So, should she or Obama be hung from the yard arm or just keelhauled ?
Her, so she's not a 2016 prospect.
First Vince Foster, now a US ambassador. When will the reign of terror of America's most notorious serial killer be put to an end?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 23, 2013, 06:49:09 PM
First Vince Foster, now a US ambassador. When will the reign of terror of America's most notorious serial killer be put to an end?
That literally made me Lol. :lol:
Wasn't going to say anything about it here but since you brought it up--
Best parts were Rand Paul and John McCain ripping her. She did a poor job of defending herself, but who would in that position. Hearing Hillary say "I don't recall" takes me back to the 90s :)
Those are 2 pretty good people to be ripping into you if you want to prove your credibility on any issue these days.
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:23:22 PM
Those are 2 pretty good people to be ripping into you if you want to prove your credibility on any issue these days.
Only to lefties :)
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:23:22 PM
Those are 2 pretty good people to be ripping into you if you want to prove your credibility on any issue these days.
McCain cannot be compared in anyway to that wackjob.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 23, 2013, 07:30:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:23:22 PM
Those are 2 pretty good people to be ripping into you if you want to prove your credibility on any issue these days.
McCain cannot be compared in anyway to that wackjob.
What problem do you have with Paul, Tim?
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:21:36 PM
Wasn't going to say anything about it here but since you brought it up--
Best parts were Rand Paul and John McCain ripping her. She did a poor job of defending herself, but who would in that position. Hearing Hillary say "I don't recall" takes me back to the 90s :)
You are easily impressed by pointless grandstanding. What exactly did they prove? What sort of terrible malfeasance did they uncover?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 23, 2013, 07:30:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:23:22 PM
Those are 2 pretty good people to be ripping into you if you want to prove your credibility on any issue these days.
McCain cannot be compared in anyway to that wackjob.
McCain is staring to become a crazy in addition to bitter.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 23, 2013, 07:30:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:23:22 PM
Those are 2 pretty good people to be ripping into you if you want to prove your credibility on any issue these days.
McCain cannot be compared in anyway to that wackjob.
Something appears to have snapped in him recently, he is sliding off the deep end.
That or he just doesn't care anymore, either way he is closer to wackjob than the guy that ever ran for President.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 07:32:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:21:36 PM
Wasn't going to say anything about it here but since you brought it up--
Best parts were Rand Paul and John McCain ripping her. She did a poor job of defending herself, but who would in that position. Hearing Hillary say "I don't recall" takes me back to the 90s :)
You are easily impressed by pointless grandstanding. What exactly did they prove? What sort of terrible malfeasance did they uncover?
Right, Raz. "Move along, nothing to see here..."
Ambassador and 3 others were killed by terrorists. Worth exploring why it happened, who is responsible for the negligence, how it could have been prevented, and why the administration seemed to mislead the public as to the cause. If this were a GOP administration I would have to think you would want the SoS to be called to account.
I will say that she did score some points with me by throwing Susan Rice under the bus :D
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 07:33:44 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 23, 2013, 07:30:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:23:22 PM
Those are 2 pretty good people to be ripping into you if you want to prove your credibility on any issue these days.
McCain cannot be compared in anyway to that wackjob.
McCain is staring to become a crazy in addition to bitter.
Ah, not maverickey enough for you guys these days? :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:28:54 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:23:22 PM
Those are 2 pretty good people to be ripping into you if you want to prove your credibility on any issue these days.
Only to lefties :)
No, only to righties. Lefties cannot prove their credibility by ripping into right-wing nutjobs, only the righties can prove their credibility by denouncing those two.
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:38:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 07:32:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:21:36 PM
Wasn't going to say anything about it here but since you brought it up--
Best parts were Rand Paul and John McCain ripping her. She did a poor job of defending herself, but who would in that position. Hearing Hillary say "I don't recall" takes me back to the 90s :)
You are easily impressed by pointless grandstanding. What exactly did they prove? What sort of terrible malfeasance did they uncover?
Right, Raz. "Move along, nothing to see here..."
Ambassador and 3 others were killed by terrorists. Worth exploring why it happened, who is responsible for the negligence, how it could have been prevented, and why the administration seemed to mislead the public as to the cause. If this were a GOP administration I would have to think you would want the SoS to be called to account.
I will say that she did score some points with me by throwing Susan Rice under the bus :D
Why does there have to be negligence involved in this particular terrorist attack?
EDITED TO AVOID SILLY ARGUMENTS.
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:38:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 07:32:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:21:36 PM
Wasn't going to say anything about it here but since you brought it up--
Best parts were Rand Paul and John McCain ripping her. She did a poor job of defending herself, but who would in that position. Hearing Hillary say "I don't recall" takes me back to the 90s :)
You are easily impressed by pointless grandstanding. What exactly did they prove? What sort of terrible malfeasance did they uncover?
Right, Raz. "Move along, nothing to see here..."
Ambassador and 3 others were killed by terrorists. Worth exploring why it happened, who is responsible for the negligence, how it could have been prevented, and why the administration seemed to mislead the public as to the cause. If this were a GOP administration I would have to think you would want the SoS to be called to account.
I will say that she did score some points with me by throwing Susan Rice under the bus :D
Yeah, so again, what exactly did those two prove today? I saw grandstanding intended to pander to well, you. It is worth seeing why it happened, but that's not what Republicans were looking for, is it? No, this was effort to look for someone to punish and blame and look good in front of the cameras. I also saw that many of the Republicans were rather ignorant of whole situation, assuming she had a live feed (which she did not), unaware of the volume of documents that sent to the State Department, and one hapless Senator seemed to be under the impression that jets flying out of Italy could be used to for some kind of "non-lethal" measures to protect the Ambassador.
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:38:28 PM
I will say that she did score some points with me by throwing Susan Rice under the bus :D
Only thing better would've been dragging her behind the pick-up truck, right?
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:32:35 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 23, 2013, 07:30:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:23:22 PM
Those are 2 pretty good people to be ripping into you if you want to prove your credibility on any issue these days.
McCain cannot be compared in anyway to that wackjob.
What problem do you have with Paul, Tim?
Well the opposition to the Civil Rights bill of 1964 for one thing.
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:49:04 PM
Why does there have to be negligence involved in this particular terrorist attack?
EDITED TO AVOID SILLY ARGUMENTS.
Seems pretty obvious to me. Ambassador Stevens had expressed concerns about security prior to the attacks. He had requested additional security. He ended up getting hit on the 10th anniversary of 9/11/02 (when I would think you'd beef up security by default) and had just two guys to protect him at the time. Seems like there was negligence somewhere on someone's part.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 07:56:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:32:35 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 23, 2013, 07:30:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:23:22 PM
Those are 2 pretty good people to be ripping into you if you want to prove your credibility on any issue these days.
McCain cannot be compared in anyway to that wackjob.
What problem do you have with Paul, Tim?
Well the opposition to the Civil Rights bill of 1964 for one thing.
Why are we worried about the opinion of a 1 year old on Civil Rights?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 07:56:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:32:35 PM
What problem do you have with Paul, Tim?
Well the opposition to the Civil Rights bill of 1964 for one thing.
derspiess likes the fact that Paul attaches "Personhood Amendments" to his electric and phone bills.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 23, 2013, 07:55:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:38:28 PM
I will say that she did score some points with me by throwing Susan Rice under the bus :D
Only thing better would've been dragging her behind the pick-up truck, right?
Over the top there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 23, 2013, 07:55:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:38:28 PM
I will say that she did score some points with me by throwing Susan Rice under the bus :D
Only thing better would've been dragging her behind the pick-up truck, right?
Surprised you didn't make a "back of the bus" crack. But yeah, go ahead & try to mask your own racism by throwing around baseless accusations against others.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 07:56:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:32:35 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 23, 2013, 07:30:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:23:22 PM
Those are 2 pretty good people to be ripping into you if you want to prove your credibility on any issue these days.
McCain cannot be compared in anyway to that wackjob.
What problem do you have with Paul, Tim?
Well the opposition to the Civil Rights bill of 1964 for one thing.
ARE YOU TIM?
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:57:28 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:49:04 PM
Why does there have to be negligence involved in this particular terrorist attack?
EDITED TO AVOID SILLY ARGUMENTS.
Seems pretty obvious to me. Ambassador Stevens had expressed concerns about security prior to the attacks. He had requested additional security. He ended up getting hit on the 10th anniversary of 9/11/02 (when I would think you'd beef up security by default) and had just two guys to protect him at the time. Seems like there was negligence somewhere on someone's part.
OK that seems fair.
I really don't know much about the back story of Bengazi-gate.
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:57:28 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:49:04 PM
Why does there have to be negligence involved in this particular terrorist attack?
EDITED TO AVOID SILLY ARGUMENTS.
Seems pretty obvious to me. Ambassador Stevens had expressed concerns about security prior to the attacks. He had requested additional security. He ended up getting hit on the 10th anniversary of 9/11/02 (when I would think you'd beef up security by default) and had just two guys to protect him at the time. Seems like there was negligence somewhere on someone's part.
Well if it seems obvious to you, I suppose that you are the one negligent. You didn't warn the correct authorities.
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:59:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 07:56:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:32:35 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 23, 2013, 07:30:01 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:23:22 PM
Those are 2 pretty good people to be ripping into you if you want to prove your credibility on any issue these days.
McCain cannot be compared in anyway to that wackjob.
What problem do you have with Paul, Tim?
Well the opposition to the Civil Rights bill of 1964 for one thing.
ARE YOU TIM?
Over the top there.
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:58:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 23, 2013, 07:55:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:38:28 PM
I will say that she did score some points with me by throwing Susan Rice under the bus :D
Only thing better would've been dragging her behind the pick-up truck, right?
Surprised you didn't make a "back of the bus" crack. But yeah, go ahead & try to mask your own racism by throwing around baseless accusations against others.
I'm not the one with a hard-on for professional black women.
That would be Ideologue.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:01:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:57:28 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:49:04 PM
Why does there have to be negligence involved in this particular terrorist attack?
EDITED TO AVOID SILLY ARGUMENTS.
Seems pretty obvious to me. Ambassador Stevens had expressed concerns about security prior to the attacks. He had requested additional security. He ended up getting hit on the 10th anniversary of 9/11/02 (when I would think you'd beef up security by default) and had just two guys to protect him at the time. Seems like there was negligence somewhere on someone's part.
Well if it seems obvious to you, I suppose that you are the one negligent. You didn't warn the correct authorities.
You forget your meds today?
You know, if Congress was so concerned about safety, they could have voted to fund additional security that the State Department asked for.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:06:02 PM
You know, if Congress was so concerned about safety, they could have voted to fund additional security that the State Department asked for.
You made it to Talking Point #3. Congrats!
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 08:04:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:01:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:57:28 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:49:04 PM
Why does there have to be negligence involved in this particular terrorist attack?
EDITED TO AVOID SILLY ARGUMENTS.
Seems pretty obvious to me. Ambassador Stevens had expressed concerns about security prior to the attacks. He had requested additional security. He ended up getting hit on the 10th anniversary of 9/11/02 (when I would think you'd beef up security by default) and had just two guys to protect him at the time. Seems like there was negligence somewhere on someone's part.
