Tea Partiers harassed by IRS?

[sbr]

The insane conspiracy theories here reminded me of another one. A guy I play on-line games with is super-insane-conspiracy-theory-guy.  He comes up with some really outrageous stuff.  Last week he told me that the reason behind the attack, and the reason the Administration didn't do anything to prevent it was that Ambassador Stevens had been implicated in some sort of gun-running scheme.

Anyone else hear anything that could even resemble that?

[Razgovory]

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?

Meri doesn't speak for me.  I imagine mistakes were made somewhere.  There are always mistakes.

There are lots of places currently with a US diplomatic presence that are in dangerous areas.  Would you support withdrawal of those diplomatic assets from countries like Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Mali, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Gaza, and Jerusalem? All these countries have had major civil disturbances recently or are currently in the midst of some kind of civil disturbance.  I imagine there are a bunch more.  I don't remember any calls in Congress to withdraw or limit the movement (and thus effectiveness) of our diplomatic assets in those places.

[11B4V]

The insane conspiracy theories here reminded me of another one. A guy I play on-line games with is super-insane-conspiracy-theory-guy.  He comes up with some really outrageous stuff.  Last week he told me that the reason behind the attack, and the reason the Administration didn't do anything to prevent it was that Ambassador Stevens had been implicated in some sort of gun-running scheme.

Anyone else hear anything that could even resemble that?

What! 

The only gun running "thing" I can think would be the Mexican/border Patrol incident???? What did Stevens have to do with that? I dont know

[Admiral Yi]

Meri doesn't speak for me.  I imagine mistakes were made somewhere.  There are always mistakes.

Nice duck of the question.  I answered yours, answer mine.  Of the decisions we know about, do you disagree with any?

There are lots of places currently with a US diplomatic presence that are in dangerous areas.  Would you support withdrawal of those diplomatic assets from countries like Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Mali, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Gaza, and Jerusalem? All these countries have had major civil disturbances recently or are currently in the midst of some kind of civil disturbance.  I imagine there are a bunch more.  I don't remember any calls in Congress to withdraw or limit the movement (and thus effectiveness) of our diplomatic assets in those places.

Yeah, I think it would be a smart move to pull any remaining diplomatic staff out of Syria. 

[Berkut]

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.

Indeed.

When the security situation becomes so bad that meaningful work cannot be done, then there isn't much point in remaning.

I have never heard anyone claim that such a point had been reached prior to the attack. In fact, the narrative that this was a coordinated attack makes it LESS likely that such a determination would have been made, as opposed to just an attack as a response to generally shitty conditions.

If this was a planned, coordinated attack by terrorists, then saying that we should have withdrawn our ambassador from Beghazi is like saying we should have shut down Logan International, because that is where the 9/11 terrorists got on the plane.

There are plenty of targets out there for terrorists to hit. If not Benghazi, then somewhere else.

The simple reality is that there is no reason to presume that US intelligence and security is so perfect that the bad guys won't get the occasional successful attack off - and absent such a patently ridiculous assumption, it is beyond silly to hold Obama, or even the SoS personally or politically responsible for the failure to stop this particular attack.

You might as well blame Eisenhower for not predicting every single successful German counter-attack after June 6th. In hindsight, every single one could have been predicted, if we assume perfectly competent good guys and perfectly incompetent bad guys.

Now, if you want to show that in this case, there was *exceptional* incompetence, that proper procedures were not followed, or egregious errors in judgement were made that even without the benefit of hindsight we would recognize as errors, then that is different. Of course, that is a much higher bar, and I haven't seen anything that suggests any kind of mistake was made at that level, especially not buy anyone as high up the chain as Clinton or Obama.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

The relevant questions to ask are:
+ At which point does that practice kick in?
+ Is that standard an accurate description of Libya in September 2012?

Right now the US maintains consular offices and emabssies in the following countries: Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Algeria, Sudan and South Sudan, Egypt, Iraq (4 major stations), Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan.  [EDIT: and Yemen!]   I would consider none of those places particularly safer from a security standpoint than Libya c. 9/2012.  I would not be surprised in the least to hear of an attack at the same scale in any of those places. 

[Razgovory]

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.

You know, when you disprove statesmen made by other people, it's a good idea to make sure they said them first.  I'd love to see the quote where Obama or Clinton says "Libya wasnt a cluster fuck at the time".

[The Minsky Moment]

There are plenty of targets out there for terrorists to hit. If not Benghazi, then somewhere else.

For example, I would consider Kenya and Tanzania to be (relatively speaking) safe postings.
Yet those were the sites for the two of worst attacks on US embassies . . .

[OttoVonBismarck]

There was enough forewarning of trouble in Libya that other countries had evacuated diplomatic staff. Comparisons to Kenya or Tanzania (or Berkut's absolutely stupid retard-level comparison to Logan Int'l) simply are not valid. This attack could not have happened "anywhere" because it was carried out by forces that didn't exactly have the ability to plan or carry out an attack in a more stable, secured environment. Nor did they have the immediate resources to do that, if they did, they would have carried out the attack on the more stable and secured environment for the greater impact. I don't think Benghazi is a big thing but it certainly seems there was a clearly and patently obvious deterioration in security that other nations had already responded to and our DoS (at least the higher ups) and probably our intelligence and military intelligence assets either missed or miscategorized, or the top political leadership chose to ignore it.

[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.

You know, when you disprove statesmen made by other people, it's a good idea to make sure they said them first.  I'd love to see the quote where Obama or Clinton says "Libya wasnt a cluster fuck at the time".

Wasnt quoting them in anyway shape or form, stating fact of the general situation in Libya. Did I say Obama/Clinton stated it was or wasnt. No, nice try.

[Razgovory]

Meri doesn't speak for me.  I imagine mistakes were made somewhere.  There are always mistakes.

Nice duck of the question.  I answered yours, answer mine.  Of the decisions we know about, do you disagree with any?

There are lots of places currently with a US diplomatic presence that are in dangerous areas.  Would you support withdrawal of those diplomatic assets from countries like Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Mali, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Gaza, and Jerusalem? All these countries have had major civil disturbances recently or are currently in the midst of some kind of civil disturbance.  I imagine there are a bunch more.  I don't remember any calls in Congress to withdraw or limit the movement (and thus effectiveness) of our diplomatic assets in those places.

Yeah, I think it would be a smart move to pull any remaining diplomatic staff out of Syria. 

I didn't duck your question.  I didn't understand it.  Were there mistakes made?  Yes, I suppose so.  Saying there were no mistakes made ever is setting yourself up to fail.  The difference between a mistake and a misjudgement would seem to be a fine line.  I'm not sure what Meri's point was, so I don't know if I agree with it.

