QuoteAP Exclusive: Watchdog report says senior IRS officials knew tea party groups targeted in 2011
WASHINGTON — Senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups as early as 2011, according to a draft of an inspector general's report obtained by The Associated Press that seemingly contradicts public statements by the IRS commissioner.
The IRS apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status. The agency blamed low-level employees, saying no high-level officials were aware.
But on June 29, 2011, Lois G. Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt organizations, learned at a meeting that groups were being targeted, according to the watchdog's report. At the meeting, she was told that groups with "Tea Party," ''Patriot" or "9/12 Project" in their names were being flagged for additional and often burdensome scrutiny, the report says.
The 9-12 Project is a group started by conservative TV personality Glenn Beck.
Lerner instructed agents to change the criteria for flagging groups "immediately," the report says.
The Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration is expected to release the results of a nearly yearlong investigation in the coming week. The AP obtained part of the draft report, which has been shared with congressional aides.
Among the other revelations, on Aug. 4, 2011, staffers in the IRS' Rulings and Agreements office "held a meeting with chief counsel so that everyone would have the latest information on the issue."
On Jan, 25, 2012, the criteria for flagging suspect groups was changed to, "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement," the report says.
While this was happening, several committees in Congress were writing numerous letters IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman to express concern because tea party groups were complaining of IRS harassment.
In Shulman's responses, he did not acknowledge targeting of tea party groups. At a congressional hearing March 22, 2012, Shulman was adamant in his denials.
"There's absolutely no targeting. This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people" who apply for tax-exempt status, Shulman said at the House Ways and Means subcommittee hearing.
The portion of the draft report reviewed by the AP does not say whether Shulman or anyone else in the Obama administration outside the IRS was informed of the targeting. It is standard procedure for agency heads to consult with staff before responding to congressional inquiries, but it is unclear how much information Shulman sought.
The IRS has not said when Shulman found out that Tea Party groups were targeted.
Shulman was appointed by President George W. Bush, a Republican. His 6-year term ended in November. President Barack Obama has yet to nominate a successor. The agency is now run by an acting commissioner, Steven Miller.
The IRS said in a statement Saturday that the agency believes the timeline in the IG's report is correct, and supports what officials said Friday.
"IRS senior leadership was not aware of this level of specific details at the time of the March 2012 hearing," the statement said. "The timeline does not contradict the commissioner's testimony. While exempt organizations officials knew of the situation earlier, the timeline reflects that IRS senior leadership did not have this level of detail."
Lerner's position is three levels below the commissioner.
"The timeline supports what the IRS acknowledged on Friday that mistakes were made," the statement continued. "There were not partisan reasons behind this."
Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's oversight subcommittee, said the report "raises serious questions as to who at IRS, Treasury and in the administration knew about this, why this practice was allowed to continue for as long as it did, and how widespread it was."
"This timeline reveals at least two extremely unethical actions by the IRS. One, as early as 2010, they targeted groups for political purposes. Two, they willfully and knowingly lied to Congress for years despite being aware that Congress was investigating this practice," Boustany said.
"This is an outrageous abuse of power. Going after organizations for referencing the Bill of Rights or expressing the intent to make this country a better place is repugnant," Boustany added. "There is no excuse for this behavior."
Several congressional committees have promised investigations, including the Ways and Means Committee, which plans to hold a hearing.
"The admission by the agency that it targeted American taxpayers based on politics is both shocking and disappointing," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. "We will hold the IRS accountable for its actions."
The group Tea Party Patriots said the revelation was proof that the IRS had lied to Congress and the public when Schulman said there had been no targeting of tea party groups.
"We must know how many more lies they have been telling and how high up the chain the cover-up goes," Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for the group Tea Party Patriots, said in a statement Saturday.
"It appears the IRS committed crimes and violated our ability to exercise our First Amendment right to free speech. A simple apology is not sufficient reparation for violating the constitutional rights of United States citizens. Therefore, Tea Party Patriots rejects the apology from the Internal Revenue Service," Martin said. "We are, however, encouraged to hear that Congress plans to investigate. Those responsible must be held accountable and resign or be terminated for their actions."
On Friday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the administration expected the inspector general to conduct a thorough investigation, but he brushed aside calls for the White House itself to investigate.
Many conservative groups complained during the 2012 election that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.
The forms, which the groups have made available, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members.
In some cases, the IRS acknowledged, agents inappropriately asked for lists of donors.
There has been a surge of politically active groups claiming tax-exempt status in recent elections — conservative and liberal. Among the highest profile are Republican Karl Rove's group Crossroads GPS and the liberal Moveon.org.
These groups claim tax-exempt status under section 501 (c) (4) of the federal tax code, which is for social welfare groups. Unlike other charitable groups, these organizations are allowed to participate in political activities, but their primary activity must be social welfare.
That determination is up to the IRS.
The number of groups filing for this tax-exempt status more than doubled from 2010 to 2012, to more than 3,400. To handle the influx, the IRS centralized its review of these applications in an office in Cincinnati.
Lerner said on Friday this was done to develop expertise among staffers and consistency in their reviews. As part of the review, staffers look for signs that groups are participating in political activity. If so, IRS agents take a closer look to make sure that politics isn't the group's primary activity.
As part of this process, agents in Cincinnati came up with a list of things to look for in an application. As part of the list, they included the words "tea party" and "patriot," Lerner said.
"It's the line people that did it without talking to managers," Lerner told the AP on Friday. "They're IRS workers, they're revenue agents."
In all, about 300 groups were singled out for additional review, Lerner said. Of those, about a quarter were singled out because they had "tea party" or "patriot" somewhere in their applications.
Lerner said 150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked, though some withdrew their applications.
Unlike Benghazi, this has the whiff of scandal about it. I think the Tea Party guy is ahead of himself in saying there's a cover-up and asking how far it goes but I think there needs to be at least a serious investigation into this.
We've already discussed this, man.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,13.msg579511/topicseen.html#msg579511
And there's nothing to investigate.
Putting the IRS on your political enemies is well-established procedure for US presidents. And it's not like the Tea Party isn't full of people who love evading taxes. Isn't that sort of thing, other than guns, what the militia movement's all about?
I'm amazed that it took so long for this to hit Languish. It looks pretty damning for the IRS so far.
Quote from: merithyn on May 11, 2013, 07:48:44 PM
It looks pretty damning for the IRS so far.
No, it doesn't.
You have an avalanche of applications for tax exemption for a bunch of tax-hating crackers that want to claim "social welfare" status. It's called due fucking diligence.
Quote from: merithyn on May 11, 2013, 07:48:44 PM
I'm amazed that it took so long for this to hit Languish. It looks pretty damning for the IRS so far.
Not if you're Seedy. Can't wait for President Rand Paul to start auditing Planned Parenthood.
Quote from: Scipio on May 11, 2013, 07:52:46 PM
Can't wait for President Rand Paul to start auditing Planned Parenthood.
There's a substantial and well-demarcated line between Planned Parenthood, Inc. and The Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Black Person's Uterus Hater.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2013, 07:52:18 PM
You have an avalanche of applications for tax exemption for a bunch of tax-hating crackers that want to claim "social welfare" status. It's called due fucking diligence.
So investigate it. See if they're applying due diligence equally. If so then no worries, but is it that necessary? If not then why was it applied more to right-wing groups?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 11, 2013, 07:56:43 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2013, 07:52:18 PM
You have an avalanche of applications for tax exemption for a bunch of tax-hating crackers that want to claim "social welfare" status. It's called due fucking diligence.
So investigate it. See if they're applying due diligence equally. If so then no worries, but is it that necessary? If not then why was it applied more to right-wing groups?
501c4 applications doubled between 2010 and 2012 due to
Citizens United; sorry, but "sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires"--which is common practice for follow-up applications that aren't explanatory enough--isn't harassment, no matter how much anti-government noodleheads bitch. Particularly when none of them have been rejected.
Next time fill in all the boxes completely and clearly, Cletus, and you won't get "lengthy, intrusive questionnaires" to follow up your application written in crayon on the back of the church bulletin.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Think of it as profiling. Tea Party is cool with that.
The IRS targeting people who subscribe to the political message of refusing to pay taxes? Outrageous!
That would be like the police profiling NAMBLA activists for the possession of child porn!
If the intent of investigation is to make sure that a group that is supposed to be primarily interested in "social welfare" is actually doing social welfare rather than political actvity, then targetted for further review groups who have specifically political messages like "Tea Party" in their name seems like a rather obvious thing to do.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2013, 08:05:23 PM
501c4 applications doubled between 2010 and 2012 due to Citizens United; sorry, but "sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires"--which is common practice for follow-up applications that aren't explanatory enough--isn't harassment, no matter how much anti-government noodleheads bitch. Particularly when none of them have been rejected.
Next time fill in all the boxes completely and clearly, Cletus, and you won't get "lengthy, intrusive questionnaires" to follow up your application written in crayon on the back of the church bulletin.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Are you calling the IRS inspector general a liar or the AP reporter?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2013, 01:25:47 AM
Are you calling the IRS inspector general a liar or the AP reporter?
I'm saying the only thing the IRS can be accused of in this situation is excessive apologizing to make up for organizational low self-esteem, which one expects from the most universally despised organ of the Federal government, with the notable exception of the Environmental Protection Agency.
It's unfortunate the IRS has to feel the need to apologize for this, but only in an overly politicized atmosphere where "talking points" can equate "cover up" for frothing right wingnutters can "additional scrutiny" of an application for tax exemption equal "targeting".
The IRS admitted it was inappropriate to target only specifically political groups of a certain political bent. Since Presidents in the past have at times abused the IRS to punish political opponents it should come as no surprise there are internal guidelines against such things. So there's really no debate about that, the IRS did wrong. If it was just over-reach by some bureaucrats that the Inspector General has found and that will be dealt with, there's no problem. If the IRS Commissioner has lied about knowing about it (as it appears he has) he probably needs to lose his job for lying.
It's also worth looking into whether anyone associated with President Obama's campaign had anything to do with this heightened scrutiny. I honestly doubt that it was White House driven or directed, but it's something that out of due diligence needs to be investigated. If it is found to be so, you're basically talking Watergate style improper activity FWIW.
It was little low-level desk jockeys in Cincinnati trying to figure out a way to streamline the vetting for all the applications they got buried with. That's all.
Like I said: nothing to see here, move along.
:lol: Don't ever change, Seedy.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 12, 2013, 03:27:27 PM
The IRS admitted it was inappropriate to target only specifically political groups of a certain political bent. Since Presidents in the past have at times abused the IRS to punish political opponents it should come as no surprise there are internal guidelines against such things. So there's really no debate about that, the IRS did wrong. If it was just over-reach by some bureaucrats that the Inspector General has found and that will be dealt with, there's no problem. If the IRS Commissioner has lied about knowing about it (as it appears he has) he probably needs to lose his job for lying.
It's also worth looking into whether anyone associated with President Obama's campaign had anything to do with this heightened scrutiny. I honestly doubt that it was White House driven or directed, but it's something that out of due diligence needs to be investigated. If it is found to be so, you're basically talking Watergate style improper activity FWIW.
Delusions of Watergate aside :P, I wonder to the extent this gets exploited. From what I understand from talking to people that have worked for Koch Industries, for instance, they take some extremely aggressive tax positions--tax positions that a public company would be reluctant to take because of the scrutiny they would be under (and very often they are buying public companies and taking them private). It could be their Republican patronage is in part motivated to make any serious IRS action against them seem partisan and also give them political allies in a fight.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 12, 2013, 02:15:30 PM
I'm saying the only thing the IRS can be accused of in this situation is excessive apologizing to make up for organizational low self-esteem, which one expects from the most universally despised organ of the Federal government, with the notable exception of the Environmental Protection Agency.
It's unfortunate the IRS has to feel the need to apologize for this, but only in an overly politicized atmosphere where "talking points" can equate "cover up" for frothing right wingnutters can "additional scrutiny" of an application for tax exemption equal "targeting".
This is a reasonable (i.e. not totally wacky) narrative of the events. It does however have two major problems. One is that the IRS does not have an institutional history of apologizing publicly for doing its job correctly. The other is the statement of Lois Lerhner, who said she learned in a meeting that organizations with Tea Party associated names were being targeted for extra scrutiny and information.
The ship may have already sailed on this one Seedy. There's an article in today's NYT by Ross Douhot (not exactly a Tea Party standard bearer) taking the targeting as given and drawing it into what he calls a pattern of "Brown Scares"--exaggerated and hyped fear of right-wing extremism. Raz might enjoy that article.
I would think that flying a plane into an IRS building is extreme.
Oh, and here's the IRS apologizing about something in March. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/03/27/irs-apologizes-for-star-trek-video-as-congress-jumps-at-chance-to-criticize-spending/
Thanks for sharing Raz.
Typical Obama BS. Like Benghazi. Dead Amassador, just a protest over a film, not a teerorist attack...... Oh wait the elections over, it's a terrorist attack.
Obama=Nothing to see here
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2013, 03:47:14 PM
The ship may have already sailed on this one Seedy.
Bah. Bah, I say.
If
Citizens United didn't unleash the floodgates for every nut with a tricorn, a musket and a picture of Obama in a Nazi uniform to file for tax exemption, there'd be no need to take a closer look at organizations applying for "social welfare" status.
Bah.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 12, 2013, 04:01:34 PM
Typical Obama BS. Like Benghazi. Dead Amassador, just a protest over a film, not a teerorist attack...... Oh wait the elections over, it's a terrorist attack.
Obama=Nothing to see here
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 12, 2013, 04:17:02 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 12, 2013, 04:01:34 PM
Typical Obama BS. Like Benghazi. Dead Amassador, just a protest over a film, not a teerorist attack...... Oh wait the elections over, it's a terrorist attack.
Obama=Nothing to see here
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
It will come out eventually. Until then, not even on my radar. Same with the IRS targeting.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 12, 2013, 03:27:27 PMIf it was just over-reach by some bureaucrats that the Inspector General has found and that will be dealt with, there's no problem. If the IRS Commissioner has lied about knowing about it (as it appears he has) he probably needs to lose his job for lying.
Yep.
QuoteIt's also worth looking into whether anyone associated with President Obama's campaign had anything to do with this heightened scrutiny. I honestly doubt that it was White House driven or directed, but it's something that out of due diligence needs to be investigated.
And I'd add that it may not be under direction from Obama's campaign - though that would be far more serious. It could be a case of bureaucrats trying to curry favour with their political bosses by being a little over-officious against their opponents. In which case there's another sort of problem that needs addressing.
QuoteTypical Obama BS. Like Benghazi. Dead Amassador, just a protest over a film, not a teerorist attack...... Oh wait the elections over, it's a terrorist attack.
There's a thread for this. But I still don't get the issue over Benghazi. I think it's bollocks. Allegations wafting on the insubstantial wish that there's a scandal. What's the alleged cover-up covering up? :blink:
A Wall Street Journal update:
QuoteIRS Scrutiny Was Deeper Than Thought
By JOHN D. MCKINNON
WASHINGTON—Government investigators have found that the Internal Revenue Service scrutinized conservative groups for raising political concerns over government spending, debt and taxes or even for advocating making America a better place to live, according to new details likely to inflame a widening IRS controversy.
The latest details about the IRS handling of applications for tax-exempt status by tea party, patriot and other conservative groups in recent years were provided to congressional investigators by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. The findings were reviewed Sunday by The Wall Street Journal.
On Friday, a top IRS official said the agency was "apologetic" for what she termed "absolutely inappropriate" actions by lower-level workers in selecting some conservative groups for extra scrutiny to determine whether their applications should be approved. The official, Lois Lerner, said that agency workers picked groups for extra scrutiny according to whether they had "tea party" or "patriot" in their names, among other criteria.
The new details suggest that agency workers also were examining statements in the groups' applications to determine whether they had a political leaning.
Tax-exempt groups organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code are allowed to engage in some political activity, but the primary focus of their efforts must remain promoting "social welfare."
Promoting social welfare can include lobbying and advocacy for issues and legislation, but not outright political campaign activity. But some of the rules leave room for IRS officials to make judgment calls and probe individual groups for further information.
The inspector general office has been conducting an audit of the IRS handling of the applications process. Its report is expected to be released this week.
The audit follows complaints during 2012 by numerous tea-party and other conservative groups that they had been singled out and subjected to excessive and inappropriate questioning. Many groups say they were asked for lists of their donors and other sensitive information.
IRS officials said last week that the focused review of conservative groups was initiated by lower-level civil servants in the IRS Cincinnati office, not by political appointees in Washington, and was not politically motivated. Instead, they say it stemmed from a misguided effort to centralize review of a growing number of applications for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status.
On Sunday, a government official said that the inspector general report also will note that IRS officials said no one outside the IRS was involved in developing the criteria that the IRS now acknowledges were flawed.
Some but not all of the detailed findings likely will appear in the inspector general report.
The findings provided to congressional investigators show that some IRS workers in 2010-2011 weren't just singling out groups according to their names, as IRS officials suggested on Friday. Instead, they apparently were probing the applications themselves for indications of political interests or leanings.
"From February through August 2010, no official criteria [for the heightened review] existed, but specialists had been asked to be on the lookout for Tea Party applications, and the IRS Determinations Unit had begun searching its database for applications with 'Tea Party,' 'Patriots,' or '9/12' in the organization's name as well as other 'political sounding' names," according to the detailed Treasury inspector general findings.
By June 2011, some IRS specialists were probing applications using the following criteria to identify tea-party cases, according to the Treasury inspector general findings: "'Tea Party,' 'Patriots' or '9/12 Project' is referenced in the case file; issues include government spending, government debt or taxes; education of the public by advocacy/lobbying to 'make America a better place to live'; statements in the case file criticize how the country is being run."
The criteria since have been revised at the insistence of top IRS officials to be more neutral.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 12, 2013, 04:16:39 PM
Bah. Bah, I say.
If Citizens United didn't unleash the floodgates for every nut with a tricorn, a musket and a picture of Obama in a Nazi uniform to file for tax exemption, there'd be no need to take a closer look at organizations applying for "social welfare" status.
Bah.
This is a good point, one I hadn't considered. It is after all basic human nature, when confronted with a sudden deluge of work which can not possibly be accomplished in the time allotted, to ask for additional work.
And like I said I do not believe the White House had anything to do with this whatsoever. I simply do not believe that is what happened. All I was saying is if they did it would be a serious issue, it'd be abuse of power to harm opposition groups during an election. That's as serious as it gets in terms of political misdeeds in this country.
The public good requires that the IRS be a trusted (but obviously not loved) entity, there cannot be even the appearance that the IRS is used for political means by the party in control of the White House. For that reason, while I think the Inspector General from Treasury appears to have done an amazing job (and in fact deserves credit for uncovering this--something in itself that reinforces the integrity of Treasury and the IRS), we do need some level of scrutiny to produce "public assurance" that this was indeed what it appears to be--overzealous bureaucrats.
If IRS Commissioner Shulman knew about this improper activity from subordinates, especially before the 2012 House Ways and Means Subcommittee meeting where he testified about it, and did not disclose it, that's the ball game for him. I don't think Shulman has anything to do with the heightened scrutiny, I do think it was just overzealous bureaucrats and they cleaned it up and made sure the policy was fixed when it was discovered. But at his level of government, you don't get a free pass. Actually for his sake he better not have been lying before the House because that would make him indictable for perjury. But even if he learned about it after his House testimony last year, he has repeatedly made statements denying anyone at the higher levels knew about it (which we know categorically is false) so even just for lying to the public about this (assuming he truly didn't know back i 2012 when he testified) is enough to me, to injure the integrity of the IRS that he needs to go.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2013, 04:39:46 PM
There's a thread for this. But I still don't get the issue over Benghazi. I think it's bollocks. Allegations wafting on the insubstantial wish that there's a scandal. What's the alleged cover-up covering up? :blink:
I'll sit and wait on this and Benghazi. The turds will float to the top, always does. Whether the turds are the GOP (Tea Party) investigating or State Department incompetence or inappropriate practices by the IRS. Either way it will come out. Clinton will be scrutinized to the umpteenth degree, for the Benghazi issue, if she steps on the stage for the 2016 Prez run.
I didnt like Romney, nor did I vote for him. He should have drilled the Black Jesus in the debate over Benghazi. A major error on his part.
Obama administration is not transparent. Oh wait, that was a campaign promise was it not? :rolleyes: What's his legacy going to be? Obama-care :lol:
QuoteOn Friday, a top IRS official said the agency was "apologetic" for what she termed "absolutely inappropriate" actions by lower-level workers in selecting some conservative groups for extra scrutiny to determine whether their applications should be approved. The official, Lois Lerner, said that agency workers picked groups for extra scrutiny according to whether they had "tea party" or "patriot" in their names, among other criteria.
Why and were they acting on their own. I doubt it. IMO is what needs to be found out. Somebody has some shitty drawers.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 12, 2013, 04:53:27 PMThe public good requires that the IRS be a trusted (but obviously not loved) entity, there cannot be even the appearance that the IRS is used for political means by the party in control of the White House. For that reason, while I think the Inspector General from Treasury appears to have done an amazing job (and in fact deserves credit for uncovering this--something in itself that reinforces the integrity of Treasury and the IRS), we do need some level of scrutiny to produce "public assurance" that this was indeed what it appears to be--overzealous bureaucrats.
Exactly. There needs to be a serious investigation at the very least. On what's come out so far I agree Shulman's position looks very difficult.
As I say it may not necessarily be orders from the White House. A politicisation of the IRS would be a bad thing, say bureaucrats doing the job they think the politicians want and that should be investigated and addressed.
There may be nothing there but I think this certainly merits looking into. No doubt we'll now get a calm and forensic analysis from a Congressional committee :lol:
QuoteObama administration is not transparent. Oh wait, that was a campaign promise was it not?
The more Obama breaks promises to transparency freaks, environmentalists and civil libertarians the more he's doing a good job :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2013, 05:05:26 PM
QuoteObama administration is not transparent. Oh wait, that was a campaign promise was it not?
The more Obama breaks promises, to transparency freaks, environmentalists and civil libertarians the more he's doing a good job :P
Yes, that's what the sheepeople think. Oops and say
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2013, 05:05:26 PM
No doubt we'll now get a calm and forensic analysis from a Congressional committee :lol:
:D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2013, 05:10:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2013, 05:05:26 PM
No doubt we'll now get a calm and forensic analysis from a Congressional committee :lol:
:D
True. Hope it is epic entertainment.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 12, 2013, 05:11:12 PM
True. Hope it is epic entertainment.
They're always the purest crap.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2013, 05:13:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 12, 2013, 05:11:12 PM
True. Hope it is epic entertainment.
They're always the purest crap.
Yeah and I don't think we can hope for much joy from political grandstanders vs accountants. At least Galloway was entertaining :P
Quote from: 11B4V on May 12, 2013, 04:01:34 PM
Typical Obama BS. Like Benghazi. Dead Amassador, just a protest over a film, not a teerorist attack...... Oh wait the elections over, it's a terrorist attack.
Obama=Nothing to see here
Except he said it was a terrorist attack the next day. Typical hillbilly ignorance.