Well if it seems obvious to you, I suppose that you are the one negligent. You didn't warn the correct authorities.
You forget your meds today?
No, it wasn't obvious to anyone else at the time, how come it was obvious to you at the time? You keep overstepping yourself on this.
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 08:08:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:06:02 PM
You know, if Congress was so concerned about safety, they could have voted to fund additional security that the State Department asked for.
You made it to Talking Point #3. Congrats!
No, I just watched the hearings. Got an answer for that one slick? Or my previous questions for you? What did Rand Paul and John McCain prove that made you so happy?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:09:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 08:04:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:01:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:57:28 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:49:04 PM
Why does there have to be negligence involved in this particular terrorist attack?
EDITED TO AVOID SILLY ARGUMENTS.
Seems pretty obvious to me. Ambassador Stevens had expressed concerns about security prior to the attacks. He had requested additional security. He ended up getting hit on the 10th anniversary of 9/11/02 (when I would think you'd beef up security by default) and had just two guys to protect him at the time. Seems like there was negligence somewhere on someone's part.
Well if it seems obvious to you, I suppose that you are the one negligent. You didn't warn the correct authorities.
You forget your meds today?
No, it wasn't obvious to anyone else at the time, how come it was obvious to you at the time? You keep overstepping yourself on this.
Stop it with that childish crap. Of course it wasn't obvious to me prior to the attack-- I'm not employed by the DoS. But it was obvious to Ambassador Stevens that security was lacking. And in retrospect it should be obvious to all of us that the ball was dropped somewhere.
Your unquestioning devotion to this administration is really troubling. I sure as shit wouldn't be pretending nothing happened if this had occurred during a GOP administration-- goes without saying that you wouldn't either.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:11:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 08:08:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:06:02 PM
You know, if Congress was so concerned about safety, they could have voted to fund additional security that the State Department asked for.
You made it to Talking Point #3. Congrats!
No, I just watched the hearings. Got an answer for that one slick? Or my previous questions for you? What did Rand Paul and John McCain prove that made you so happy?
Prove? When did I say they proved something?
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 08:16:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:11:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 08:08:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:06:02 PM
You know, if Congress was so concerned about safety, they could have voted to fund additional security that the State Department asked for.
You made it to Talking Point #3. Congrats!
No, I just watched the hearings. Got an answer for that one slick? Or my previous questions for you? What did Rand Paul and John McCain prove that made you so happy?
Prove? When did I say they proved something?
Okay, then what was the point?
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 08:15:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:09:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 08:04:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:01:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:57:28 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:49:04 PM
Why does there have to be negligence involved in this particular terrorist attack?
EDITED TO AVOID SILLY ARGUMENTS.
Seems pretty obvious to me. Ambassador Stevens had expressed concerns about security prior to the attacks. He had requested additional security. He ended up getting hit on the 10th anniversary of 9/11/02 (when I would think you'd beef up security by default) and had just two guys to protect him at the time. Seems like there was negligence somewhere on someone's part.
Well if it seems obvious to you, I suppose that you are the one negligent. You didn't warn the correct authorities.
You forget your meds today?
No, it wasn't obvious to anyone else at the time, how come it was obvious to you at the time? You keep overstepping yourself on this.
Stop it with that childish crap. Of course it wasn't obvious to me prior to the attack-- I'm not employed by the DoS. But it was obvious to Ambassador Stevens that security was lacking. And in retrospect it should be obvious to all of us that the ball was dropped somewhere.
Your unquestioning devotion to this administration is really troubling. I sure as shit wouldn't be pretending nothing happened if this had occurred during a GOP administration-- goes without saying that you wouldn't either.
What kind of security would have been sufficient? Is that man suppose to travel around with a private army? Your swallowing of any criticism of this administration is troubling. But like you said, it's like the 1990's. I suppose anything said against a Democratic President is okay. No conspiracy theory too grand.
What about when the high up UN official was killed in Iraq back in 2003? Were you demanding hearings on why the US couldn't protect UN staff in a country that it was supposed to be running? Or did you pretend nothing had happened and forgot about it?
This thread made me sterile.
Well something needed to. You keep at it, and you'll have enough kids to populate a major metropolitan area.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:18:42 PM
Okay, then what was the point?
Paul said he'd have removed her from her post, which was nice. And McCain just flat out ripped her. And she got in a little tirade of her own. It was all great political theater, which is what these things usually are.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:30:34 PM
Well something needed to. You keep at it, and you'll have enough kids to populate a major metropolitan area.
We will stand astride this world like a colossus.
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 08:31:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:18:42 PM
Okay, then what was the point?
Paul said he'd have removed her from her post, which was nice. And McCain just flat out ripped her. And she got in a little tirade of her own. It was all great political theater, which is what these things usually are.
Okay, so they decided to have a big hearing about the deaths four Americans so you can be entertained? I suspected as much, but thanks for answering that.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:28:07 PM
What kind of security would have been sufficient? Is that man suppose to travel around with a private army?
In a place as volatile as Libya and on a 9/11 anniversary, yeah pretty much.
QuoteYour swallowing of any criticism of this administration is troubling.
I don't go along with all criticism, actually. And like with the Clinton administration I'd love to find some things upon which I could agree with Obama.
QuoteBut like you said, it's like the 1990's. I suppose anything said against a Democratic President is okay. No conspiracy theory too grand.
Like the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? :lol: I don't think there was a conspiracy with this Benghazi thing, just negligence and ineptitude.
QuoteWhat about when the high up UN official was killed in Iraq back in 2003? Were you demanding hearings on why the US couldn't protect UN staff in a country that it was supposed to be running? Or did you pretend nothing had happened and forgot about it?
