Tea Partiers harassed by IRS?

[The Minsky Moment]

I think it's worthwhile stepping back for a second and looking at the big picture.
The Arab Awakening shattered long-entrenched corrupt systems and set the stage for a struggle of what was to come next.
The US has a big strategic interest in the outcome of that struggle.  And Libya is a key area in transition.
The US was fortunate enough to have in country an incredibly valuable asset - an ambassador who was highly respected by key factions and who therefore could exert US soft power to influence events in the favor of American strategic interest.
Only problem is that the value of that asset depended on the US ability to keep him in country, and Libya was not a stable country.

This was not an unusual situation.  State Department all the time has to balance security risks - which are commonplace and endemic in many places where it operates.  Being a consular officer can be a dangerous job even if it doesn't involve wearing a uniform and toting a weapon.  So at any given time, State is having to make hundreds of judgment calls about balancing its mission against security concerns, given the resources allocated to it.

With that background, IMO the claim that ex ante the US should have pulled out of Libya is ludicrous.  This was a critical mission.  I can't see any basis for arguing that it was unreasonable to continue the mission despite the risks as then known and understood.  And I note that there was no contemporaneous advocacy for pulling the US diplo mission out of Libya.  It is 100% pure 20/20 hindsight to say otherwise.

[Razgovory]

You're going to question the judgement of the ambassador on the ground, when he's the one calling the shots?

You're talking about the guy who begged for more security personnel?   

Question:  Do you think it likely that an addition couple of guys would have been able to fare any better then the two that were already there?

[Valmy]

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

I am sure they do heed warnings but we have been on high alert for 10+ years now and we get warnings all the time.  Sometimes you just blow it and AQ and company gets a hit in.  I bet DoS has a good record over all.

[11B4V]

No I don't disagree, 11B4V.  In fact I don't think anyone thought of Libya as that safe a place.  So you saying "Libya wasnt a cluster fuck at the time.-False" is rather disingenuous.


What would you have done with the Benghazi diplomatic mission.  How would you have prevented this tragedy.  We have lots of places in similar dangerous situations.  Perhaps they can take your advice.

Hell, according to you, they're expendable. It's theeir job...right.

You've been dodging all day.  You going to be straight with me or what?

No I havent and you're first sentance is false.

As we say in Govmint service,  "Above my pay grade".

Where you been? In a basement or something.

Look if you want to just dick around, fine.  Why don't you go play while the adults are talking, okay?

Not "dicking around". You have misquoted me at least once on purpose. Because, I know you're not that dumb, so who's playing games?

[Admiral Yi]

Question:  Do you think it likely that an addition couple of guys would have been able to fare any better then the two that were already there?

You don't answer my questions, why should I answer yours?

[CountDeMoney]

You're talking about the guy who begged for more security personnel?   

No shit. Damn Seedy, missed that one bro.   

Not really.  I wouldn't call his requests for the Libyans to get their shit together as "begging".  And his requests for his detail was to raise the number of members from 5 to 8.  Not what I'd call a substantial force multiplier.

[The Minsky Moment]

Only a small subsection of Congress receives daily security briefings, and theirs are not as in depth as the President's. Nor are they as in depth as the lower level briefings that would be seen at State or DoD, nor is it the job of Congress to make executive calls. Any other stupid questions?

Now that we've answered those, there were known security concerns in Libya. It's mentioned in every report about Benghazi and is contested by no one.

Pretty impressive to contradict yourself in the space of 3 sentences.

Of course your second statement is the correct one - the security concerns in Libya were well known by everyone.  They were not the subject of top secret, exclusive high priority briefings to the President.  Nor did they require any particular degree of depth and specificity to understand.  Any interested member of Congress, including the supervising committees and their staff, knew and had full access to the relevant facts.   Any of the press either in country or out of country but reporting on it had access to the same facts reported in the consular briefings.  Given the reporting of the June assassination attempts and other stories about Libyan militias and general instability, even the general public has access to all required facts for making a judgment.

The real answer to my question is:
1.  No one at the time thought it important enough to question
2.  Everyone at the time treated the decision to keep the mission in place a routine judgment call of the sort State makes all the time.

[Razgovory]

Question:  Do you think it likely that an addition couple of guys would have been able to fare any better then the two that were already there?

You don't answer my questions, why should I answer yours?

I did answer your question, at least to best of my ability!  Is there another question I didn't answer?

[Razgovory]

Not "dicking around". You have misquoted me at least once on purpose. Because, I know you're not that dumb, so who's playing games?

I did?  Cite.

[The Minsky Moment]

You're going to question the judgement of the ambassador on the ground, when he's the one calling the shots?

You're talking about the guy who begged for more security personnel?   

That's a stronger argument then the one that the US should have pulled out altogether.
But not by much.

State only has so many resources to dedicate to security and a lot of bases to cover.  They can draw on other resources for short periods under extraordinary causes and in fact did so at various times in Libya.  But the requests for bolstered security by the Libyan mission happened continuaally over a period of about a year and a half.  The documents show that State did "surge" up the security for months at a time.  But that could not be maintained indefinitely. 3 extra guys from Stevens would have meant 3 less guys somewhere else (not to mention 3 more likely dead Americans since Seedy is right it wouldn't have been close to enough)

Of course one solution to this problem would have been for Congress to allocate greater resources to consular security.  20/20 hindsight and all that.

[Admiral Yi]

I did answer your question, at least to best of my ability!  Is there another question I didn't answer?

You ducked it.  I will repeat: given what we know now, do you disagree with any of the decisions that were made?

[Razgovory]

I did answer your question, at least to best of my ability!  Is there another question I didn't answer?

You ducked it.  I will repeat: given what we know now, do you disagree with any of the decisions that were made?

Now that's a different question!  It's still vague, though.  Could you narrow it down a little bit?  Which sort of decisions?  Decisions concerning the attack, the response, what?  I'm not messing with you here, you are asking a question about a situation covering a period of like six months.  I'm trying to think of everything said in that time period.

[CountDeMoney]

Of course one solution to this problem would have been for Congress to allocate greater resources to consular security.  20/20 hindsight and all that.

Dan Issa doesn't see it that way.

[Admiral Yi]

Now that's a different question!  It's still vague, though.  Could you narrow it down a little bit?  Which sort of decisions?  Decisions concerning the attack, the response, what?  I'm not messing with you here, you are asking a question about a situation covering a period of like six months.  I'm trying to think of everything said in that time period.

Leave out what the ambassador ate for breakfast and include everything else.

[11B4V]

Not "dicking around". You have misquoted me at least once on purpose. Because, I know you're not that dumb, so who's playing games?

I did?  Cite.

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".

Misquote