Tea Partiers harassed by IRS?

[Razgovory]

Is this the correct one?  If so, you did not answer my question.  This is called a dodge.  You can't state you answered it by starting of with "the question is not..."  This does not answer whether or not we should leave those countries and using the example of Iraq and Afghanistan is irrelevant.  The US did not occupy either country because it's embassy was vulnerable.  It's not reasonable to have 70,000 soldiers in every country the US wishes to do business with but can't rely on local security.

It's not a dodge.  It's pointing out that the criteria you are using is not relevant.  We should not pull out of countries where we have been attacked in the past.  We should not pull out of countries where we can be attacked in the future.  We should pull out of countries where there's a good chance we will be attacked and the local security services can't be counted on to protect us.

But this is the criteria you used when bring up the Brits.  They were attacked and then they left.  And many of the countries I listed the local security services can't be counted on to protect us.  Pakistan and Yemen are excellent examples of this.  There are many, many more.  Are you in support of withdrawing diplomatic assets from these countries?

[Razgovory]

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?

Glad you mentioned that.  Reminded me of something I forgot to post earlier.  Three more Pinocchios for your side! 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-white-house-claim-of-doctored-e-mails-to-smear-the-president/2013/05/20/a23343b6-c19e-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_blog.html

http://factcheck.org/2013/05/republican-overreach-on-irs/

    Rep. Michele Bachmann falsely claimed that Americans "most personal, sensitive, intimate, private healthcare information is in the hands of the IRS," while raising the specter that the IRS will misuse that information against "political opponents of this administration." The IRS will not have access to personal health records.

    Sen. Rand Paul passed along baseless speculation that "the person running Obamacare" was the one "who wrote the policy" at the center of the IRS controversy. That's a reference to a former IRS commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations who now heads the IRS' Affordable Care Act office. But a Treasury Inspector General's report found that employees the Cincinnati office, not any administrators in Washington, "developed and implemented" the policy in question.

    Rep. Paul Ryan said that the IG investigators "didn't look at emails, they didn't look at intent, they didn't look who was in the chain of information." That's not true. The IG office did look at emails and conducted interviews, and the report made findings about who knew what and when.

Looks like we still have to catch up.

[Admiral Yi]

But this is the criteria you used when bring up the Brits.  They were attacked and then they left.

I don't remember using that criteria.  It's sort of a general pattern in your posts Raz, at least in this thread.  "You want to withdraw from Libya.  Libya has sand.  So why don't you want to withdraw from Australia????"

And many of the countries I listed the local security services can't be counted on to protect us.  Pakistan and Yemen are excellent examples of this.  There are many, many more.  Are you in support of withdrawing diplomatic assets from these countries?

I am sure you can rattle off the countless times our diplomats have been gunned down in Pakistan and Yemen while the security guys stood aside and smoked cigarettes.

[derspiess]

Looks like we still have to catch up.

Nah, you're way ahead.

[Razgovory]

But this is the criteria you used when bring up the Brits.  They were attacked and then they left.

I don't remember using that criteria.  It's sort of a general pattern in your posts Raz, at least in this thread.  "You want to withdraw from Libya.  Libya has sand.  So why don't you want to withdraw from Australia????"

And many of the countries I listed the local security services can't be counted on to protect us.  Pakistan and Yemen are excellent examples of this.  There are many, many more.  Are you in support of withdrawing diplomatic assets from these countries?

I am sure you can rattle off the countless times our diplomats have been gunned down in Pakistan and Yemen while the security guys stood aside and smoked cigarettes.

I can list several times our diplomats have been attacked and local security has been unable to stop them.  But the Brits, who keep using as an example left explicitly because of an attack, not because of sand.  Let's try a different a tract then.  Is there any country that the US should withdraw diplomats from at the time being?

[Admiral Yi]

I can list several times our diplomats have been attacked and local security has been unable to stop them.

No one cares.  List some where our diplomats have been attacked and local security ran away or stood by.

But the Brits, who keep using as an example left explicitly because of an attack, not because of sand.

Presumably they left because of their changed perception of future risks.  Leaving didn't undo the attack. 

Let's try a different a tract then.  Is there any country that the US should withdraw diplomats from at the time being?

Let's try a different tract.  Should the US send diplomats anywhere regardless of perceived risk?

[Admiral Yi]

I retract the no one cares.  That's speaking for others.

[Razgovory]

The "warning signs" of the attack were previous attacks, so I would say someone cares.  But here's one it appear local security appears to have stood by http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2008/0918/p07s02-wome.html  Lebanon during the 1980's probably qualifies.  And several attacks in Pakistan probably do as well, since the security forces there are two faced when dealing with the US.