:lol: Is that all you could come up with?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:35:33 PM
Okay, so they decided to have a big hearing about the deaths four Americans so you can be entertained? I suspected as much, but thanks for answering that.
Oh, now the fact that 4 people died is a big deal to you. Up until now you were acting like nothing happened. We're making progress :hug:
You forgot about the UN ambassador didn't you?
Checked out Breitbart so figure out what Derspeiss is getting at. Most liked comment on the front page story about Hilary Clinton:
Quote
"Stand by her man"...who is dirtier and more corrupt and dishonest than most men to be sure...doing what she does best...and what she had weeks to perfect...lie...just like her male counterpart in our White House!
The way I heard it from some sources...is not having enough security around the compound...was intentional.
The way it was supposed to go down...is terrorists were to overtake the compound and take the Ambassador hostage (their new thing) to be held in exchange for the blind sheik which Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood want desperately to be released.
But no one told the brave Seals who were guarding the Ambassador probably to make it appear more authentic.
Then the Seals did what they were trained to do...'preserve and protect' and they did to their demise and the demise of the Ambassador.
IT ALL BLEW UP IN THEIR FACES...THAT IS WHY THE PANIC ON MAKING UP THE STORY ABOUT THE VIDEO BEING THE REASON...IT WAS A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT FROM THE TRUTH!
SHE SHOULD SHOW EMOTION...SHE IS GOING TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE (4) INDIVIDUALS MAYBE NOT IN THIS LIFE...BUT IN THE NEXT...GUARANTEED!
P.S. And just a note on the last slaughter of hostages...this was just a prelude...to show the world what will happen is their future demands are not met. And I can guarantee you...their demand will be to release the blind sheik!
Oh, and I suppose since the US Ambassador would have pretty much needed a private army, then any Ambassador who hasn't had a private army in a dangerous country is in fact guilty of negligence. I don't think that's standard practice for the US so probably counts for every US president for the last 50 years.
This thread title is sort of misleading.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2013, 09:42:17 PM
This thread title is sort of misleading.
Don't see why; every got their rocks off busting up Hillary in public. Pretty sure Paul had to change his shorts.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2013, 09:42:17 PM
This thread title is sort of misleading.
Refers to comments in another thread where CdM asks where it is.
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 08:37:16 PM
I don't think there was a conspiracy with this Benghazi thing, just negligence and ineptitude.
Usually a safe bet.
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 08:00:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:57:28 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:49:04 PM
Why does there have to be negligence involved in this particular terrorist attack?
EDITED TO AVOID SILLY ARGUMENTS.
Seems pretty obvious to me. Ambassador Stevens had expressed concerns about security prior to the attacks. He had requested additional security. He ended up getting hit on the 10th anniversary of 9/11/02 (when I would think you'd beef up security by default) and had just two guys to protect him at the time. Seems like there was negligence somewhere on someone's part.
OK that seems fair.
I really don't know much about the back story of Bengazi-gate.
Though rather misleading if Hillary's testimony was correct.
From about 3:52 on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUKpRlfAf8s
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/01/obama-urged-to-resign-over-beyonc-scandal.html
QuoteOBAMA URGED TO RESIGN OVER BEYONCÉ SCANDAL
A rising chorus of congressional Republicans are calling on President Obama to acknowledge that the pop singer Beyoncé lip-synched during his inaugural festivities on Monday and resign from office, effective immediately.
"By lip-synching the national anthem, Beyoncé has cast a dark cloud over the President's second term," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky). "The only way President Obama can remove that cloud is by resigning from office at once."
While many in the media have blamed Beyoncé for the lip-synching controversy, Mr. Paul said, "We must remember that this happened on President Obama's watch."
Mr. Paul said that the White House's refusal to comment on the Beyoncé crisis "only serves the argument that this President has something to hide."
"If Beyoncé lip-synched the national anthem, how do we know President Obama didn't lip-sync his oath of office?" he said. "If that's the case, he's not legally President. But just to be on the safe side, he should resign anyway."
Mr. Paul also blasted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her testimony on Benghazi before the Senate today: "Her tactic of answering each and every question we asked her didn't fool anyone."
I chuckled and I don't even like the New Yorker. Wonder if this will get picked by a Chinese press outfit.
How do we even know that John Stevens was right about security? He was an ambassador, not a security chief. For all we know, he was wrong in his assessment and just got lucky with events.
Quote from: DGuller on January 24, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
How do we even know that John Stevens was right about security? He was an ambassador, not a security chief. For all we know, he was wrong in his assessment and just got lucky with events.
:huh:
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:57:28 PM
Seems pretty obvious to me. Ambassador Stevens had expressed concerns about security prior to the attacks. He had requested additional security. He ended up getting hit on the 10th anniversary of 9/11/02 (when I would think you'd beef up security by default) and had just two guys to protect him at the time. Seems like there was negligence somewhere on someone's part.
Additional security would have required additional people would have required additional funding, which is the responsibility of . . . oh yeah, never mind.
Quote from: derspiess on January 24, 2013, 09:54:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 24, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
How do we even know that John Stevens was right about security? He was an ambassador, not a security chief. For all we know, he was wrong in his assessment and just got lucky with events.
:huh:
It's like life insurance. The companies know the odds as to how long you will live overall, but in each individual case they could easily be wrong. The fact that the life insurance company sold a 30 year old guy in good health (but with premonition of death based on dreams) life insurance on a tuesday, and he was hit on the head with an anvil accidentally dropped out of an apartment building on friday, doesn't mean that the insurance company's predictions based on actuarial tables are full of shit and they were negligent to rely on them rather than on dreams and premonitions. Right?
