Tea Partiers harassed by IRS?

[Admiral Yi]

No the big can of worms is of we'd have to pull out of lots of places.  In the last 10 years the US has diplomatic missions have been attacked in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Greece, Yemen, Turkey, Egypt, and Libya.

http://languish.org/forums/index.php?action=post;topic=9814.630;last_msg=585200

Those are just the ones with major attacks.  Smaller attacks aren't always counted here (the minor attacks that constituted the warning signs in Libya aren't mentioned), and certainly more places are under threat then those that have had major attacks.

Like I mentioned before, you'd have to throw Reagan under the bus for the same incompetence (along with pretty much every President in US history), because the US embassy in Lebanon was attacked by a suicide bomber in both 1983 and 1984 not to mention a marines barracks.

We would have to?  We would be compelled to?  No other choice?

What countries were the Brits compelled to withdraw from after leaving Benghazi?

What Prime Ministers were they compelled to throw under the bus?

[Razgovory]

Yes, you would be have to throw every president under the bus as well be compelled to do so because you have no other choice.  Unless you have some sort of way of knowing which attacks are preludes to further catastrophic attacks and which ones are not.

You may be confused, I'm talking about the US not the UK.  I'm not familiar with all the attacks on UK diplomatic staff, are you? Or are you suggesting that the policy of the US should be to flee whenever the Brit do.

[Berkut]

The issue here Yi is that it isn't fair play to single out Libya after the fact and say we should have withdrawn BEFORE the attack unless you are willing to apply the same criteria to places not called Libya but that have largely similar security concerns as Libya prior to the attack.

So no, we would not be compelled to - but if we do not pull out of location A due to security concerns Z, then why pull out of location B due to security concerns Z?

[Admiral Yi]

The issue here Yi is that it isn't fair play to single out Libya after the fact and say we should have withdrawn BEFORE the attack unless you are willing to apply the same criteria to places not called Libya but that have largely similar security concerns as Libya prior to the attack.

So no, we would not be compelled to - but if we do not pull out of location A due to security concerns Z, then why pull out of location B due to security concerns Z?

I agree.  The disagreement is that I don't see many other countries that have largely similar security concerns as Libya prior to the attack.

[Jacob]

I agree.  The disagreement is that I don't see many other countries that have largely similar security concerns as Libya prior to the attack.

I don't think you brought up the security concerns up prior to the attack?

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think you brought up the security concerns up prior to the attack?

You think correctly.

[Jacob]

I don't think you brought up the security concerns up prior to the attack?

You think correctly.

I know 

[Admiral Yi]

I know 

You had a question mark at the end of your first post?

[Jacob]

I know 

You had a question mark at the end of your first post?

I did.




... I was wondering if you were going to confirm the fact and tangentially making a point about hindsight - it's one thing to call out Libya as a unique security situation after the fact, and another thing entirely to call it out as a unique security situation after the fact. The argument is obviously more convincing if it was made before shit went sideways.

[Razgovory]

The issue here Yi is that it isn't fair play to single out Libya after the fact and say we should have withdrawn BEFORE the attack unless you are willing to apply the same criteria to places not called Libya but that have largely similar security concerns as Libya prior to the attack.

So no, we would not be compelled to - but if we do not pull out of location A due to security concerns Z, then why pull out of location B due to security concerns Z?

I agree.  The disagreement is that I don't see many other countries that have largely similar security concerns as Libya prior to the attack.

You do not?  I gave you a list of places attacked in the last ten years.  Are you in favor of withdrawing from those?  If so, how long? 

[Admiral Yi]

You do not?  I gave you a list of places attacked in the last ten years.  Are you in favor of withdrawing from those?  If so, how long?

I feel like I'm trapped in Kafka novel in which I'm asked a question, I answer it, then a while later asked the same question again.  For 22 chapters.

[Jacob]

On the subject of the IRS thing - it seems a little silly for the GOP to go all bonkers on it being a scandal and a cover-up when it wasn't covered up at all. I mean, Darrell Issa knew back in 2012 - http://www.politicususa.com/republicans-suggested-irs-cover-up-turns-darrell-issa-knew-2012.html

[Jacob]

You do not?  I gave you a list of places attacked in the last ten years.  Are you in favor of withdrawing from those?  If so, how long?

I feel like I'm trapped in Kafka novel in which I'm asked a question, I answer it, then a while later asked the same question again.  For 22 chapters.

I will refrain from asking my question again...

[11B4V]

IRS Figure at Center of Scandal Will Take the Fifth

(Newser) – She is probably the IRS official most closely linked to the agency's recent mess, but Lois Lerner plans to reveal nothing when she testifies on Capitol Hill tomorrow, reports Politico. The attorney for Lerner, who oversees the IRS nonprofits division, says his client will invoke the Fifth when she goes in front of a House panel. Lerner is the one who first acknowledged the singling out of conservative groups, and she helped orchestrate the planted question that brought the scandal to light in odd fashion.

"She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course," says the letter to panel chief Darrell Issa, reports the LA Times. It requests that Lerner be allowed to skip the hearing as a result—because it would "have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her"—but that doesn't appear likely. Also today:

    Former IRS chief Douglas Shulman took his turn in front of Congress and said he first learned of the scandal in spring 2012, but said he deliberately held off on telling his bosses at Treasury or Congress, reports AP. "I had a partial set of facts, and I knew that the inspector general was going to be looking into it, and I knew that it was being stopped. Sitting there then and sitting here today, I think I made the right decision, which is to let the inspector general get to the bottom of it, chase down all the facts and then make his findings public."

[Jacob]

On Benghazi, I seem to recall that last week there were some bits about the big revelatory emails that were the big thing in cover up turned out to have been altered by GOP spin people prior to release. Is that already factored into your current analysis of the situation, Yi and 11B4V - and if so, to what degree does it matter?