Did Darrell Issa demand an investigation when it was reveal that the FBI was spying on anti-war groups?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2013, 05:56:38 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 12, 2013, 04:01:34 PM
Typical Obama BS. Like Benghazi. Dead Amassador, just a protest over a film, not a teerorist attack...... Oh wait the elections over, it's a terrorist attack.
Obama=Nothing to see here
Except he said it was a terrorist attack the next day. Typical hillbilly ignorance.
He did? Well blow me down.
Consider yourself, fully blown.
http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-story/full-transcript-of-obama-s-rose-garden-speech-after-sept-11-benghazi-attack
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2013, 06:29:29 PM
Consider yourself, fully blown.
http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-story/full-transcript-of-obama-s-rose-garden-speech-after-sept-11-benghazi-attack
QuoteUnder the video is a press release later distributed by the Whitehouse that includes the word "terror" used in the generic sense, not referring to "terrorism" or "terrorist act". The choice of words is not a trivial matter in White House parlance, and the word "terrorist act" has an historic and specific meaning. Nor did any of the official Whitehouse statements in the following two weeks refer to "terrorist act." Nor did President Obama tonight refer to the attack as a "terrorist act." We maintain that there was a meaningful distinction in the use of the word that could have easily been dispelled and/or clarified tonight...it was not.
Nice try skippy. Oh and from your own link too.
I'll never get the American frothing over 'act of terror'. I remember during the Boston bombing seeing people debating whether it was a terrorist act and whether Obama should say that etc. I couldn't work out what else it could be :blink:
That's an absurd attempt to split heirs. "Yeah, he said, "terror", but in the super secret White House code he didn't actually mean "terror". I should have looked at the the link more carefully, I seem to have accidentally picked a wingnut sight.
http://nation.foxnews.com/60-minutes/2012/11/05/cbs-held-damaging-obama-benghazi-tape
Nice dance Mr. Prez
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhighbrowmagazine.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2mediumtap.jpg&hash=a9a22fadc3a44c1fad7c6e126d37d82765ee218a)
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2013, 06:39:05 PM
I'll never get the American frothing over 'act of terror'. I remember during the Boston bombing seeing people debating whether it was a terrorist act and whether Obama should say that etc. I couldn't work out what else it could be :blink:
It was
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2013, 06:39:05 PM
I'll never get the American frothing over 'act of terror'. I remember during the Boston bombing seeing people debating whether it was a terrorist act and whether Obama should say that etc. I couldn't work out what else it could be :blink:
My sense is that Obama is reluctant to attribute anything to terrorist networks / terrorism until all the evidence is in considering what happened in the last administration. It is better to avoid rushing to judgments that in the recent past were used to go to war, torture people, etc. (and also judgments of dubious accuracy in some cases).
The result is Republicans get their panties in a wad over the timetable used by Obama to label things terrorism.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 12, 2013, 06:53:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2013, 06:39:05 PM
I'll never get the American frothing over 'act of terror'. I remember during the Boston bombing seeing people debating whether it was a terrorist act and whether Obama should say that etc. I couldn't work out what else it could be :blink:
My sense is that Obama is reluctant to attribute anything to terrorist networks / terrorism until all the evidence is in considering what happened in the last administration. It is better to avoid rushing to judgments that in the recent past were used to go to war, torture people, etc. (and also judgments of dubious accuracy in some cases).
The result is Republicans get their panties in a wad over the timetable used by Obama to label things terrorism.
The Obama Administration is a cautious one, one that acts with deliberation and waits for all the facts to come in; we've seen it regarding other issues, not simply in foreign policy.
Although, considering the uproar over 4 dead State Department civilians in an unfortunate clusterfuck of a complex and confusing quagmire, I can only imagine how much Congress is chomping at the bit to get to the bottom of the intelligence failures and policy faults that led to over 3,500 US deaths in Iraq. I'm sure they will find the parties responsible for that, and act accordingly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2013, 04:53:10 PM
This is a good point, one I hadn't considered. It is after all basic human nature, when confronted with a sudden deluge of work which can not possibly be accomplished in the time allotted, to ask for additional work.
For low-level Federal paper pushers qualifying applications, yeah. That's the counter-intuitiveness of government work for you.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2013, 06:39:05 PM
I'll never get the American frothing over 'act of terror'. I remember during the Boston bombing seeing people debating whether it was a terrorist act and whether Obama should say that etc. I couldn't work out what else it could be :blink:
I suppose it's possible when he was talking about terror he was actually talking about his own personal terror of bees or growing old alone. That's rather unlikely in the middle of a speech about a recent attack on the US, but the GOP believe all sorts of odd things.
Did you take a look at Before's timeline Shelf? I think it's a safe bet that the person or people who put it together had an axe to grind, but it does present the germ of a reasonable critique of the Obama administration's message in the wake of the attack. It asserts that in the days immediately following, the administration consistently pushed the story of the attack arising spontaneously due to the Mohammed video. That's an entirely different message than "it is to early to tell for sure."
Obama administration did not want a revealed terrorist attack on Benghazi to make him look weak / failure on foreign policy, so he and Rice blamed it on a Youtube video for as long as possible.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 13, 2013, 12:02:28 AM
Obama administration did not want a revealed terrorist attack on Benghazi to make him look weak / failure on foreign policy, so he and Rice blamed it on a Youtube video for as long as possible.
:yes: There was an election looming. Obama played politics even at the expense of his dead ambassador. Then probably had a loyal minion (Rice) fall on her sword in a further deflection. She either new going in or was just a loyal dope. What a great guy, eh?
Eleven Bravo has been inhaling too much gunpowder :(
Quote from: katmai on May 13, 2013, 01:03:50 AM
Eleven Bravo has been inhaling too much gunpowder :(
:lol: No, and we'll see. It a'int played out yet.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 12:47:29 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 13, 2013, 12:02:28 AM
Obama administration did not want a revealed terrorist attack on Benghazi to make him look weak / failure on foreign policy, so he and Rice blamed it on a Youtube video for as long as possible.
:yes: There was an election looming. Obama played politics even at the expense of his dead ambassador. Then probably had a loyal minion (Rice) fall on her sword in a further deflection. She either new going in or was just a loyal dope. What a great guy, eh?
How is that at the expense of anyone? Would the dead ambassador come back from the dead if Obama had said it was terrorism?
How is him NOT saying it is terrorism help him anyway?
It doesn't even make any sense if it is true. Beghazi being a terrorist attack isn't going to make everyone not vote for Obama - if anything, historically it has the opposite effect.
Oh never mind, this has become "revealed truth" to the nutjobs. It is up there with birth certificates and secret Islam. The only people it needs to convince are those who aren't interested in anything BUT being convinced.
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 01:16:20 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 12:47:29 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 13, 2013, 12:02:28 AM
Obama administration did not want a revealed terrorist attack on Benghazi to make him look weak / failure on foreign policy, so he and Rice blamed it on a Youtube video for as long as possible.
:yes: There was an election looming. Obama played politics even at the expense of his dead ambassador. Then probably had a loyal minion (Rice) fall on her sword in a further deflection. She either new going in or was just a loyal dope. What a great guy, eh?
How is that at the expense of anyone? Would the dead ambassador come back from the dead if Obama had said it was terrorism?
How is him NOT saying it is terrorism help him anyway?
It doesn't even make any sense if it is true. Beghazi being a terrorist attack isn't going to make everyone not vote for Obama - if anything, historically it has the opposite effect.
Oh never mind, this has become "revealed truth" to the nutjobs. It is up there with birth certificates and secret Islam. The only people it needs to convince are those who aren't interested in anything BUT being convinced.
Relax.
George W. ran for reelection on his wars having prevented future terrorist attacks. "He kept us safe."
Obama ran for reelection on the same platform. "Killed Osama. Broke the terrorists."
He ran on killing bin Laden, so if it comes out that it was bin Laden who killed the ambassdaor, then ok, you have a point.
He never ran on any claim that he has stopped all terrorism. That is just stupid. Terrorism in general was not even a primary issue in the election cycle, despite Benghazi.
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 01:24:20 AM
He ran on killing bin Laden, so if it comes out that it was bin Laden who killed the ambassdaor, then ok, you have a point.
He never ran on any claim that he has stopped all terrorism. That is just stupid. Terrorism in general was not even a primary issue in the election cycle, despite Benghazi.
The Obama campaign is utterly comprehensive and super cautious. Their approach is not broad despite what you think are the "primary issues". It is surgical and 24x7 both before and after elections. The White House paraded drone killings of top AQ lieutenants over and over. The surge in Afghanistan was justified on grounds that terrorist cells had been dismantled. That Obama had successfully settled Iraq.
And public opinion followed. Democrats are no longer seen as weak on defense and security as they were under the Bush Administration. You really need to give Obama more credit.
As the Monday morning news cycle opens up after the Sunday morning talking head shows, I would say that the one positive from this story is that it at least gets Benghazigate off the front page, but unfortunately it looks like everybody's insisting on making tangible connections between the two. Newt Gingrich has been in rare form this morning.
So what's the buzz title going to be for this? IRSgate? Cincinnatigate? 501(c)(4)gate?
I think with Benghazi they basically fucked up by trying to associate it with the YouTube video to begin with instead of taking a "wait and see" approach. When it became obvious it was totally unrelated they were stuck, they didn't want to say "we shouldn't have spoken so soon" and they didn't want to reverse themselves. I think that lead to a period of indecision, then they release more details. It all happened pretty quickly and doesn't seem like a big deal to me, I don't really think there's a conspiracy. I think they just misplayed the first step and then ran around like chickens with their heads cut off for a brief period when they realized they had to do a public about face.