I'm not saying that the ambassador's position was like a guy basing his chances of death on dreams - merely pointing out an example of how the professionals could easily be "wrong" in an individual case, without being "wrong" in their methods.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 24, 2013, 10:05:02 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 07:57:28 PM
Seems pretty obvious to me. Ambassador Stevens had expressed concerns about security prior to the attacks. He had requested additional security. He ended up getting hit on the 10th anniversary of 9/11/02 (when I would think you'd beef up security by default) and had just two guys to protect him at the time. Seems like there was negligence somewhere on someone's part.
Additional security would have required additional people would have required additional funding, which is the responsibility of . . . oh yeah, never mind.
Are you seriously implying that the only reason we couldn't provide more security for the ambassador and consulate was congressional funding? That the DoS had absolutely no options to beef up security?
Quote from: derspiess on January 24, 2013, 09:54:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 24, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
How do we even know that John Stevens was right about security? He was an ambassador, not a security chief. For all we know, he was wrong in his assessment and just got lucky with events.
:huh:
Joking. :secret:
Quote from: Malthus on January 24, 2013, 10:16:03 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 24, 2013, 09:54:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 24, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
How do we even know that John Stevens was right about security? He was an ambassador, not a security chief. For all we know, he was wrong in his assessment and just got lucky with events.
:huh:
It's like life insurance. The companies know the odds as to how long you will live overall, but in each individual case they could easily be wrong. The fact that the life insurance company sold a 30 year old guy in good health (but with premonition of death based on dreams) life insurance on a tuesday, and he was hit on the head with an anvil accidentally dropped out of an apartment building on friday, doesn't mean that the insurance company's predictions based on actuarial tables are full of shit and they were negligent to rely on them rather than on dreams and premonitions. Right?
I'm not saying that the ambassador's position was like a guy basing his chances of death on dreams - merely pointing out an example of how the professionals could easily be "wrong" in an individual case, without being "wrong" in their methods.
Most of my puzzlement was at his use of the word "lucky". Anyway we're not talking life insurance here-- we're talking about a failure by the DoS to properly assess risk. I know we have the advantage of hindsight here, but taking that away we're still looking at three factors that I would think would raise some red flags: Volatile area with known anti-American terrorist groups, Anniversary of 9/11, and requests from the Ambassador himself for more security. I know you & DG discount Stevens's own concerns for some reason, but I would think it would have to merit *some* consideration by DoS.
Quote from: derspiess on January 24, 2013, 10:36:58 AM
Are you seriously implying that the only reason we couldn't provide more security for the ambassador and consulate was congressional funding? That the DoS had absolutely no options to beef up security?
I'm seriously implying that that we have 294 very serious embassies and consulates around the world, all of which are potential targets on a 9/11 anniversary, and many of which are located in serious locations like Afghanistan (2), Iraq (4), Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan (4), Saudi Arabia (3), Syria, Yemen, Mail, Indonesia (3), Egypt (2), Algeria. I am seriously implying that it would not be practical to significantly increase security at all these locations without seriously increasing the resources for State Dept security. Also, since there were an estimated 120-150 attackers at Benghazi, even doubling or tripling the security detail would not have made a difference; the security detail - regardless of its level of seriousness -- would still have had to retreat into the building and the ambassador still would have suffered the smoke inhalation that killed him.
I am also seriously suggesting that anyone who claims that from the propositions:
1. Person A requested additional security
2. Additional security was not provided
3. Person A was killed in a subsequent attacl
logically implies negligence, either doesn't know what negligence means, or is joking. I.e. not serious.
So it's not all just the funding, then?
Quote from: derspiess on January 24, 2013, 10:45:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 24, 2013, 10:16:03 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 24, 2013, 09:54:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 24, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
How do we even know that John Stevens was right about security? He was an ambassador, not a security chief. For all we know, he was wrong in his assessment and just got lucky with events.
:huh:
It's like life insurance. The companies know the odds as to how long you will live overall, but in each individual case they could easily be wrong. The fact that the life insurance company sold a 30 year old guy in good health (but with premonition of death based on dreams) life insurance on a tuesday, and he was hit on the head with an anvil accidentally dropped out of an apartment building on friday, doesn't mean that the insurance company's predictions based on actuarial tables are full of shit and they were negligent to rely on them rather than on dreams and premonitions. Right?
I'm not saying that the ambassador's position was like a guy basing his chances of death on dreams - merely pointing out an example of how the professionals could easily be "wrong" in an individual case, without being "wrong" in their methods.
Most of my puzzlement was at his use of the word "lucky". Anyway we're not talking life insurance here-- we're talking about a failure by the DoS to properly assess risk. I know we have the advantage of hindsight here, but taking that away we're still looking at three factors that I would think would raise some red flags: Volatile area with known anti-American terrorist groups, Anniversary of 9/11, and requests from the Ambassador himself for more security. I know you & DG discount Stevens's own concerns for some reason, but I would think it would have to merit *some* consideration by DoS.
For "lucky" read "unlucky".
That's the problem with hindsight, though. In hindsight, it is easy to say which factors were significant, and which were not.
Take anniversary of 9/11. If that's a red flag, why would it be one specifically to that particular embassy? Why not to US overseas operations generally? Yet the maxim applies: "he who defends everything defends nothing".
The "life insurance" example was intended to point out how experts in attempting to cover contingencies generally may be wrong in an individual case without thereby being negligent. They can get "unlucky".
Quote from: derspiess on January 24, 2013, 10:59:21 AM
So it's not all just the funding, then?
If your claim is that every time an ambassador requests additional security it is negligence not to provide it, then yes the problem is lack of sufficient funding.
