Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

The GOP's embassy security problem

Budget Cuts 2012 Inadequate Diplomatic Security Benghazi Consulate Attack Politics

  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#1 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 03:18 PM

http://maddowblog.ms...ty-problem?lite

The GOP's embassy security problem

Quote

... Those "priorities" apparently don't include security at U.S. diplomatic outposts abroad.
Dana Milbank picked up on the same problem: inadequate diplomatic security is the direct result of Republican budget cuts.


For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program -- well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration's request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.
Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

A little something to keep in mind during Issa's pre-election p.r. stunt on Capitol Hill today -- and when Romney/Ryan tries to use this to their advantage.
Just another thing the GOP did, and now want to pin on the President.   :angry:
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#2 Batrochides

Batrochides
  • Islander
  • 669 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:25 PM

Two questions:

One, would the "300 more diplomatic security positions" have made any difference if said positions were simply DSS agents--who do NOT have ordinary responsibility of providing security for embassy posts or staff--or, worse, the "administrative support" of questionable utility, rather than the private contractors who heretofore have protected ambassadorial-level personnel at high-risk posts, but whose employment  is  anathema to a good portion of the Democratic Party?

Two, would another two, four, six or even a dozen more guards have made the security situation appreciably better if their rules of  engagment were overly restrictive, and/or based on philosophical assumptions of local conditions that were recklessly optimistic?

Batrochides

#3 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 10:26 PM

:think: Trying to pin the murder of our ambassador on proposed GOP budget cuts, is one way to go I guess.(blaming liberal superhero Hillary is naturally out of the question) But isn't the military handling the bulk of our embassy security around the world? The same military 0bama has cut to the tune of about 800 billion? The already laughable cause/effect math required to indict Republicans for this,(and also magically absolve everyone who ignored the bright neon warning signs)isn't going to pass muster with anyone familiar with the ugly details.

Just for fun though...let's pretend the evil GOP cut off every penny of embassy security funding. There's now no funding whatsoever to protect our overseas ambassadors.

What kind of bloody fool State Department would then drop Chris Stevens right into the eye of the storm? Yeah...methinks another line of defense may be in order... :dontgetit:

Edited by scherzo, 10 October 2012 - 10:27 PM.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#4 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:08 PM

Actually, from everything I've heard and read about Stevens, he'd actually be the one guy who'd to volunteer  to go into a bad area and try to do the job with limited security.  Not that that would excuse any bad planning/policy, but I don't think you can discount the personality and character of the ambassador himself.  He'd go where no other wo/man would.  I wonder how much he would like his sacrifice being politicized by either side.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#5 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:23 AM

View PostCait, on 10 October 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

Actually, from everything I've heard and read about Stevens, he'd actually be the one guy who'd to volunteer  to go into a bad area and try to do the job with limited security.  Not that that would excuse any bad planning/policy, but I don't think you can discount the personality and character of the ambassador himself.  He'd go where no other wo/man would.  I wonder how much he would like his sacrifice being politicized by either side.
Stevens didn't have a death wish, and didn't sacrifice himself.

Quote

An American ambassador is murdered in a planned terrorist attack(which would have been prevented with just a pinch of common sense)that was subsequently covered up by the POTUS and his flunkies. A cover-up that served to further inflame Muslim radicals by spreading word of a (then)little known anti-Islam movie. Is it really "politicizing" to say this administration has gone well beyond the pale with their blame shifting antics this time? From the pov of conservatives, President Zero's reign is little more than a string of major disasters. But If ever there was a time for some serious bipartisan outrage...this is it.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#6 Julianus

Julianus
  • Islander
  • 1,660 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 07:22 AM

It seems to me that either the administration was lying early and often (UN Ambassador Susan Rice visiting all the Sunday morning tv talk shows) saying it was a spontaneous demonstration or, perhaps worse, they had no clue what had happened but went with a story that seemed plausible. Even after what passes for the Libyan government said that they had warned the US of a potential attack our government continued with to say it was a spontaneous demonstration that escalated.
Now they have changed their story and say it was definitely a planned attack. :no:
I still wonder if it might have been an attack that specifically targeted Ambassador Stevens. He had made useful connections with people in Libya which would have made him a target for extremists. The attack came when he was at the consulate rather than the embassy which I would presume have been more secure. It is still not clear what he was actually doing in Benghazi, especially on the anniversary of 9/11.
Julianus

#7 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:05 AM

View Postscherzo, on 11 October 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:

From the pov of conservatives, President Zero's reign is little more than a string of major disasters. But If ever there was a time for some serious bipartisan outrage...this is it.
I certainly agree that Zero/Dubya's eight year reign was a disaster, and I welcome the serious bipartisan outrage.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#8 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:08 AM

View PostJulianus, on 11 October 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

It seems to me that either the administration was lying early and often (UN Ambassador Susan Rice visiting all the Sunday morning tv talk shows) saying it was a spontaneous demonstration or, perhaps worse, they had no clue what had happened but went with a story that seemed plausible.
The fact that the misinformation was updated as often as it was proves that it was, in fact, misinformation and not lies.  Contrast that with Bush/Zero's bald-faced lies that got us entangled with Iraq, lies he still stands by.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#9 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:09 AM

Let's begin again and I'll lay it out a little better.

You said...

View Postscherzo, on 10 October 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

What kind of bloody fool State Department would then drop Chris Stevens right into the eye of the storm? Yeah...methinks another line of defense may be in order... :dontgetit:

And, I replied that maybe, given his character, he volunteered.  Everything written about the man says if there was a need for him to be in Libya  he would "be dropped into the 'eye of a storm' because his country needed it.

I also said that character and sacrifice for his country didn't mitigate any mistakes in the State Dept or the Government.  You appeared to miss that.

The you said...

View Postscherzo, on 11 October 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:


Stevens didn't have a death wish, and didn't sacrifice himself.

Does every American willing to do the tough job have to have a death wish?  But, as I stated, everything about the man says he did know how dangerous it was to be there, but that he was needed there.  How is that not a sacrifice?

Quote

Is it really "politicizing" to say this administration has gone well beyond the pale with their blame shifting antics this time? From the pov of conservatives, President Zero's reign is little more than a string of major disasters. But If ever there was a time for some serious bipartisan outrage...this is it.

Yes.  It's really politicizing anything to use a man's good name and his service to America in an attempt to make political points for a particular political party.  That's exactly what politicizing is.

However you can certainly make all the points you want about the Administration and its weaknesses and faults. Just don't pretend to know what Stevens was or  wasn't aware of when he took his assignment.  He knew.  He knew it was dangerous.  He knew he was needed there.  End. Of. Story.

In my opinion, we should be celebrating his service to America.   We can wait until his body is cold before we use him to score political points. Or here';s an idea, let's not ever use his service and sacrifice to take shots at our political foes.  Especially when there are so many others ways to do it.

And, just to be clear here, I wasn't making any partisan political statement with my original post.  I was taking the POV of the Ambassador   The rest of you can argue over which political party would have or could have done better [or worse] That's what you do after all.  Non stop   Never looking at how far you are willing to go to make and score a point.  [2nd person plural "you" in this last paragraph]

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#10 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:55 AM

http://www.washingto...b2a7_story.html
Letting us in on a secret

Quote

When House Republicans called a hearing in the middle of their long recess, you knew it would be something big, and indeed it was: They accidentally blew the CIA’s cover.
The purpose of Wednesday’s hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was to examine security lapses that led to the killing in Benghazi last month of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others. But in doing so, the lawmakers reminded us why “congressional intelligence” is an oxymoron.
Through their outbursts, cryptic language and boneheaded questioning of State Department officials, the committee members left little doubt that one of the two compounds at which the Americans were killed, described by the administration as a “consulate” and a nearby “annex,” was a CIA base. They did this, helpfully, in a televised public hearing...
In their questioning and in the public testimony they invited, the lawmakers managed to disclose, without ever mentioning Langley directly, that there was a seven-member “rapid response force” in the compound the State Department was calling an annex. One of the State Department security officials was forced to acknowledge that “not necessarily all of the security people” at the Benghazi compounds “fell under my direct operational control.”..
That the Benghazi compound had included a large CIA presence had been reported but not confirmed. The New York Times, for example, had reported that among those evacuated were “about a dozen CIA operatives and contractors.” The paper, like The Washington Post, withheld locations and details of the facilities at the administration’s request.
But on Wednesday, the withholding was on hold.
The Republican lawmakers, in their outbursts, alternated between scolding the State Department officials for hiding behind classified material and blaming them for disclosing information that should have been classified. But the lawmakers created the situation by ordering a public hearing on a matter that belonged behind closed doors.
Republicans were aiming to embarrass the Obama administration over State Department security lapses. But they inadvertently caused a different picture to emerge than the one that has been publicly known: that the victims may have been let down not by the State Department but by the CIA. If the CIA was playing such a major role in these events, which was the unmistakable impression left by Wednesday’s hearing, having a televised probe of the matter was absurd.
The chairman, attempting to close his can of worms, finally suggested that “the entire committee have a classified briefing as to any and all other assets that were not drawn upon but could have been drawn upon” in Benghazi.
Good idea. Too bad he didn’t think of that before putting the CIA on C-SPAN.

:wallbash:
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#11 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:29 PM

Quote

Quote

Is it really "politicizing" to say this administration has gone well beyond the pale with their blame shifting antics this time?
Yes.  It's really politicizing anything to use a man's good name and his service to America in an attempt to make political points for a particular political party.  That's exactly what politicizing is.
Why are you answering "yes"...to a question you weren't asked?

Quote

However you can certainly make all the points you want about the Administration and its weaknesses and faults. Just don't pretend to know what Stevens was or  wasn't aware of when he took his assignment.  He knew.  He knew it was dangerous.  He knew he was needed there.  End. Of. Story.
This is absurd. No one said he believed his job was a safe one. I corrected your assertion that he sacrificed his life.(which would mean he was both unstable and not terribly bright) Period. My criticism of Team 0bama has nothing to do with him personally anyway, so the drama isn't called for.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#12 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:35 PM

View PostNonny, on 11 October 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

View Postscherzo, on 11 October 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:

From the pov of conservatives, President Zero's reign is little more than a string of major disasters. But If ever there was a time for some serious bipartisan outrage...this is it.
I certainly agree that Zero/Dubya's eight year reign was a disaster, and I welcome the serious bipartisan outrage.
I guess a variation of the 'ol "I know you are, but what am I" playground classic, is about as substantive a defense of 0bama as we're likely to get under the circumstances. The circumstances being...he's a moron...an a-hole...and a failure...and even his acolytes on the religious left know it.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#13 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:00 PM

View Postscherzo, on 11 October 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

This is absurd. No one said he believed his job was a safe one. I corrected your assertion that he sacrificed his life.(which would mean he was both unstable and not terribly bright) Period.

And, I'm correcting you assertion that anyone knowingly sacrificing their life has a death wish or is unstable and/or not bright.  Our troops do it every day.  Our State Department does it every day.  Our Intelligence agents do it every day.  Homeland Security does it every day.  Countless others in public service do it every day.  Do they all have a death wish?  Are they all unstable and stupid?  [For clarity, those were all rhetorical questions.]

What is absurd, my dear fellow, is any statement that accuses those who give service [and sometimes give the ultimate sacrifice] of instability and stupidity.  That's what I'm taking issue with here.  I have no interest in whether or not you blame or criticize the Obama Administration.  I have plenty of complaints and criticisms of my own. You don't own the franchise on Obama criticism.

Quote

My criticism of Team 0bama has nothing to do with him personally anyway, so the drama isn't called for.

I'm entitled to bring up fallacies in your posts.  That's not a personal attack  It's pointing out a flaw in your post.  A privilege you avail yourself of all the time around EI.  I'm simply availing myself of the same privilege   You don't mind do you?

Let me suggest that the next time you want to criticize the Obama Administration, you leave out the comments regarding sacrifice=a death wish or instability of mind.  You'll probably avoid someone like me coming in and "dramatically" questioning you about it.