Oh and Yi, I found a list of attacks on US diplomatic missions

27 January 1958    Ankara, Turkey    Bombing in embassy compound[1]    none
26 September 1971    Phnom Penh, Cambodia    Attack on embassy softball game[2]    1
1972    Manila, Philippines    Attack by communist group, Marine guard wounded[3]    none
19 August 1974    Nicosia, Cyprus    Riot outside Embassy; Ambassador and assistant shot by sniper    2
4 August 1975    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia    Japanese Red Army gunmen raid Embassy    none
21 November 1979    Islamabad, Pakistan    Islamist riots destroy Embassy (see 1979 U.S. Embassy Burning in Islamabad)    2
2 December 1979    Tripoli, Libya    Islamist riots destroy Embassy (see 1979 U.S. Embassy Burning in Libya)    none
18 April 1983    Beirut, Lebanon    Islamic Jihad car bomb destroys Embassy (see April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing)    63
12 December 1983    Kuwait City, Kuwait    al-Dawa truck bomb outside Embassy    6
20 September 1984    Beirut, Lebanon    Hezbollah truck bomb outside Embassy    24
November 1984    Bogota, Colombia    Car bomb outside Embassy planted by drug cartel    1
February 1986    Lisbon, Portugal    Popular Forces of 25 April car bomb outside Embassy    none
14 May 1986    Jakarta, Indonesia    Japanese Red Army mortar barrage    none
9 June 1987    Rome, Italy    Japanese Red Army mortar barrage    none
17 September 1989    Bogota, Colombia    RPG fired on Embassy by unknown assailant    none
27 July 1993    Lima, Peru    Car bomb outside Embassy planted by Shining Path    none
13 September 1995    Moscow, Russia    RPG fired on Embassy by unknown assailant    none
21 June 1998    Beirut, Lebanon    RPG fired on Embassy by Hezbollah    none
7 August 1998    Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania    al-Qaeda simultaneously attacks both Embassies with truck bombs (more details)    224
24 April 1999    Yekaterinburg, Russia    Car bomb outside Consulate planted by unknown assailant    none
22 January 2002    Calcutta, India    Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami gunmen attack Consulate    5
14 June 2002    Karachi, Pakistan    al-Qaeda truck bomb detonates outside Consulate (more details)    12
12 October 2002    Denpasar, Indonesia    Consular Office bombed by Jemaah Islamiyah as part of the Bali bombings    none
28 February 2003    Islamabad, Pakistan    Unknown gunmen attack Embassy    2
30 June 2004    Tashkent, Uzbekistan    Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan suicide bomber attacks Embassy    2
6 December 2004    Jeddah, Saudi Arabia    al-Qaeda gunmen raid diplomatic compound    9
2 March 2006    Karachi, Pakistan    Car bomb explodes outside Consulate    2
12 September 2006    Damascus, Syria    Gunmen raid US Embassy    4
12 January 2007    Athens, Greece    RPG Fired at Embassy by Revolutionary Struggle    none
18 March 2008    Sana'a, Yemen    Mortar attack against US Embassy    2
9 July 2008    Istanbul, Turkey    Armed attack against Consulate (more details)    6
17 September 2008    Sana'a, Yemen    Two car bombs outside US embassy in Yemeni capital    16
5 April 2010    Peshawar, Pakistan    An attack near the U.S. Consulate in Peshawar, Pakistan, kills two consulate security guards and at least six others    8
11 September 2012    Cairo, Egypt, Benghazi, Libya, Sana'a    A group of terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya -- killing the U.S. Ambassador, one staff member, and two security contractors. (more details)    4
1 February 2013    Ankara, Turkey    A suicide bomber attacked the American Embassy in the Turkish capital, Ankara, on Friday, detonating himself inside a security entrance to the compound. (more details)    1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

It would seem like a decent amount.

[CountDeMoney]

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.

Particularly when the Libyans wanted no substantial US deployments beyond what could be deployed to the US facility in Tripoli, had specifically requested no US security contractors in their country, e.g., Blackwatertards, that usually provide such protection to US diplomats through BDS and the DoS and Ambassador Stevens wanted a to take a "soft" approach to activity in Libya, which meant keeping a very low security profile.

[Razgovory]

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.

You know, when you disprove statesmen made by other people, it's a good idea to make sure they said them first.  I'd love to see the quote where Obama or Clinton says "Libya wasnt a cluster fuck at the time".

Wasnt quoting them in anyway shape or form, stating fact of the general situation in Libya. Did I say Obama/Clinton stated it was or wasnt. No, nice try.

Then what's the point of proving false what nobody said?

[The Minsky Moment]

There was enough forewarning of trouble in Libya that other countries had evacuated diplomatic staff.

If there was sufficient forewarning, then how come not a single one of armchair experts in Congress and the commentariat came out and advocated the evacuation of the US embassy in Libya at the time?

The British didn't withdraw embassy personnel because of "forewarning of trouble."  They took guys out because an assassination attempt was made on a British minister.  That happened in June, 3 months before the September attack and thus had nothing to do with any warning.

[Razgovory]

There was enough forewarning of trouble in Libya that other countries had evacuated diplomatic staff. Comparisons to Kenya or Tanzania (or Berkut's absolutely stupid retard-level comparison to Logan Int'l) simply are not valid. This attack could not have happened "anywhere" because it was carried out by forces that didn't exactly have the ability to plan or carry out an attack in a more stable, secured environment. Nor did they have the immediate resources to do that, if they did, they would have carried out the attack on the more stable and secured environment for the greater impact. I don't think Benghazi is a big thing but it certainly seems there was a clearly and patently obvious deterioration in security that other nations had already responded to and our DoS (at least the higher ups) and probably our intelligence and military intelligence assets either missed or miscategorized, or the top political leadership chose to ignore it.

It could have happened lots of places.  Both JR and I gave a list of dangerous places.  Are you in favor of cutting and running from over a dozen countries?