Some similarities between this discussion and the one over Hurricane Katrina. :ph34r:
Quote from: Malthus on January 24, 2013, 11:01:55 AM
For "lucky" read "unlucky".
I thought it was tasteless. But yeah I know it's Languish.
QuoteThat's the problem with hindsight, though. In hindsight, it is easy to say which factors were significant, and which were not.
Take anniversary of 9/11. If that's a red flag, why would it be one specifically to that particular embassy? Why not to US overseas operations generally? Yet the maxim applies: "he who defends everything defends nothing".
I'm sure lots of things can seem marginal when viewed in a vacuum. But there were multiple factors that should have been taken into account.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 24, 2013, 11:03:53 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 24, 2013, 10:59:21 AM
So it's not all just the funding, then?
If your claim is that every time an ambassador requests additional security it is negligence not to provide it, then yes the problem is lack of sufficient funding.
Is that my claim? Be fair. I'm saying that an ambassador in a volatile country such as Libya (particularly when his duties require him to spend time in a city such as Benghazi where Libyan gov't. control was breaking down at the time), requesting additional security merits some serious consideration.
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 08:31:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 08:18:42 PM
Okay, then what was the point?
Paul said he'd have removed her from her post, which was nice. And McCain just flat out ripped her. And she got in a little tirade of her own. It was all great political theater, which is what these things usually are.
I agree. It's worth holding hearings in this sort of thing and I think it is worth investigating. But as you say these sort of things tend to generate more heat than light. Not that I can think of a better system (no doubt we'd have a judge-led public inquiry by now :lol:) and I like seeing legislatures holding executives accountable.
As an aside I think there's some confusion about the role of embassy security which isn't about the staff. I remember it was mentioned in Guests of the Ayatollah, and looked it up, apparently it's still roughly the same. The first job is to keep the premises safe, if that's not possible then to hold secure areas of the building where confidential and sensitive documents can be destroyed. A distant third is to protect the personnel and that's even more distant if they're off the premises (in Tehran it didn't even cross any of the security personnel's minds to try and protect staff in the city). So it wouldn't require just more security but possibly different security priorities to protect Ambassadors and staff.
Quote from: derspiess on January 24, 2013, 11:19:10 AM
Is that my claim? Be fair. I'm saying that an ambassador in a volatile country such as Libya (particularly when his duties require him to spend time in a city such as Benghazi where Libyan gov't. control was breaking down at the time), requesting additional security merits some serious consideration.
That's not what you said. I didn't see anything about "consideration"
But OK, I'll accept the amendation. Since you have already concluded there is fire here - my challenge to you is as follows: identify the particular request or requests from the ambassador that you think merited serious consideration, and explain your basis for concluding that the request was not considered seriously.
If one takes the position that people were not negligent, that raises the ticklish issue of the four State Department staffers who fell on their swords for no reason whatsoever.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 24, 2013, 11:39:15 AM
If one takes the position that people were not negligent, that raises the ticklish issue of the four State Department staffers who fell on their swords for no reason whatsoever.
Pretty massive unstated assumption there.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 24, 2013, 11:37:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 24, 2013, 11:19:10 AM
Is that my claim? Be fair. I'm saying that an ambassador in a volatile country such as Libya (particularly when his duties require him to spend time in a city such as Benghazi where Libyan gov't. control was breaking down at the time), requesting additional security merits some serious consideration.
That's not what you said. I didn't see anything about "consideration"
:rolleyes: You're splitting hairs. But if it makes you happy, strike "consideration" and go with whatever I said before.
QuoteBut OK, I'll accept the amendation. Since you have already concluded there is fire here - my challenge to you is as follows: identify the particular request or requests from the ambassador that you think merited serious consideration, and explain your basis for concluding that the request was not considered seriously.
No, thanks. I'm hitting the limits of my attention span on this and you're always able to out-debate me anyway.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 24, 2013, 11:39:15 AM
If one takes the position that people were not negligent, that raises the ticklish issue of the four State Department staffers who fell on their swords for no reason whatsoever.
I think you need some evidence of negligence to assume that people were negligent, don't you?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2013, 11:44:07 AM
I think you need some evidence of negligence to assume that people were negligent, don't you?
I think if there was no negligence people shouldn't get fired for negligence, should they?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 24, 2013, 11:47:56 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2013, 11:44:07 AM
I think you need some evidence of negligence to assume that people were negligent, don't you?
I think if there was no negligence people shouldn't get fired for negligence, should they?
I agree. That's would should happen. But what should happen and what does happen are two different things.
The other question to be asked is exactly what kind of negligence are we talking about here and is it really the same as what derspeiss is talking about.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 24, 2013, 11:47:56 AM
I think if there was no negligence people shouldn't get fired for negligence, should they?
What's the details of the firings?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2013, 11:54:17 AM
What's the details of the firings?
Don't have any.
If you're questioning my judgement that they were sacked as scapegoats for Benghazigate, question away. I'm not going to be able to produce a memo Dan Rather-style with Hillary or Barry's signature on it. The media definitely presented their resignations/firings as Benghazi-related.
Sensitive :P
I just wanted some articles on it, because I don't know the story. I'm not sure who was fired or whether it was for negligence and if so what type of negligence, because I'm not sure that we're necessarily talking about the same things.
As you point out, however, they could well have been scapegoats. I think that happens in all sorts of organisations in the face of media criticism, maybe more in politics than elsewhere - which is wrong, but common. I imagine a bit more common in the US than here because you've not got the same type of civil service.
Quote from: Malthus on January 24, 2013, 10:16:03 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 24, 2013, 09:54:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 24, 2013, 09:49:33 AM
How do we even know that John Stevens was right about security? He was an ambassador, not a security chief. For all we know, he was wrong in his assessment and just got lucky with events.
:huh:
It's like life insurance. The companies know the odds as to how long you will live overall, but in each individual case they could easily be wrong. The fact that the life insurance company sold a 30 year old guy in good health (but with premonition of death based on dreams) life insurance on a tuesday, and he was hit on the head with an anvil accidentally dropped out of an apartment building on friday, doesn't mean that the insurance company's predictions based on actuarial tables are full of shit and they were negligent to rely on them rather than on dreams and premonitions. Right?
Depends on how often that kind of thing happens doesn't it? :hmm: :tinfoil:
@Shelf:
I think people usually interpret scapegoat firings as evidence that the accusation has *some* merit.
There was a very good example of a firing gone bad last year in the Department of Agriculture. I'm talking about the black lady that got Breitbarted and forced to resign before all the facts had come to light. Once they had, the Secretary (a former governor of Iowa) had to bend over backwards and apologize profusely.
A nice little conspiracy theory that would explain the facts is if all the resigners were Clinton loyalists who figured they were out the door anyway when Lurch came in, and figured they could gain points with the queen bee if they were to take the fall now. Even under that theory though, one would think that someone somewhere would realize the resignations would be interpreted by the public as at least a partial admission of guilt.
On the issue of differences between youse guys and our guys, there's a much thicker level of political appointees at the top of our bureacracy who are in line to take a fall for political damage control purposes.
I still don't understand the substance of this alleged "scandal".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 24, 2013, 12:33:43 PMThere was a very good example of a firing gone bad last year in the Department of Agriculture. I'm talking about the black lady that got Breitbarted and forced to resign before all the facts had come to light. Once they had, the Secretary (a former governor of Iowa) had to bend over backwards and apologize profusely.
A firing gone bad because more details came out. But she was still fired, on very few facts, because of controversy and a media storm not due to any failings. And I bet she told the Secretary the real story, I think chances are he believed her, but without evidence in the public sphere the damage control provided by her firing mattered more.
QuoteA nice little conspiracy theory that would explain the facts is if all the resigners were Clinton loyalists who figured they were out the door anyway when Lurch came in, and figured they could gain points with the queen bee if they were to take the fall now. Even under that theory though, one would think that someone somewhere would realize the resignations would be interpreted by the public as at least a partial admission of guilt.
Lovely. But I just want you to link me to an article about the firings so I know what we're talking about :lol:
QuoteOn the issue of differences between youse guys and our guys, there's a much thicker level of political appointees at the top of our bureacracy who are in line to take a fall for political damage control purposes.
Yeah and there's an independent civil service here, my understanding is that political appointees can't fire civil servants. So who was fired is relevant.
Quote from: Jacob on January 24, 2013, 12:35:59 PM
I still don't understand the substance of this alleged "scandal".
1. Was it a fuckup to send an ambassador into Libya with only two bodyguards?
2. Did Susan Rice say that the attack on the ambassador grew spontaneously out of street protests over the Mohammed video in an effort to minimize political damage to Obama on the eve of the election?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2013, 12:40:15 PM
Lovely. But I just want you to link me to an article about the firings so I know what we're talking about :lol:
I don't have a link to any articles on the topic.
This is the best I can do:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/19/benghazi-resignations-begin.html
Doesn't seem to indicate negligence - as opposed perhaps to incompetence - and the people who resigned were appointees, which to me indicates more politics/scapegoating.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 24, 2013, 12:00:37 PM
If you're questioning my judgement that they were sacked as scapegoats for Benghazigate, question away.
I agree they were sacked as scapegoats. But that is in tension with the "negligence" explanation
Quote1. Was it a fuckup to send an ambassador into Libya with only two bodyguards?
Could have been if that had happened.
In fact there were a couple dozen bodyguards in Libya, and 5 in Benghazi at the time the attacks happened, , including 2 that came over from Tripoli with Stevens.
Incidentally the number of DS people requested also happened to be 5.
Stevens did request more security in August but he requested it for Tripoli not Benghazi. The ARB report actually takes a poke at him for this and implies he didn't push hard enough for more security for Benghazi. I think that is unfair but there you go.
The documents give a rather different picture than what seems to exist in the minds of the GOP senators or derspeiss here. Staffing levels of diplo security at Benghazi were discussed in emails and the lack of resources specifically raised as a key obstacle . . .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 24, 2013, 01:16:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 24, 2013, 12:00:37 PM
1. Was it a fuckup to send an ambassador into Libya with only two bodyguards?
Could have been if that had happened.
In fact there were a couple dozen bodyguards in Libya, and 5 in Benghazi at the time the attacks happened, , including 2 that came over from Tripoli with Stevens.
Incidentally the number of DS people requested also happened to be 5.
Stevens did request more security in August but he requested it for Tripoli not Benghazi. The ARB report actually takes a poke at him for this and implies he didn't push hard enough for more security for Benghazi. I think that is unfair but there you go.
The documents give a rather different picture than what seems to exist in the minds of the GOP senators or derspeiss here. Staffing levels of diplo security at Benghazi were discussed in emails and the lack of resources specifically raised as a key obstacle . . .
And in the end, just like any other executive protection model from CEOs on down, the Ambassador always has the final say on his personal detail, practical or not. Stevens was also on record as wanting as low a profile as possible for his own detail that traveled with him, including his sojourns outside Tripoli.
Hindsight and all that, it may have not been wise, and Congress may have wanted him bristling with a security entourage that rivals the President's, but Congress doesn't make that call: the Ambassador does.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 24, 2013, 01:16:42 PM
I agree they were sacked as scapegoats. But that is in tension with the "negligence" explanation
How so?
Quote from: Jacob on January 24, 2013, 12:35:59 PM
I still don't understand the substance of this alleged "scandal".
There wasn't much substance here. Republican politicians know what their constituents want to see. They want to see their congressmen and senators "ripping into" Hillary Clinton and any other officials in the Obama administration. They might have hoped to find something really incriminating, but as Derspeiss admitted, this was political theater.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 24, 2013, 02:36:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 24, 2013, 01:16:42 PM
I agree they were sacked as scapegoats. But that is in tension with the "negligence" explanation
How so?
Because it was an exercise in CYA round up usual suspects, and thus any correlation with actual fault would be coincidental.
My essential problem with the whole inquiry re the size of the detail is that is a classic example of hindsight bias. Of course, the optimal thing to have done was to have deployed an entire batallion of SF and have them set an ambush for the jihadists. Except of course for the obvious fact that lacking 20-20 hindsight there is no way to know the jihadists would strike then and there. What is comes through from the documents is that State was juggling limited resources and moving guys around as they could. State did initially respond to the late 2011 requests by boosting the Benghazi detail to 5 but later rotated them out, presumably to deal with some other need elsewhere, or because some budget bucket was being exhausted. The reality is that State has 300 bases to cover, and the jihadists have the luxury of striking at the weakest and most convenient point to them. Of course it's easy with 20-20 hindsight to point out that the place where the attack eventually came was the place to dedicate extra resources. It's a fundamentally dishonest exercise.
Less lawyer-y: there's a bad case of correlation being mistaken for causation going on here.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 24, 2013, 06:21:55 PM
Because it was an exercise in CYA round up usual suspects, and thus any correlation with actual fault would be coincidental.
Shitcanning four political flunkies is not standard DC CYA.
It isn't? Are there usually more?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 24, 2013, 07:15:26 PM
Shitcanning four political flunkies is not standard DC CYA.
QuoteShitcanning four political flunkies
Quotepolitical flunkies
Quoteflunkies
It's not just standard DC CYA, it's CYA all over the damn world. If anything, DC CYA is weird because it usually involves some mid- to low-profile official "resigning," only to show back up in a similar position in the near future.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 24, 2013, 07:15:26 PM
Shitcanning four political flunkies is not standard DC CYA.
I always think of the Thick of It bit on how you can have a good resignation, 'look, people really like it when you go just a bit early! You know; steely jawed, faraway look in your eyes! Before you get to the point when they're sitting round in the pub saying "Oh, that fucker's got to go!", you surprise them! "Blimey, he's gone! I didn't expect that! Resigned? You don't see that much anymore! Old school! Respect! I rather liked the guy! He was hounded out by the fucking press!" How about that, eh? What a way to go!' :lol:
Alastair Campbell (Blair's PR man) used to say if a story lasts for two weeks then someone needs to go, he'd draft the exchange of letters.
But maybe I'm being too cynical. I remember Meri saying something about the Susan Rice nomination that she thought a bit conspiratorial, but it was my standard assumption.
@ Banana: Name one instance prior to Benghazigate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 24, 2013, 07:45:22 PM
@ Banana: Name one instance prior to Benghazigate.
What exactly are you asking for here?
Let me amend what I said: resign and show up in a comparable private sector position.
Van Jones.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2013, 09:25:35 PM
What exactly are you asking for here?
I'm asking for one instance during Obama's tenure prior to the resignation of the four State Department officials in which one or more people were fired as an excercise in scapegoating/ass covering/damage control/PR.
Surely the agriculture woman you mentioned?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 24, 2013, 09:48:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2013, 09:25:35 PM
What exactly are you asking for here?
I'm asking for one instance during Obama's tenure prior to the resignation of the four State Department officials in which one or more people were fired as an excercise in scapegoating/ass covering/damage control/PR.
Okay, he gave you one, and Shelf alludes to another, Sherrod.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 24, 2013, 09:48:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2013, 09:25:35 PM
What exactly are you asking for here?
I'm asking for one instance during Obama's tenure prior to the resignation of the four State Department officials in which one or more people were fired as an excercise in scapegoating/ass covering/damage control/PR.
Luckily, there aren't examples, since the Obama administration has avoided such fuck ups that would require sending the help to the guillotine.
It's more Obama's style to throw people he's nominated to positions under the bus before they even get confirmed than to fire them later.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 25, 2013, 12:46:12 AM
Luckily, there aren't examples, since the Obama administration has avoided such fuck ups that would require sending the help to the guillotine.
This is precisely my point. You don't send people to the guillotine unless there's a fuckup, or at least the widespread perception of a fuckup.
You don't fire people to CYA every time the opposition cries foul. If you did you would work your way through the entire working age population in two years.
Yi since you are so convinced by inference that negligence occurred, can you explain what such negligence consisted of and what evidence supports it?
Since the supporting documents are in the public domain and accessible on the internet, this should be a straightforward task.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2013, 09:06:53 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 25, 2013, 12:46:12 AM
Luckily, there aren't examples, since the Obama administration has avoided such fuck ups that would require sending the help to the guillotine.
This is precisely my point. You don't send people to the guillotine unless there's a fuckup, or at least the widespread perception of a fuckup.
You don't fire people to CYA every time the opposition cries foul. If you did you would work your way through the entire working age population in two years.
BS you were given two examples.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2013, 09:58:11 AM
Yi since you are so convinced by inference that negligence occurred, can you explain what such negligence consisted of and what evidence supports it?
Since the supporting documents are in the public domain and accessible on the internet, this should be a straightforward task.
You misunderstand. I don't think negligence occured. I think these were bad firings.