate it.

If this was stupidity or not I'm not sure we know, but if so it would look like a mid-level deputy made a bad call.

Then, the reaction. Five days afetr the attack, the state dept, the ambassador to the UN, and Jay Carney (Obama's press secretary) said there was no evidence it was anything other than a spontaneous outburst. So I guess Obama believes that protesting students typically carry RPGs, mortars, and mortar tubes in their backpacks?

I'm not sure they really knew what the heck had happened to be honest. Look at how long it took the FBI to even get onsite. I do think they could have handled the messaging better early on, be less specific until the facts were more clear etc...

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I wouldn't put ANYTHING past him, them or you

You've made a lot of posts today without any substance.

Because I'm a nice guy...I'm willing to accept less volume if you can improve your quality.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You've made a lot of posts today without any substance.

Because I'm a nice guy...I'm willing to accept less volume if you can improve your quality.

-spence

you keep proving my point...everyone else is stupid, lying or misinformed..you are always right...at least you think so

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

everyone else is stupid, lying or misinformed.. .

Are they?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Are they?

-spence

anyone that disagrees with you particular spin apparently ...you, of course, are very impressive...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

anyone that disagrees with you particular spin apparently ...you, of course, are very impressive...

See, you could have saved up those last three posts and made just one good one.

-spence

[likwid]

Originally Posted by spence

Even better is the text Scott pasted, it appears to assert that Obama's indecision led to many aborted attempts, then mentions the good weather on the last.

This would almost -- I mean if Obama wasn't such an idiotic fraudulent probably sleeps in a burka sort of guy -- suggest that there were reasons for possibly calling earlier attempts?

Seriously, is anyone thinking in this forum?

-spence

Now now, its obvious that Obama is a horrible idiotic half muslim half swahili nazi sympathizer with aryan-chinese roots. I mean its not like tactical missions have a hundred advisors and a thousand ways to go wrong and run on probability of success.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

What didn't I answer?




-spence

"What are your unbiased Canadian newspaper subscritions saying about the matter" ?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, the Embassy attack would be a reactive situation.

If you bothered to read my posts above I mentioned the restrictions on US security and the policy likely guiding the actions. We were trying to draw down a US presence, not maintain or escalate it.

If this was stupidity or not I'm not sure we know, but if so it would look like a mid-level deputy made a bad call.



I'm not sure they really knew what the heck had happened to be honest. Look at how long it took the FBI to even get onsite. I do think they could have handled the messaging better early on, be less specific until the facts were more clear etc...

-spence

"We were trying to draw down a US presence, not maintain or escalate it."

We did not "try" to reduce the US presence, we did reduce the presence. The resukts speak for themselves, 4 dead.

Spence, do you really think that removing 24 security team members from an ebmassy is going to make these people like us more.

Peace through strength.

God, do you ever get one right, even by accident? Spence, when you have large numbers of armed people trying to kill diplomats, what's the benefit of pulling out the security, but leaving the diplomats behind?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I do think they could have handled the messaging better early on, be less specific until the facts were more clear etc... -spence

That's one of the more honest things you have posted here. But it's more than a one-time bungle. This administration has, time and time again, refused to label something as a "terrorist attack" when it is clearly just that.

Spence, I have been there, I have interrogated these people, and I have witnesses over 100 interogations. When Obama goes on TV and denies, for example, thatthe Ft Hood massacre was a terrorist attack, it makes him look weak and stupid in the eyes of the enemy. That emboldens them.

we've come a long way from Churchill's "we'll fight them on the beaches" speech...The peoblem is, this enemy is even more determined than the Nazis Churchill referred to, as the Nazis didn't have voluntary suicide bombers.

It's a weak, mixed message Spence. And that's exactly what you do not want to convey in a time of war. Hell, this administration won't even use the phrase 'war on terror', and there's no earthly reason to justify that. I hear liberals refer to the "so-called war on terror" all the time.

Why would anyone deny we are at war with terrororists? Why do liberals want to do that? Can you shed any light on that? We're not rounding up Muslims and putting them in refugee camps, Bush made that clear within hours of the 09/11 attacks.

I don't get it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

"What are your unbiased Canadian newspaper subscritions saying about the matter" ?

Don't usually read them but here's the first thing that came up from their biggest newspaper...

U.S. officials turned down requests for more security at Libya consulate - thestar.com

Seems pretty objective to me.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We did not "try" to reduce the US presence, we did reduce the presence. The resukts speak for themselves, 4 dead.

Spence, do you really think that removing 24 security team members from an ebmassy is going to make these people like us more.

A fine example of Monday morning quarterbacking if there ever was one.

God, do you ever get one right, even by accident? Spence, when you have large numbers of armed people trying to kill diplomats, what's the benefit of pulling out the security, but leaving the diplomats behind?

Well, that's not really what appears to have happened.

Here's a pretty interesting write up from the WP.

In Libya, security was lax before attack that killed U.S. ambassador, officials say - The Washington Post

It appears the Benghazi building was nothing more than an outpost and not even hardened well like a formal embassy. Chris Stevens was personally pushing an American presence and had a lot of experience and contacts in the area which likely gave him a false sense of comfort. The guy would go running on the street with minimal security...

Libya is certainly still a dangerous place, but it's also fair to assume he's putting himself in harms way for what he believed in.

How many Americans are in similar positions all over the world? One would think there's probably quite a few. Diplomats to unfortunately fall victim to violence from time to time.

But Benghazi happened right before the election...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

A fine example of Monday morning quarterbacking if there ever was one.



Well, that's not really what appears to have happened.

Here's a pretty interesting write up from the WP.

In Libya, security was lax before attack that killed U.S. ambassador, officials say - The Washington Post

It appears the Benghazi building was nothing more than an outpost and not even hardened well like a formal embassy. Chris Stevens was personally pushing an American presence and had a lot of experience and contacts in the area which likely gave him a false sense of comfort. The guy would go running on the street with minimal security...

Libya is certainly still a dangerous place, but it's also fair to assume he's putting himself in harms way for what he believed in.

How many Americans are in similar positions all over the world? One would think there's probably quite a few. Diplomats to unfortunately fall victim to violence from time to time.

But Benghazi happened right before the election...

-spence

"A fine example of Monday morning quarterbacking if there ever was one."

You're so thoughtless. Spence, the head of embassy security in the region, cited dozens of threats and acts of violence against westerners, in the weeks leading up to 09/11/12. That's precisely why he said that those teams needed to remain in place.

"which likely gave him a false sense of comfort"

OK. Sp a lefty rag can no read the mind of a deam ambassador, and even worse, they're saying that the ambassador, and not the incompetent ass that you are in love with, is to blame. That's just great.

"it's also fair to assume he's putting himself in harms way for what he believed in."

Correct. And precisely because he puts himself in harm's way, the Obama administration has the responsibility of not placing him in unnecessary danger. The guy who knows more about this than anyone at the Washington Post, is the head of security who begged for for more security. I guess he is just a Muslim-bashing knuckle-draggingm war monger?

"Diplomats to unfortunately fall victim to violence from time to time"

And that's why they deserve to have security apparatus that's at least equal to (if not overwhelmingly superior to) any credible threat.

You liberal kooks just don't get the notion of 'responsibility', it's just not in your vernacular.

That you would suggest that Stevens recklessly contributed to his own death is beyond repugnant. I almost typed that 'you're better than that', but you're not. You have no shame, there is no level to which you will not sink to protect your true love.

Nothing you say, nothing, passes the common sense test.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

A fine example of Monday morning quarterbacking if there ever was one.


It appears the Benghazi building was nothing more than an outpost and not even hardened well like a formal embassy. Chris Stevens was personally pushing an American presence and had a lot of experience and contacts in the area which likely gave him a false sense of comfort. The guy would go running on the street with minimal security...

Libya is certainly still a dangerous place, but it's also fair to assume he's putting himself in harms way for what he believed in.

How many Americans are in similar positions all over the world? One would think there's probably quite a few. Diplomats to unfortunately fall victim to violence from time to time.not since Carter, what a coincidence


U.S. diplomats killed abroad - The Washington Post


-spence

that's interesting, charge Monday Morning Quarter Backing and then proceed to blame the dead guy....how low can you go?

Denying the Libya Scandal - National Review Online

[Raider Ronnie]

I'm listening to political talk radio in the truck today (as I do most every day) they are saying Bill Clinton is pissed about this situation possibly being dumped on Hillary as a scapegoat and Bill is lining up legal representation.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

I'm listening to political talk radio in the truck today (as I do most every day) they are saying Bill Clinton is pissed about this situation possibly being dumped on Hillary as a scapegoat and Bill is lining up legal representation.

you had to expect this showdown eventually on some matter...should be fantastic...Obama throws everyone under the bus, Clinton's had to figure they'd get run over at some point

went across the pond for this...contracting out the security of our Ambassadors to foreign private firms...wow?...at a time when a "terrorist attack on US consulate in Benghazi was 'a matter of time'"

double WOW

British firm secured Benghazi consulate contract with little experience - Telegraph

Congress told terrorist attack on US consulate in Benghazi was 'a matter of time' - Telegraph\


I was just reading a story indicating that the intelligence community and State have, for sometime, been very frustrated with the Administration and their lack of focus and interest in these matters, the continued veto of previous attempts on OBL by Obama via Valerie Jarrett caused Panetta to assume authority and move ahead in that matter, bringing in O at the last possible moment having penned a legal out for the Pres., leaving him out of the loop , which was why he was dragged off the golf course suddenly and sat off to the side in a chair looking like a kid that had tagged along as the adults(even Biden) sat at the table in the situation room in that now infamous picture... of course he's been spiking the golf club ever since which is par for the course, pardon the puns....guess it's possible that he was completely unaware of what was going on and probably "focused like a laser" on that Nickelodeon interview

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

that's interesting, charge Monday Morning Quarter Backing and then proceed to blame the dead guy....how low can you go?

Denying the Libya Scandal - National Review Online

God damn right. Not only is the paper (and Spence) blaming the dead guy, they are doing it in a way that necessarily means they can read his mind. And conveniently, their explanation (blaming the dead guy) absolves Obama of any responsibility.

It's repugnant.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Don't usually read them but here's the first thing that came up from their biggest newspaper...

U.S. officials turned down requests for more security at Libya consulate - thestar.com

Seems pretty objective to me.

-spence

I agree Spence, it "seems" objective.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

... of course he's been spiking the golf club ever since which is par for the course,

He only played 100 rounds of golf in his first 3 and1/2 years.

Maybe his morning T time interfered with Intel Meetings.

[spence]

Nobody is blaming Stevens, but his apparent comfort with the situation is certainly an important piece of information in what appears to be a complex situation.

Now Rep. Issa is calling for increased security after the House slashed the overall budget. I wonder if that's part of his investigation? Romney I'll remind you jumped to blame the Administration for Egypt before he even had his facts right.

These guys are chomping at the bit to paint this as Obama's 9/11.

Shameful.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Nobody is blaming Stevens, but his apparent comfort with the situation is certainly an important piece of information in what appears to be a complex situation.

Now Rep. Issa is calling for increased security after the House slashed the overall budget. I wonder if that's part of his investigation? Romney I'll remind you jumped to blame the Administration for Egypt before he even had his facts right.

These guys are chomping at the bit to paint this as Obama's 9/11.

Shameful.

-spence

It is, and should be, Obama's 09/11.

Bush got blamed for the subprime mortgage crisis, and though he never personally bought a house he couldn't afford, nor did he invent the fishy derivitives that leveraged all the worthless paper. But he gets the blame, and to some extent at least, that's fair. Because the buck stops with him.

Your hero would do well to remember that.

Biden said "we" weren't told about requests for increased security. Not true.

The US Ambassador to the UN said on 5 (five!) Sunday morning shows that there was no evidence to suggest this was anything to other than a spontaneous demonstratuion against the video. Tha's absolutely, 100% not true.

Here are the facts...there was violence and threats against Western agencies in the weeks leading up to the attack. Against the wishes of the man in charge of security in that region, security was reduced. there was no demonstration at the embassy preceding the attack. There was no demonstration, none whatsoever, at the embassy preceding the attack.

Ther feds (of which Obama is the head) blew the obvious need for heightened security. They continued to say it was a reaction to the video LONG after no one could possibly believe that.

And Biden says at the debate that we'll know when Iran is close to getting a nuke? For a week, this administration clung to the false story that there was an anti-video protest at the embassy that spurred the attack. They stuck to that story long after everyone knew it was garbage. So now, how are they now so skilled that they know exactly what's happening behind closed doors in Iran?

Biden specifically said it was our intelligence officials who believed the attack was a spontaneous protest over the video. If our intelligence officials believed that long afetr everyone else knew it was a lie, then why should I trust those same intelligence officials to know what's hapening behind closed doors in Iran?

This absolutely will be his 09/11, with a big difference. Bush came out of 09/11 looking very favorably to most Americans. In this case, Americans are waking up to the fact that the Obama administration was either incredibly ignorant, or willfully dishinest. There is no third option. And neither option is acceptable.

Keep shifting blame to the dead guy Spence.

"an important piece of information in what appears to be a complex situation. "

OK. So because Obama appears to have made an ass out of himself, it must be that there's more to this than we can grasp. It can't be that he just blew it.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Nobody is blaming Stevens, but his apparent comfort with the situation is certainly an important piece of information in what appears to be a complex situation.

-spence

yup..."apparent comfort"....right

According to one of the key witnesses expected to testify before the committee this week, even Ambassador Stevens himself had repeatedly requested more security personnel, but was turned down.


Lt. Col. Andy Wood, the former head of a U.S. Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya, has told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson that he and many other senior staff at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, "felt we needed more, not less" security personnel in the country, but were told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."


Wood and others have portrayed a State Department in Washington that was either unwilling to provide American officials in Libya with the security they required or ignorant of the pressing security concerns in a country where the central government is weak, and Islamic extremist militias have enjoyed virtual free reign in the power vacuum created by the toppling and killing of long-time dictator Muammar Qaddafi.


Top U.S. counterterrorism adviser John Brennan in Libya amid questions over security missteps - CBS News

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

According to one of the key witnesses expected to testify before the committee this week, even Ambassador Stevens himself had repeatedly requested more security personnel, but was turned down.

Yes, stationed in Tripoli. But we're also talking about a small number of agents.

Everything I've read indicates the security situation was due to sectarian violence, not violence directed specifically at the US or Jim's large number of armed terrorists out to kill diplomats.

You guys will say anything if it makes Obama look bad, you're like MoveOn on steroids.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Everything I've read indicates the security situation was due ....
You guys will say anything if it makes Obama look bad, you're like MoveOn on steroids.

-spence

I'm starting to believe that you don't actually read a whole lot and what you do read isn't all that informative

Obama doesn't need help from us...he's doing a fine job doing a terrible job and looking really bad in doing so

is MoveOn trying to make Obama look bad?