Tea Partiers harassed by IRS?

[11B4V]

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

  I bet DoS has a good record over all.

Surely

[CountDeMoney]

I bet DoS has a good record over all.

Surely

11Bravo is such a Star Fleet stooge.  Diplomats have always been pawns of the military.  They've always wanted the Genesis Project for themselves.

[Razgovory]

Okay, I'm thinking.  Know what we know now.  Yes, claiming it was part of a demonstration was wrong.  I don't think it was an off the wall choice at the time, since there were riots in several countries and a great deal of violence.

If you don't mind I'll look at Wiki's page to get a better idea of the time line.

Hiding in the safe room was probably not the best idea, though I doubt they would have fared much better outside it.  It's possible they could have snuck out to the CIA annex a mile away.

Knowing what they did at the time (or least knowing what we think they knew at the time), there doesn't seem to be much they could have done to improve the situation.  I suspect there were smaller errors I don't know about, (you are welcome to bring them up), but I think the ambassador was doomed, and there was little that could be done to save him.  They probably should have dropped the movie angle earlier (but honestly they weren't pushing it that long), though they may have had information that we did not have access to.

Is this satisfactory?

[Admiral Yi]

Yes.

[CountDeMoney]

Yes, claiming it was part of a demonstration was wrong. eventually turned out to be incorrect.

[11B4V]

Who you talking to Raz? Anyone in particular?

So, where we at with this IRS thing. I read they uncovered more targeting. Not just teabagger targeting.

[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.

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

Really?  You didn't say " "Libya wasnt a cluster fuck at the time"?  I was pretty sure you did.  In fact I quoted you down below saying it.  I assumed you were attributing these quotes to Clinton or Obama because I couldn't honestly figure out what you were going on about.  It appear you were creating staw man arguments and then shooting them down with "False"  The "Hurra for Hillary" statement is probably what made me think you were attributing these statements to Hillary and Obama.

You wrote:

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.

[Razgovory]

Yes, claiming it was part of a demonstration was wrong. eventually turned out to be incorrect.

Yi was talking about 20/20 hindsight.  Not fair, but that's what he asked.

[CountDeMoney]

So, where we at with this IRS thing. I read they uncovered more targeting. Not just teabagger targeting.

So it's turned out to be equitable.  Our democracy is safe once more.

[Razgovory]

I don't think asking Yi about adding the additional two or three security guys would reversed the situation is necessary.  I think he will agree with me that this small number of men would still probably have moved to the safe room when attacked with heavy weapons and still died with the building caught on fire.

[Razgovory]

Oh, but a new question occurred to me.  Anyone can answer it.  If Obama had not said the film was a contributing factor and talked about it being a terrorist attack enough to satisfy the GOP, would it have changed the outcome of the election?

[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

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.

I assumed

That's your fault not mine. "Blah blah" or

Blah blah

Would mean I quoted a statement from them.

Every one of those statements were on the situation in Libya that led up to the incident.

The "Hurra for Hillary" statement is probably what made me think you were attributing these statements to Hillary and Obama.

That's your error again. Hillary or BO never stated that. Nor did I put it in quotations

So, we have a misquote, an assumption, and a comprehension error on your part.

Raz Hat Trick of three errors.

[11B4V]

So, where we at with this IRS thing. I read they uncovered more targeting. Not just teabagger targeting.

So it's turned out to be equitable.  Our democracy is safe once more.

Apparently not see my post a few pages back.

[11B4V]

Oh, but a new question occurred to me.  Anyone can answer it.  If Obama had not said the film was a contributing factor and talked about it being a terrorist attack enough to satisfy the GOP, would it have changed the outcome of the election?

Course not

[merithyn]

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.

Wasn't there something floating around showing that there had been something like 17 attacks on US embassies in the past 10 years?