airdvr 210 #1 October 16, 2012 Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/clinton-benghazi/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 Quoteshe added, "What I want to avoid is some kind of political gotcha or blame game." Wow...what a sacrifice for the cause...lolPlease don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #2 October 16, 2012 I thought that she shouldn't have taken responsibility for it last month. She was the supervisor. The President is her supervisor. Shit rolls uphill. But I think it right that she took this heat. I look more to her than to the President. I don't think this is the President throwing her under the bus so much as I think this is the Secretary of State wearing it - as she SHOULD. It will stifle this issue for the debates. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #3 October 16, 2012 QuoteI thought that she shouldn't have taken responsibility for it last month. She was the supervisor. The President is her supervisor. Shit rolls uphill. So, then by extension, GWB and Cheney should be in jail along with Scooter Libby? There is a long history of lieutenants falling on swords to protect the king. Don't try to pretend this is anything unique. Also don't think it excuses it or condemns the king any more than any of the other 10,000 times it has happened. Life, however, will go on just fine.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarpeDiem3 0 #4 October 16, 2012 I wonder what Obama promised her in exchange, for removing the heat from his own ass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #5 October 16, 2012 QuoteLife, however, will go on just fine. Not for the 4 people killed in part by an inept State department.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #6 October 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteI thought that she shouldn't have taken responsibility for it last month. She was the supervisor. The President is her supervisor. Shit rolls uphill. So, then by extension, GWB and Cheney should be in jail along with Scooter Libby? There is a long history of lieutenants falling on swords to protect the king. Don't try to pretend this is anything unique. Also don't think it excuses it or condemns the king any more than any of the other 10,000 times it has happened. Life, however, will go on just fine. Then she should resign and by extension, so should Obama? Have you stopped to think about the sheer terror Chris Stevens must have felt when faced with the oncoming mob? There are also reports (which I'm sure if they are true will come out after the election) that they were sodomized before being killed. Oh, we'll, just another bump in the road I guess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #7 October 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteLife, however, will go on just fine. Not for the 4 people killed in part by an inept State department. What pisses me off is the cover up. They claim Stevens never asked for increased security for Benghazi, only for Tripoli. They never got more security for either location. Had they been given the security the asked for in Tripoli, the security detail would have gone with Stevens to Benghazi. Either way, this was a major Fubar and the proper people should be held accountable. The finger pointing makes me want to puke. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #8 October 16, 2012 QuoteHave you stopped to think about the sheer terror Chris Stevens must have felt when faced with the oncoming mob? Do you believe that any member of the State Department posted to any Middle Eastern country isn't fully aware of the possibilities inherent in the job every day? This isn't a post anybody takes lightly. This isn't an outcome anybody takes lightly. It is, however, the nature of the job.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #9 October 16, 2012 Quote It is, however, the nature of the job. Wow, you are just full of cliches today. It is most definitely NOT the nature of the job. US Ambassadors aren't killed on a regular basis. As much as the Barry lovers here don't want to admit, this was a terrorist attack on US soil, killing US citizens, on the 11th anniversary of another terrorist attack. The current administration was caught with their pants down in a critical election cycle. I believe they conjured up the YouTube story hoping the mainstream media would let it slide and it didn't work. They were so not concerned it took almost 2 weeks for anyone in the administration to even get to Bengahzi and start collecting evidence. A full 5 weeks later we have Hillary Clinton making a bold statement about how she should be considered the goat in all of this. Shameful. But what's more shameful is nobody seems to care.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #10 October 16, 2012 I guess you're right. No US Ambassadors ever get killed in the line of duty, especially not in the Middle East. Not something they have to worry about. The Marines stationed at every US Embassy are just for show. http://news.yahoo.com/us-ambassadors-killed-line-duty-113832501.html The ONLY reason they aren't killed more often is the excellent work of the Marines, but no amount of Marines can hold off a determined crowd unafraid of the consequences. This has, unfortunately, been proven more than once.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 October 16, 2012 QuoteSo, then by extension, GWB and Cheney should be in jail along with Scooter Libby? Different circumstance. We're talking mens rea here. Libby did something he wasn't supposed to do. Then lied about it. There was no evil intent on the administration's part. The whole criticism is post hoc. Much less would have been made of this had Clinton said within a few days, "We did not fully appreciate the threat and we regret this failure to provide additional security." Ambassador died. Hindsight leads to conclusions "ergo propter hoc" which may or may not be legitimate. The spin could have stopped then. It didn't. That's my point. It rolls uphill. Take the heat. Move on. Hillary is doing it now, but damage has been done. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #12 October 16, 2012 QuoteIt is, however, the nature of the job. This nature apparently was disregarded. I look at the post about the "cover up." Check out Biden in the debate vis a vis the statement. Biden saying "we did not know they wanted more security" versus sworn testimony a couple of days before. That's a problem. The blaming of the video. Problem. People on this board ran with the "it's the video's fault" theme that was put out there. Figure out what happened. Spin it up. Own up. Move on. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #13 October 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteIt is, however, the nature of the job. This nature apparently was disregarded. Nonsense. There is ALWAYS a Marine unit at US Embassies. How large can be a quibbling point, but to say the inherent danger of the position was disregarded is hogwash.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #14 October 16, 2012 You talk about the inherent danger being part of the job. It's like you blew it off. "He knew what he was getting into." The whole Benghazi situation seems rough. Again, I'm not blaming Obama or Clinton - just that it happened under their watch and that's how it goes. But to say things like he knew the risks, etc., is a sign that such danger must be mitigated. It's like putting out tandems in gusty winds. It's those who know the risks best who have a greater responsibility to do something. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #15 October 16, 2012 Are you suggesting he didn't know the risks? I think that's pretty naive.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #16 October 17, 2012 QuoteAre you suggesting he didn't know the risks? I think that's pretty naive. Yes he did and he begged for more security and didn't get it. That makes Obama complicit in his death. But, that's not the most sickening past. It's that they knew it was a terrorist attack and have tried to cover it up. Don't you think Chris Stevens family and the families of others who died deserve to know the truth of what happened? Wouldn't t you if it was a member of your family? But, instead, they get the bullshit political spin so Obama can get re-elected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #17 October 17, 2012 You seem to have an amazing double standard when it comes to what Presidents knew when and how accountable they should be held for failures of his underlings to communicate.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #18 October 17, 2012 I'll take your attempt to distract from the subject as a concession. This is a political cover-up so Obama can get re-elected. Thanks for at least being honest about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #19 October 17, 2012 This isn't an outcome anybody takes lightly. Obumma didn't seem too upset when he was making the tv circuit. He didn't seem upset enuf to attend his security briefings. He didn't seem upset enuf to meet with heads of state of some of the mid eastern nations... He only seemed to start to get upset about it when he realized people seemed to expect him to be upset.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #20 October 17, 2012 QuoteObumma didn't seem too upset when he was making the tv circuit. He didn't seem upset enuf to attend his security briefings. He didn't seem upset enuf to meet with heads of state of some of the mid eastern nations... He only seemed to start to get upset about it when he realized people seemed to expect him to be upset. I'm guessing you probably didn't, but I'm going to ask anyway... Did you happen to see The White House Correspondents' Dinner broadcast last year?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #21 October 17, 2012 QuoteYou seem to have an amazing double standard when it comes to what Presidents knew when and how accountable they should be held for failures of his underlings to communicate. Obumma wanted people to believe he killed al quida when he killed Osama, so he made up a story about a movie. And you don;'t think that was wrong?If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 October 17, 2012 QuoteAre you suggesting he didn't know the risks? I think that's pretty naive. I'm suggesting he knew the risks. I'm suggesting he knew better than his bosses did. I'm suggesting that he asked for more security because he knew the risks. I'm suggesting that his bosses knew there was risk but did not fully appreciate as he did. Military guys know risk, too. Those Rangers in Somalia were sent in without support. They knew the risks but weren't supported for some reason. Similar situation. I'm not suggesting anyone go to jail for it or anything. Just that those in leadership recognize said leadership when bad stuff happens. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BartsDaddy 7 #23 October 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt is, however, the nature of the job. This nature apparently was disregarded. Nonsense. There is ALWAYS a Marine unit at US Embassies. How large can be a quibbling point, but to say the inherent danger of the position was disregarded is hogwash. How large might be a quibbling factor to you. But i would think that for the ones that lost there lives the differrence between a squad and a battallion means alot. I would think it just might mean the difference of life and death. Although that means; more of the attakers would have been skilled im sure you would have been okay with that. But the four US citizens knew the chance. Your disspicable. Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #24 October 17, 2012 QuoteBut i would think that for the ones that lost there lives the differrence between a squad and a battallion means alot. And you think it's possible to move an additional battalion of Marines into a US Embassy and not create more issues? A battalion. Is that what I heard you say? No. There was no way in hell an additional battalion of Marines was going to be deployed to any US Embassy without much bigger issues in place.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #25 October 17, 2012 How about more than one guarding the ambassador and 2 former Seals who were working as civilian contractors. Do you actually think that was sufficient security to protect an Amrican citizen and a Representative of the President and the Amrican People? The UN Ambassador gets better security than that at theUN Building in NY. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites