• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

pbrauer said:
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.
Click to expand...

If Romney would have done ANYthing, he would have done better.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Perotista said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

Seriously, that's just nonsense. The President, the Secretary of State, the Director of the CIA, the Secretary of Defense, none of them thought enough of Ambassador Stevens to try to save him and the men on the ground trying to protect him yet you want us to believe that they thought so highly of him after he died that they wanted to save him from a little embarrassment?

Obama throws more people under the bus on a daily basis than Joey Chestnut eats hotdogs.

The left's constant attempts to justify Obama's disasterous presidency and administration is laughable.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Seriously, that's just nonsense. The President, the Secretary of State, the Director of the CIA, the Secretary of Defense, none of them thought enough of Ambassador Stevens to try to save him and the men on the ground trying to protect him yet you want us to believe that they thought so highly of him after he died that they wanted to save him from a little embarrassment?

Obama throws more people under the bus on a daily basis than Joey Chestnut eats hotdogs.

The left's constant attempts to justify Obama's disasterous presidency and administration is laughable.
Click to expand...

Mornin CJ. :2wave: Well we weren't confused that Stevens asked for the 16 man team to stay on until Sept. Nor about his communications for the month of August as well as Sept. I doubt Lt Col Wood would testify that Stevens fought against the loss of the team. Plus Nordstrom's email showed they couldn't even operate for a 10 day period due to having only 2 Security Personnel. Which was Right for the Beginning of Sept.
 
MMC said:
Mornin CJ. :2wave: Well we weren't confused that Stevens asked for the 16 man team to stay on until Sept. Nor about his communications for the month of August as well as Sept. I doubt Lt Col Wood would testify that Stevens fought against the loss of the team. Plus Nordstrom's email showed they couldn't even operate for a 10 day period due to having only 2 Security Personnel. Which was Right for the Beginning of Sept.
Click to expand...

Good morning to you as well MMC - off for my morning McD's coffee - take care and have fun.
 
pbrauer said:
there were 7 members from state and 23 from the CIA.
Click to expand...

So under Obama the long held responsibillity of the State Dept to deal with embassy's all over the world can change based on the outcome of terro attacks ?

There was a CIA presence, obvioisly because Obama was using Benghazi as a go between so he could arm Syrian Rebels. You know, the one's who have direct ties to Al Qaeda.

It's his Iran-Contra
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I don't think so, especially for a secret CIA mission.
Click to expand...

Yea right Gimme.

Wouldn't it be easier for Obama to just come out and SAY this was a CIA mission gone South ?

With Assad gassing the rebels who would complain ?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, the second attack, the one under discussion, was a CIA mission
that did indeed "go south".
Click to expand...


No, no. Since it all was a "secret CIA mission" why didn't Obama from the beggining, instead of concocting some BS story about a youtube Video, just explain to the American people that we were trying to help the poor rebels fight Assad ?

You guys keep reverting back to the narrative that the CIA had some sort of authority over the situation, that they changed the talking points and stopped reinforcments.

It would be " believable " compared to the silly lie over a video.
 
Fenton said:
No, no. Since it all was a "secret CIA mission"
Click to expand...
This is a perfect example of why I don't bother responding to you any longer, you continue to take a specific point and then expand it out to some unrelated points and then claim it doesn't apply. Of course it doesn't apply because I never said it does. You take one thing and transfer it to something YOU want to talk about. It doesn't work like that. So if you want to debate with me, then stick to the point made, don't start conflating and expanding it out beyond the context.

I never said "it was all", my point was specific to the second attack, not Assad, not the video....not anything else in your feeble imagination.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Throwing Stevens under the bus for his own death would not help, even though it is clearly true that even leaving the Tripoli Embassy was a huge security risk regardless of any other facts.

Most Ambassadors are kept on a tighter security leash by State, but Stevens was so well respected, he was allowed much greater leeway.

No one wants to say it, and I don't blame them, it would sound political, it would sound like blaming the dead, but it is true, Stevens put himself in harms way in Benghazi and was under no obligation to do so.

We will not see this assertion coming from the WH or the GOP witch hunters even though it is true. I think the GOP is trying to push the WH into saying something like this, knowing it is true, and knowing how bad this truth will sound politically.
 
Jack Hays said:
You may believe what you find most convenient.
Click to expand...
Jack Hays said:
Whatever they may have been doing, they were Americans in country under the US Chief of Mission's authority. They would have expected help to be on the way.
Click to expand...
If you want to document CIA operatives/agents expecting rescues by US military when operating in sovereign states, go for it. Otherwise, you are simply going for irrational emotion based rhetoric.

PS, again, we are discussing the attack on the CIA operation, not the attack on Stevens compound, so your US chief of missions argument does not apply.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
If you want to document CIA operatives/agents expecting rescues by US military when operating in sovereign states, go for it. Otherwise, you are simply going for irrational emotion based rhetoric.

PS, again, we are discussing the attack on the CIA operation, not the attack on Stevens compound, so your US chief of missions argument does not apply.
Click to expand...

All official Americans, of all agencies and all duties, are under the authority of the Chief of Mission.:cool:

“Country teams” in embassies are made up of key figures from the State Department and other agencies who work under the direction of the ambassador and meet regularly to share information and coordinate their actions. This practice has been followed since May 29, 1961, when President John F. Kennedy wrote to all U.S. chiefs of mission saying, “You are in charge of the entire United States Diplomatic Mission and I shall expect you to supervise all of its operations. The Mission includes not only the personnel of the Department of State and the Foreign Service, but also the representatives of all other United States agencies which have programs or activities in [your country].”
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
All official Americans, of all agencies and all duties, are under the authority of the Chief of Mission.:cool:
Click to expand...
Show me that they are in authoritative charge of CIA secret operations.
 
Did ya'll see Dan Pfeiffer doing the full Sunday Susan Rice today.
Yeah ... he's honest ... uh huh.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Show me that they are in authoritative charge of CIA secret operations.
Click to expand...

“Country teams” in embassies are made up of key figures from the State Department and other agencies who work under the direction of the ambassador and meet regularly to share information and coordinate their actions. This practice has been followed since May 29, 1961, when President John F. Kennedy wrote to all U.S. chiefs of mission saying, “You are in charge of the entire United States Diplomatic Mission and I shall expect you to supervise all of its operations. The Mission includes not only the personnel of the Department of State and the Foreign Service, but also the representatives of all other United States agencies which have programs or activities in [your country].”:hm
 
Jack Hays said:
“Country teams” in embassies ....
Click to expand...
And again, as I tried to make clear to you previously, you were and still are conflating the Steven compound with the CIA compound, they are 2 two different installations, 1.2 miles apart, with separate operations and commands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom