Tea Partiers harassed by IRS?

[Razgovory]

So he shouldn't have told anyone about it, or perhaps have a day of mourning?

He should have claimed the appropriate amount of credit.  He was certainly entitled to some.  But not as much as he gave himself.  He referred to himself so many times when he announced bin Laden's death I wanted to vomit.  But that's what narcissists do.

I'm sure you would want to hear Obama's name much more if it was a fuck up, or would you blame the military?  Exactly how many times should he have referred to himself?  Perhaps he should have spoken entirely in the passive.

[Neil]

Spiking the football after bin Laden was whacked.

Wait, do you guys think that spiking the football means that the game is over?

This explains so much about the Bengals...

[sbr]

[11B4V]

I'll ask one more time.  How many men are required to are realistically required to repel such a force?

Your question is irrelevant.

No.  It isn't.  You said

Raz if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove incompetence

Since you failed to answer I'll give an answer:  At least a platoon would be required to reliably hold off such an attack.  The State Department is not a military organization, it doesn't normally have access to military units and it must regularly operate in highly dangerous situations. 

Well, I'm glad you take the security of our ambassador in Libya far more seriously than the DoS. Kudos to you.

If an major attack occurs there is not much they can do.

Oh certainly not. Especially when they requested additional support 

It's agents are fully aware of this, but that's their job.

again 

[11B4V]

Obama is absolutely and genuinely outraged by the IRS thing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584203/obama-irs-targeting-outrageous-if-true/

"This is pretty straightforward," Mr. Obama told reporters. "If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous and there's no place for it."

I'm curious why you post this stuff. Of course he's going to say this, just like any other president in his position is going to. This is not an Obama thing, it's not even a Democrat thing. It's a politician thing. Why act all aggreived by it?

He should be outraged.

or should THIS not be looked into?

[Admiral Yi]

Raz, I think the answer to your question is you don't put diplomatic staff in a position where they will have to fend off an attack by 150 armed men.

BTW, where did you get that 150 figure from?

[11B4V]

Raz, I think the answer to your question is you don't put diplomatic staff in a position where they will have to fend off an attack by 150 armed men.

According to Raz that's their job.

[Jacob]

You're sounding lately, D, about as petty on Obama as I was in the whole '08 to '12 period.

I think that's the issue with Benghazi - people like derSpiess passionately claim that there's a big thing going on, but they can't make the case in a way that makes sense to anyone except hard core Republican partisans.

[crazy canuck]

I have still have no idea what he is on about.  Although to be honest I havent paid much attention.  But it seems one needs to have a particular bent toward conspiracy theory to truly understand his point.

[Razgovory]

Raz, I think the answer to your question is you don't put diplomatic staff in a position where they will have to fend off an attack by 150 armed men.

BTW, where did you get that 150 figure from?

I got the 150 from News Reports.  http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-witnesses-recount-organized-benghazi-attack  Here's an example.

The US tons of diplomatic missions around the world.  Many of them are in dangerous places.  Do you propose we simply withdraw from all of these dangerous countries?

[Admiral Yi]

The US tons of diplomatic missions around the world.  Many of them are in dangerous places.  Do you propose we simply withdraw from all of these dangerous countries?

If you reread my post and focus like a laserbeam, you will see that I did not post we should not put dipolomatic staff in dangerous countries.

[Razgovory]

I'll ask one more time.  How many men are required to are realistically required to repel such a force?

Your question is irrelevant.

No.  It isn't.  You said

Raz if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove incompetence

Since you failed to answer I'll give an answer:  At least a platoon would be required to reliably hold off such an attack.  The State Department is not a military organization, it doesn't normally have access to military units and it must regularly operate in highly dangerous situations. 

Well, I'm glad you take the security of our ambassador in Libya far more seriously than the DoS. Kudos to you.

If an major attack occurs there is not much they can do.

Oh certainly not. Especially when they requested additional support 

It's agents are fully aware of this, but that's their job.

again 

Are you going to say something relevant or are you just going to be trite?  You keep talking about added security that was requested, but refused to say how much security would actually be sufficient.  I suspect it's because you and I both know the same thing.  Adding more security (which would be about five guys) would be unlikely to changed the outcome, so your going on about additional support strikes me as rather moot if not disingenuous.

[Jacob]

 

One interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history is that 39% of them don't actually know where it is. 10% think it's in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/voters-trust-clinton-over-gop-on-benghazi.html

[11B4V]

Here's a CNN timline. Dont know the validity of it.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/politics/irs-timeline/index.html?hpt=po_c1

[Razgovory]

The US tons of diplomatic missions around the world.  Many of them are in dangerous places.  Do you propose we simply withdraw from all of these dangerous countries?

If you reread my post and focus like a laserbeam, you will see that I did not post we should not put dipolomatic staff in dangerous countries.

The only way to guarantee that diplomatic personnel are not put in dangerous places is to withdraw them completely.  Embassies, consulates and diplomatic missions are vulnerable by their very nature.

How would you have avoided this situation, Yi?