I think that US should retain diplomatic presence except in cases where the government has made or will likely make efforts to attack those personnel such as in Iran.  Not that my opinion matters on this, I'm not the one arguing for case of a incompetence.

Now, Yi.  Answer my question.  Are there any countries the US has diplomats in now and should depart right now?  And since you answered a question with a question this time I'm adding another question on.  Are there cases where the US should have removed diplomatic personnel and didn't, barring Benghazi?

[Admiral Yi]

There were probably several attacks on US diplomats in Pakistan in which Pakistani security stood by and did nothing? Really?  We just can't know for sure?

I can't think of any countries the US should totally pull out of right now.  But then again I'm not on the distribution list for State Department country security reports. I can certainly think of several areas of the world US diplomats should not travel to except with a strong escort.

I saw the trap you were trying to set and answered anyway.  There's an obvious trap in mine too.  Now you get to answer it anyway.

[Razgovory]

There was like three attacks in Karachi over the last decade or so.  They apparently no longer use the local police as protection had some other group doing it due to the fact the guys at the consulate think the police are compromised.  I also brought up Yemen where the embassy was attacked for 20 minutes.  That sounds like either the police could not or would not intervene.

I thought I answered your question with "I think that US should retain diplomatic presence except in cases where the government has made or will likely make efforts to attack those personnel such as in Iran.  Not that my opinion matters on this, I'm not the one arguing for case of a incompetence."  Was the answer unsatisfactory?

Just to be sure you really can't think of any place now or in the past that the US should have removed diplomats?  You don't think Benghazi was unique do you?  I'm going to note that Benghazi was not some tiny town, it's like the second largest city in Libya and a place where the US has (or had) a diplomatic station.  If a diplomats movement is restricted so much they can't visit diplomatic stations of their own country in a major city then they are essentially limited to the embassy.

[Admiral Yi]

I think it's abundantly clear now that sticking around in Tehran was not the best idea.

[Razgovory]

   Yeah, I was wondering when you would bring that one up.

Now it seems to me that the "Yi standard" of diplomatic location is based on what the local security will do.  That seems hard to predict even with State Department distribution lists.  Besides the problem of predicting the future, it would seem there are a lot of variables.  The security might respond if it's a bomber or two guys shooting at the embassy but would run away if it's 150 guys.  Or they may respond of John is captain on duty but not Bob.  How is the State Department, and the President suppose to know this?

[CountDeMoney]

Now it seems to me that the "Yi standard" of diplomatic location is based on what the local security will do.

Will they increase shareholder value?

[Admiral Yi]

  Yeah, I was wondering when you would bring that one up.

Now it seems to me that the "Yi standard" of diplomatic location is based on what the local security will do.  That seems hard to predict even with State Department distribution lists.  Besides the problem of predicting the future, it would seem there are a lot of variables.  The security might respond if it's a bomber or two guys shooting at the embassy but would run away if it's 150 guys.  Or they may respond of John is captain on duty but not Bob.  How is the State Department, and the President suppose to know this?

How are they supposed to know Pakistani security can't be trusted 100%?

[Berkut]

I have no problem with the basic observation that there is some point at which we should remove out diplomatic personnel from a situation where their presence cannot be justified by the risk involved in them being there. If nothing else, having them get killed or something is bad politics.

But to sit after the fact and say "I am holding the President responsible because he didn't take them out" is only remotely something other than pure bullshit if you can show:

1. That the pre-existing and defined threat assessment/need for them to be there ratio was out of whack when evaluated against the known standard, and
2. That there is some reason to believe that the President was made aware of the situation and despite the fact that the risk assessment was such that a withdrawal was the SOP, *he* ordered them to stay anyway.

I don't think either of those standards has been met. The first is only argued by after the fact realization, and appeals to the UK having withdrawn. That tells us nothing - why would we assume that because the UK leaves, we should leave? Surely we have a defined SOP for this, and it doesn't read "If the UK gets out, we get out". The second has never even been remotely attempted to be shown - that Obama had *any* kind of input into the decision to stay in Libya, that he is at all involved in that decision in any way, or that he should be, much less that he was and he over-rode the SOP or advice from those who knew the situation.

Barring those two things, this is just 100% pure politics. It is Obama's fault because it is politically useful to blame it on him, not because any rational analysis makes a reasonable person conclude that he had anything to do with the decision process that resulted in their death.