Page 18 of 28 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 273

Thread: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

  1. #171
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    That doesn't gve him authority to issue orders to military units!...LOL!!!

    Because his BOSS is in-****ing-charge!
    You don't know what was going on there, there was a secret CIA operation there.

  2. #172
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,475

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    There you go, Stevens was "incompetent" too, you were trapped by your own silly logic.
    You're the one blaming a dead man vice the guy in charge...LOL!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #173
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    maureen dowd, a week ago tomorrow:

    The administration’s behavior before and during the attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans died, was unworthy of the greatest power on earth.

    After his Libyan intervention, President Obama knew he was sending diplomats and their protectors into a country that was no longer a country, a land rife with fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda.

    Yet in this hottest of hot spots, the State Department’s minimum security requirements were not met, requests for more security were rejected, and contingency plans were not drawn up, despite the portentous date of 9/11 and cascading warnings from the C.I.A., which had more personnel in Benghazi than State did and vetted the feckless Libyan Praetorian Guard. When the Pentagon called an elite Special Forces team three hours into the attack, it was training in Croatia — decidedly not a hot spot.

    Hillary Clinton and Ambassador Chris Stevens were rushing to make the flimsy Benghazi post permanent as a sign of good faith with Libyans, even as it sat ringed by enemies.

    The hierarchies at State and Defense had a plodding response, failing to make any superhuman effort as the siege waxed and waned over eight hours.

    In an emotional Senate hearing on Wednesday, Stevens’s second-in-command, Gregory Hicks, who was frantically trying to help from 600 miles away in Tripoli, described how his pleas were denied by military brass, who said they could not scramble planes and who gave a “stand-down” order to four Special Forces officers in Tripoli who were eager to race to Benghazi.

    The defense secretary at the time, Leon Panetta, insisted, “We quickly responded.” But they responded that they would not respond. As Emma Roller and David Weigel wrote in Slate: “The die was cast long before the attack, by the weak security at the consulate, and commanders may have decided to cut their losses rather than risking more casualties. And that isn’t a story anyone prefers to tell.”

    Prepared talking points about the attack included mentions of Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan militant group, but the State Department got those references struck. Foggy Bottom’s spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, a former Cheney aide, quashed a we-told-you-so paragraph written by the C.I.A. that said the spy agency had “produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to Al Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya,” and had warned about five other attacks “against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British ambassador’s convoy.”

    Nuland fretted about “my building leadership,” and with backing from Ben Rhodes, a top White House aide, lobbied to remove those reminders from the talking points because they “could be abused by members” of Congress “to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?”

    Hicks said that Beth Jones, an under secretary of state, bristled when he asked ask her why Susan Rice had stressed the protest over an anti-Muslim video rather than a premeditated attack — a Sunday show marathon that he said made his jaw drop. He believes he was demoted because he spoke up.

    Hillary’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, also called Hicks to angrily ask why a State Department lawyer had not been allowed to monitor every meeting in Libya with Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who visited in October. (The lawyer did not have the proper security clearance for one meeting.) Hicks said he had never before been scolded for talking to a lawmaker.

    All the factions wove their own mythologies at the expense of our deepest national mythology: that if there is anything, no matter how unlikely or difficult, that we can do to try to save the lives of Americans who have volunteered for dangerous assignments, we must do it.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/op...ital.html?_r=0

    hey, at least according to the white house they were just being stupid instead of corrupt

    why didn't foggy bottom at least convene the csg?

  4. #174
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    you'd have had to be there before the poster edited out HIS idiocy

    because if an administration's best defense for multiple failures resulting in the death of a us ambassador and 3 other brave americans is incompetence...

    what could you possibly be protecting
    I didn't edit my comment because I thought Romney would do a better job, I edited it out because the circumstances may not have been there same. If they were, Romney would not have done better, IMO.

  5. #175
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,475

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    You don't know what was going on there, there was a secret CIA operation there.
    So, is that the newest excuse to sit back and do nothing while four Americans were murdered by terrorists?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #176
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,475

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    I didn't edit my comment because I thought Romney would do a better job, I edited it out because the circumstances may not have been there same. If they were, Romney would not have done better, IMO.
    If Romney would have done ANYthing, he would have done better.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #177
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    I didn't edit my comment because I thought...
    no one cares, grow up

    the fact, however, that the white house is actively advertising its own idiocy as an explanation for all that went wrong...

    why was in-extremis in croatia?

    on 9-11?

    White House officials on Benghazi: We're the idiots - CBS News

  8. #178
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,328

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    maureen dowd, a week ago tomorrow:



    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/op...ital.html?_r=0

    hey, at least according to the white house they were just being stupid instead of corrupt

    why didn't foggy bottom at least convene the csg?



    Obammy, Shatterer of Our Innermost Psyche....................You should shortly be getting a 7 figure job offer from someone's "Ministry of Spew"..................

  9. #179
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    All of what you say could very well be true. However, if it is, it begs the question why the administration hasn't made this point in the previous eight months as well as in the congressional hearings and in White House press conferences. Why has the State Department and Hillary Clinton and others suggested that it was a Republican congress that cut State Department security funding that was the cause for lax security in Libya in general and Benghazi in particular.

    Additionally, it does not excuse the continued need to mislead the public about the known details of what happened that night.
    What person in authority - be it the President, the Secretary of State, the Director of the CIA or the Secretary of Defense - wants to state publically that a U.S. Ambassador refused added security to save face not for himself or his country, but the country towhich he was assigned to broker foreign policy affairs? Would that make sense to most people? Not likely.

  10. #180
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    This in a way confirms what I have already said. The State Department does not like having a bunch of military around to provide security. It detracts from their stated mission of diplomacy. With the popularity of Stevens with the Libyan government, I don't think he would have had a problem getting their approval. If you ever worked in an Embassy or for State, diplomats can be the most hard headed individuals. They will take huge risks to accomplish what is their mission. Some would call this dedication, other foolhardiness. I have stated before it would have taken a direct order from either Secretary Clinton or President Obama for Stevens to accept the addition U.S. military security.

    Also much like the military chain of command where high ranking commanders will usually defer to the commander on the ground as is there and knows what is going on, has a feel for the situation that those above do not. I assume this is much the same.
    Kinda reminds me of DEA agents or undercover cops. All are loyal to their cause even if it means taking extraordinary risks to accomplish their mission.

Page 18 of 28 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •