Tea Partiers harassed by IRS?

[Admiral Yi]

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

And what are the numbers for those who think it's nothing?

[Razgovory]

Hey 11B4V, My question for Yi can apply for to you.  How exactly would you have prevented this Benghazi thing?

[Razgovory]

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

I would have thought Clinton murdering all those people would be a bigger scandal.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

And yet if we examine history we find that the times a US diplomat has been attacked by a large group of armed men is rather limited.

How would you have avoided this situation, Yi?

With perfect hindsight I would have held off appointing an ambassador and/or limited his movement around the country until the security situation had improved.

Meri claimed that *everyone* agrees mistakes were made.  Does that include you?  Were there any decisions you don't agree with?

[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 

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.

So by your logic we should have just left them to fend for themselves?

Libya wasnt a cluster fuck at the time.-False

There were no known elements of AQ operating in Libya.-False

There was no recent prior attacks on US posts in Libya.-False

Heightened security equaled +2 guys.-True (Hurrra for Hillary)

The British ambassador to Libya didnt survive an assassination attempt in Benghazi on June 10.-False

The British Foreign Office didnt withdrew all consular staff from Benghazi in late June, because there was no threat.-False

There were Marines there to protect the US Diplomatic Mission in Libya on 9/11/12.-False.

[Jacob]

With perfect hindsight I would have held off appointing an ambassador and/or limited his movement around the country until the security situation had improved.

Not appointing an ambassador? Seems awfully timid.

[Admiral Yi]

Not appointing an ambassador? Seems awfully timid.

Well I think that's really the meat of the criticism of Obama.  Here's the Arab Spring, we helped off Kaddafi, everyone loves us, we reset Muslim relations.  So we just have to show up and everything will be cool.  Well we showed up and everything wasn't cool.

[sbr]

The Benghazi nutters seem to be debating against positions that I haven't seen anyone other than other Benghazi nutters put forward.

[11B4V]

Hey 11B4V, My question for Yi can apply for to you.  How exactly would you have prevented this Benghazi thing?

American diplomats were warned of possible violent unrest in Benghazi three days before the killings of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three members of his team, Libyan security officials say.

The claim came as the country's interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, said his government had information that the attack on the US consulate had been planned by an Islamist group with links to al-Qa'ida and with foreigners taking part

A senior official of the biggest militia in Benghazi, the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he had warned US diplomats of a rapidly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi three days before the attack. "The situation is frightening, it scares us," he said he had stressed during the meeting. Mr Stevens had been back in Libya for only a short time before US security officials decided it would be safe to make the journey to Benghazi during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The British consulate in the city was shut after an ambush of a convoy carrying Dominic Asquith, the UK ambassador, in which his bodyguard were injured. The UN and International Committee of the Red Cross offices had been bombed and there had been a spate of political assassinations.

You really have to ask that Raz? WTF

[Valmy]

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

And what are the numbers for those who think it's nothing?

I would sure hope it is higher than the number of people who think this is a big deal.  If you are well enough informed to declare it makes the US Grant Administration appear scandal-free perhaps you should at least know the barest of facts.

[11B4V]

The Benghazi nutters seem to be debating against positions that I haven't seen anyone other than other Benghazi nutters put forward.

The Brits seemed to have made the prudent move, eh.

[The Minsky Moment]

With perfect hindsight I would have held off appointing an ambassador and/or limited his movement around the country until the security situation had improved.

With perfect hindsight, this would have been very easy to avoid with a simple change in schedule.
Of course, perfect hindsight never exists so it is a useless standard for judging decisions ex ante.

IMO it is a terrible idea to condition consular representation in a country based on a stable security situation.  That would require removing embassies and consular offices from a number of places.  But more importantly, the places where security can be dicey are often the same places where having consular officers on site has the biggest potential impact. 

Simple fact is that diplomatic representation abroad has always involved certain risks and dangers and always will.

[Valmy]

So by your logic we should have just left them to fend for themselves?

Libya wasnt a cluster fuck at the time.-False

There were no known elements of AQ operating in Libya.-False

There was no recent prior attacks on US posts in Libya.-False

Heightened security equaled +2 guys.-True (Hurrra for Hillary)

The British ambassador to Libya didnt survive an assassination attempt in Benghazi on June 10.-False

The British Foreign Office didnt withdrew all consular staff from Benghazi in late June, because there was no threat.-False

There were Marines there to protect the US Diplomatic Mission in Libya on 9/11/12.-False.

Yeah?  And there were like a zillion warnings about the 9/11 attack.  Sometimes they just get you, the Feds are not infallible....which should shock nobody.  I can see being annoyed at Obama and company for screwing up and wanting to investigate and follow through but the outrage is total bullshit, and completely false and manufactured and makes the Partisan Republicans who engage in it look like hyperbolic delusional idiots.  That may be what they are going for though, they have been cultivating that image for years now.

[Admiral Yi]

IMO it is a terrible idea to condition consular representation in a country based on a stable security situation.  That would require removing embassies and consular offices from a number of places. 

And yet it seems to be standard practice to withdraw diplomatic staff when the security situation in a country deteriorates to a certain point.

[11B4V]

So by your logic we should have just left them to fend for themselves?

Libya wasnt a cluster fuck at the time.-False

There were no known elements of AQ operating in Libya.-False

There was no recent prior attacks on US posts in Libya.-False

Heightened security equaled +2 guys.-True (Hurrra for Hillary)

The British ambassador to Libya didnt survive an assassination attempt in Benghazi on June 10.-False

The British Foreign Office didnt withdrew all consular staff from Benghazi in late June, because there was no threat.-False

There were Marines there to protect the US Diplomatic Mission in Libya on 9/11/12.-False.

Yeah?  And there were like a zillion warnings about the 9/11 attack.   

What does it take to heed the warnings, what 10 or so years after 9/11. Complacency on the part of DoS.

but the outrage is total bullshit, and completely false and manufactured and makes the Partisan Republicans who engage in it look like hyperbolic delusional idiots. 

This I can agree with.