big GOP masturbatory thread over Hillary's testimony today

[Admiral Yi]

I think you need some evidence of negligence to assume that people were negligent, don't you?

I think if there was no negligence people shouldn't get fired for negligence, should they?

[The Minsky Moment]

I think you need some evidence of negligence to assume that people were negligent, don't you?

I think if there was no negligence people shouldn't get fired for negligence, should they?

I agree.  That's would should happen.  But what should happen and what does happen are two different things.
The other question to be asked is exactly what kind of negligence are we talking about here and is it really the same as what derspeiss is talking about.

[Sheilbh]

I think if there was no negligence people shouldn't get fired for negligence, should they?

What's the details of the firings?

[Admiral Yi]

What's the details of the firings?

Don't have any.

If you're questioning my judgement that they were sacked as scapegoats for Benghazigate, question away.  I'm not going to be able to produce a memo Dan Rather-style with Hillary or Barry's signature on it.  The media definitely presented their resignations/firings as Benghazi-related.

[Sheilbh]

Sensitive

I just wanted some articles on it, because I don't know the story. I'm not sure who was fired or whether it was for negligence and if so what type of negligence, because I'm not sure that we're necessarily talking about the same things.

As you point out, however, they could well have been scapegoats. I think that happens in all sorts of organisations in the face of media criticism, maybe more in politics than elsewhere - which is wrong, but common. I imagine a bit more common in the US than here because you've not got the same type of civil service.

[jimmy olsen]

How do we even know that John Stevens was right about security?  He was an ambassador, not a security chief.  For all we know, he was wrong in his assessment and just got lucky with events.

It's like life insurance. The companies know the odds as to how long you will live overall, but in each individual case they could easily be wrong. The fact that the life insurance company sold a 30 year old guy in good health (but with premonition of death based on dreams) life insurance on a tuesday, and he was hit on the head with an anvil accidentally dropped out of an apartment building  on friday, doesn't mean that the insurance company's predictions based on actuarial tables are full of shit and they were negligent to rely on them rather than on dreams and premonitions. Right?

Depends on how often that kind of thing happens doesn't it? 

[Admiral Yi]

@Shelf:

I think people usually interpret scapegoat firings as evidence that the accusation has *some* merit.

There was a very good example of a firing gone bad last year in the Department of Agriculture.  I'm talking about the black lady that got Breitbarted and forced to resign before all the facts had come to light.  Once they had, the Secretary (a former governor of Iowa) had to bend over backwards and apologize profusely. 

A nice little conspiracy theory that would explain the facts is if all the resigners were Clinton loyalists who figured they were out the door anyway when Lurch came in, and figured they could gain points with the queen bee if they were to take the fall now.  Even under that theory though, one would think that someone somewhere would realize the resignations would be interpreted by the public as at least a partial admission of guilt.

On the issue of differences between youse guys and our guys, there's a much thicker level of political appointees at the top of our bureacracy who are in line to take a fall for political damage control purposes.

[Jacob]

I still don't understand the substance of this alleged "scandal".

[Sheilbh]

There was a very good example of a firing gone bad last year in the Department of Agriculture.  I'm talking about the black lady that got Breitbarted and forced to resign before all the facts had come to light.  Once they had, the Secretary (a former governor of Iowa) had to bend over backwards and apologize profusely. 

A firing gone bad because more details came out. But she was still fired, on very few facts, because of controversy and a media storm not due to any failings. And I bet she told the Secretary the real story, I think chances are he believed her, but without evidence in the public sphere the damage control provided by her firing mattered more.

A nice little conspiracy theory that would explain the facts is if all the resigners were Clinton loyalists who figured they were out the door anyway when Lurch came in, and figured they could gain points with the queen bee if they were to take the fall now.  Even under that theory though, one would think that someone somewhere would realize the resignations would be interpreted by the public as at least a partial admission of guilt.

Lovely. But I just want you to link me to an article about the firings so I know what we're talking about

On the issue of differences between youse guys and our guys, there's a much thicker level of political appointees at the top of our bureacracy who are in line to take a fall for political damage control purposes.

Yeah and there's an independent civil service here, my understanding is that political appointees can't fire civil servants. So who was fired is relevant.

[Admiral Yi]

I still don't understand the substance of this alleged "scandal".

1.  Was it a fuckup to send an ambassador into Libya with only two bodyguards?

2.  Did Susan Rice say that the attack on the ambassador grew spontaneously out of street protests over the Mohammed video in an effort to minimize political damage to Obama on the eve of the election?

[Admiral Yi]

Lovely. But I just want you to link me to an article about the firings so I know what we're talking about

I don't have a link to any articles on the topic.

[Sheilbh]

This is the best I can do:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/19/benghazi-resignations-begin.html
Doesn't seem to indicate negligence - as opposed perhaps to incompetence - and the people who resigned were appointees, which to me indicates more politics/scapegoating.

[The Minsky Moment]

If you're questioning my judgement that they were sacked as scapegoats for Benghazigate, question away. 

I agree they were sacked as scapegoats.  But that is in tension with the "negligence" explanation

1.  Was it a fuckup to send an ambassador into Libya with only two bodyguards?

Could have been if that had happened.
In fact there were a couple dozen bodyguards in Libya, and 5 in Benghazi at the time the attacks happened, , including 2 that came over from Tripoli with Stevens.
Incidentally the number of DS people requested also happened to be 5.
Stevens did request more security in August but he requested it for Tripoli not Benghazi.  The ARB report actually takes a poke at him for this and implies he didn't push hard enough for more security for Benghazi.  I think that is unfair but there you go.
The documents give a rather different picture than what seems to exist in the minds of the GOP senators or derspeiss here.  Staffing levels of diplo security at Benghazi were discussed in emails and the lack of resources specifically raised as a key obstacle . . .

[CountDeMoney]

1.  Was it a fuckup to send an ambassador into Libya with only two bodyguards?

Could have been if that had happened.
In fact there were a couple dozen bodyguards in Libya, and 5 in Benghazi at the time the attacks happened, , including 2 that came over from Tripoli with Stevens.
Incidentally the number of DS people requested also happened to be 5.
Stevens did request more security in August but he requested it for Tripoli not Benghazi.  The ARB report actually takes a poke at him for this and implies he didn't push hard enough for more security for Benghazi.  I think that is unfair but there you go.
The documents give a rather different picture than what seems to exist in the minds of the GOP senators or derspeiss here.  Staffing levels of diplo security at Benghazi were discussed in emails and the lack of resources specifically raised as a key obstacle . . .

And in the end, just like any other executive protection model from CEOs on down, the Ambassador always has the final say on his personal detail, practical or not.  Stevens was also on record as wanting as low a profile as possible for his own detail that traveled with him, including his sojourns outside Tripoli.

Hindsight and all that, it may have not been wise, and Congress may have wanted him bristling with a security entourage that rivals the President's, but Congress doesn't make that call: the Ambassador does.

[Admiral Yi]

I agree they were sacked as scapegoats.  But that is in tension with the "negligence" explanation

How so?