You have a good day now.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#14 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:07 PM

There's a reason why politics is supposed to stop at the water's edge.  The kerfuffle over Benghazi is a good object lesson as to why.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#15 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:25 PM

Quote

And, I'm correcting you assertion that anyone knowingly sacrificing their life has a death wish or is unstable and/or not bright.
Well since I never said "ANYONE" knowingly sacrificing their life is unstable...you're continuing to argue with someone who ain't in the building.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#16 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:45 PM

View Postscherzo, on 11 October 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

Quote

And, I'm correcting you assertion that anyone knowingly sacrificing their life has a death wish or is unstable and/or not bright.
Well since I never said "ANYONE" knowingly sacrificing their life is unstable...you're continuing to argue with someone who ain't in the building.

You asserted that Stevens had to be unstable or stupid to make a sacrifice.  So, because he isn't stupid or unstable, he didn't make a sacrifice?  Or he is stupid and made a sacrifice?  Which is it in the "world according to scherzo"?

Which brings me back to my original post..[thank you very much for pretty much taking us back to square one, since that was my original point anyway.]

I said originally

Quote

Actually, from everything I've heard and read about Stevens, he'd actually be the one guy who'd to volunteer  to go into a bad area and try to do the job with limited security.  Not that that would excuse any bad planning/policy, but I don't think you can discount the personality and character of the ambassador himself.  He'd go where no other wo/man would.  I wonder how much he would like his sacrifice being politicized by either side.

You'll note that I said, from everything I've read and heard.  It's an important point in my post.  From what I read, he would be the kind of man to do what was needed for a posting regardless of the danger. From everything I've heard and read, he was a principled man who knew that he was needed at his post and he didn't waiver in that service.  Have you heard something different?  If so, I'd appreciate a link, because I've not seen anything suggesting he had a death wish, or was unstable, or was stupid.  Yet, he did sacrifice his life.  Using your logic, how do we reconcile these things?

Or is there some secret parsing of words you're using here?  Much like politicians who say one thing, knowing they leave one impression, and two days later take it all back, making us look up the definition of "is".

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#17 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 02:12 PM

View PostCait, on 11 October 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

View Postscherzo, on 11 October 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

Quote

And, I'm correcting you assertion that anyone knowingly sacrificing their life has a death wish or is unstable and/or not bright.
Well since I never said "ANYONE" knowingly sacrificing their life is unstable...you're continuing to argue with someone who ain't in the building.

You asserted that Stevens had to be unstable or stupid to make a sacrifice.  So, because he isn't stupid or unstable, he didn't make a sacrifice?  Or he is stupid and made a sacrifice?  Which is it in the "world according to scherzo"?
He would have to be unstable to sacrifice his life under these circumstances. My entire point though(and it really isn't particularly complicated)was he DIDN'T sacrifice his life, and WASN'T unstable. I included a link which clearly indicated his(not all that uncommon)desire to, y'know...live. How that very simple statement of fact generated this bizarre tangent I'll never know

Edited by scherzo, 11 October 2012 - 02:12 PM.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#18 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:13 PM

Quote

He would have to be unstable to sacrifice his life under these circumstances. My entire point though(and it really isn't particularly complicated)was he DIDN'T sacrifice his life, and WASN'T unstable. I included a link which clearly indicated his(not all that uncommon)desire to, y'know...live. How that very simple statement of fact generated this bizarre tangent I'll never know

Which brings me back to what I originally said--again

Quote

Actually, from everything I've heard and read about Stevens, he'd actually be the one guy who'd to volunteer  to go into a bad area and try to do the job with limited security.  Not that that would excuse any bad planning/policy, but I don't think you can discount the personality and character of the ambassador himself.  He'd go where no other wo/man would.  I wonder how much he would like his sacrifice being politicized by either side.

Saying his death wasn't a sacrifice is parsing the word sacrifice pretty thin scherzo.  I take it you mean that his sacrifice should have never been necessary.  That bad leadership "cost" him his life.  That his life was wasted because of bad policy and leadership.  All those are valid points of view, given your politics,  But, none of that is what you said originally.  Actually you are still not coming out and just saying it, I'm saying it for you.

On a personal note, if you find a tangent "bizarre" next time don't engage in it.  My original comments were pretty benign.  All I said was Stevens' character indicated great dedication to his post.  I also said that Stevens' character didn't mitigate any blunder or malfeasance by the Obama Administration.  I'm not even sure why you came back at my comments, but once you did, well, a tangent is what occurs.  It's not particularity bizarre, it's what happens when any of us quotes another member and then engages.  You quoted my original comment and had something to say.  Something, I then responded to.  It's not rocket science.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#19 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:42 PM

View Postscherzo, on 11 October 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

Quote

Quote

Is it really "politicizing" to say this administration has gone well beyond the pale with their blame shifting antics this time?
Yes.  It's really politicizing anything to use a man's good name and his service to America in an attempt to make political points for a particular political party.  That's exactly what politicizing is.
Why are you answering "yes"...to a question you weren't asked?

Quote

However you can certainly make all the points you want about the Administration and its weaknesses and faults. Just don't pretend to know what Stevens was or  wasn't aware of when he took his assignment.  He knew.  He knew it was dangerous.  He knew he was needed there.  End. Of. Story.
This is absurd. No one said he believed his job was a safe one. I corrected your assertion that he sacrificed his life.(which would mean he was both unstable and not terribly bright) Period. My criticism of Team 0bama has nothing to do with him personally anyway, so the drama isn't called for.

Clearly you did ask a question, usually question marks indicate that don't they? As to the ambassador, he knew the country was dangerous but he loved the libyan people and felt they needed him. You don't have to be "unstable" to feel your cause or beleif is worth the risks. Do you beleive our soldiers are unstable too, afterall they are putting their lives on the line daily. People die in unstable areas of the world everday. The middle east has been unstable my entire life. The region is filled with death and destruction and with people willing to risk life and limb to try and help (be it soldiers, ambassadors, civilians, reporters etc...)   Was security inadequate, perhaps it was or perhaps things deteriorate quickly and response time was slow and funding limited. Whatever the case may be, I'd like the assessment to come from people NOT political grandstanding for the cameras and with such a transparent agenda.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#20 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:09 PM

Quote

Saying his death wasn't a sacrifice is parsing the word sacrifice pretty thin scherzo.
Well let's see...my understanding of the word "sacrifice" is, it requires intent on the part of the person making it. Stevens was murdered. I reject the bizarre contention that he knowingly accepted death as the price for holding a dubious diplomatic post. That would be, well...crazy. The irony is, you and Lin seem to think *I'm* the one insulting the man.

It took me a minute...but I get the joke know. 0bama's supporters desperately need people to shut up about his embarrassing Libyan situation. So Chris Stevens' name gets propped up(man my irony meter is getting a workout lately)in a flailing attempt to shame people out of blasting away at an incompetent President. We're all supposed to sit quietly and hope not enough people noticed the clusterf**k to endanger our hero's re-election. Lest we risk diminishing the death of our ambassador. Good luck with that.

Quote

Clearly you did ask a question, usually question marks indicate that don't they?
Clearly *my* question WASN'T answered. Cait followed up her "yes", with an easily countered goofy point I never made. I have no idea why she put my ACTUAL question in a quote box if she couldn't answer it, but I'll leave you to discuss that directly with her.

Quote

As to the ambassador, he knew the country was dangerous but he loved the libyan people and felt they needed him. You don't have to be "unstable" to feel your cause or beleif is worth the risks. Do you beleive our soldiers are unstable too...
:think:

I dunno. This reads like you think I'm calling Chris Stevens unstable, which is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Such a misunderstanding might be excusable...if I hadn't posted this right above you:
"My entire point though(and it really isn't particularly complicated)was he DIDN'T sacrifice his life, and WASN'T unstable"

sooooooooooooooo... :dontgetit:
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Budget Cuts, 2012, Inadequate Diplomatic Security, Benghazi Consulate Attack, Politics

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users