In most incidents like this officials take a "wait and see" attitude to start with. That's usually how the Obama administration played things, for reasons I'll never fully understand they chose to blame an internet video very early on. That was their mistake, and they paid for it by getting egg on their face, but I don't actually think there was any concerted conspiracy. The public was not kept in the dark for all that long, I think when Obama and Clinton were blaming the YouTube video they generally had no idea what they were talking about. I don't think they were trying to cover up a known terrorist attack.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 13, 2013, 06:50:22 AM
for reasons I'll never fully understand they chose to blame an internet video very early on.
Because it was the most logical conclusion for State officials to come to in light of the Cairo riots which were, in fact, fomented by the video within the same 24 hour period. It made sense at the time, as opposed to an Al Qaeda-affiliated surprise attack hidden within a group of rioters--but this is what happens when the State Department is the organization tasked with taking the policy lead in an environment with little plugged-in input from the Department of Defense or the CIA. For a fluid, confusing environment such as post-Mad Dog Libya, that's always going to be a risk. Considering there were no real intel assets on the ground in eastern Libya at the time talking to State, and no DoD assets at all beyond the compound in Tripoli, naturally it took time to flesh things out between State, DoD and the CIA.
But we can always use more quality Dan Issa and Rand Paul-frothing, particularly when Ambassador Pickering offers to testify and gets rejected.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 07:26:07 AM
Because it was the most logical conclusion for State officials to come to in light of the Cairo riots which were, in fact, fomented by the video within the same 24 hour period.
Yet you had it figured out correctly early on. And a senior DoS person even correctly identified the specific group responsible the day after the attack. All of our people in Libya thought it was a deliberate attack. But yeah, it made so much sense to blame the video and call it spontaneous.
From the New Yorker, of all places :pinch:
QuoteIt's a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration's response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 08:10:37 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 07:26:07 AM
Because it was the most logical conclusion for State officials to come to in light of the Cairo riots which were, in fact, fomented by the video within the same 24 hour period.
Yet you had it figured out correctly early on. And a senior DoS person even correctly identified the specific group responsible the day after the attack. All of our people in Libya thought it was a deliberate attack. But yeah, it made so much sense to blame the video and call it spontaneous.
Whatever, derMcCain, go back and read archived news from September 12th, and how open source coverage of the Cairo and Benghazi violence were completely dovetailing.
And yeah, of course it was a deliberate attack. The EXACT reasons for it were a bit cloudy in the first 72 hours, however.
Coverup. Whatever.
I don't recall George Schultz being subjected to the same scrutiny after two US embassies, an embassy annex and a shitload of Marines were vaporized on his watch.
Sometimes diplomats die, particularly taking the lead in amorphous clusterfuck environments. Servicemen certainly do; civilians aren't immune either.
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 01:16:20 AM
How is that at the expense of anyone? Would the dead ambassador come back from the dead if Obama had said it was terrorism?
How is him NOT saying it is terrorism help him anyway?
It doesn't even make any sense if it is true. Beghazi being a terrorist attack isn't going to make everyone not vote for Obama - if anything, historically it has the opposite effect.
Oh never mind, this has become "revealed truth" to the nutjobs. It is up there with birth certificates and secret Islam. The only people it needs to convince are those who aren't interested in anything BUT being convinced.
That's kind of my take, too.
So what? Ultimately, what does it really matter? I mean, Christ, Bush got away with invading an entire country by saying that he thought - THOUGHT - that there were weapons of mass destruction (and there weren't), and now his party is flipping out over "a terrorist act" versus "terrorism"? Seriously?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 08:35:45 AM
Coverup. Whatever.
I don't recall George Schultz being subjected to the same scrutiny after two US embassies, an embassy annex and a shitload of Marines were vaporized on his watch.
Sometimes diplomats die, particularly taking the lead in amorphous clusterfuck environments. Servicemen certainly do; civilians aren't immune either.
Yeah, good point. I mean, what difference does it make anyway???
Quote from: Phillip V on May 13, 2013, 01:40:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 01:24:20 AM
He ran on killing bin Laden, so if it comes out that it was bin Laden who killed the ambassdaor, then ok, you have a point.
He never ran on any claim that he has stopped all terrorism. That is just stupid. Terrorism in general was not even a primary issue in the election cycle, despite Benghazi.
The Obama campaign is utterly comprehensive and super cautious. Their approach is not broad despite what you think are the "primary issues". It is surgical and 24x7 both before and after elections. The White House paraded drone killings of top AQ lieutenants over and over. The surge in Afghanistan was justified on grounds that terrorist cells had been dismantled. That Obama had successfully settled Iraq.
And public opinion followed. Democrats are no longer seen as weak on defense and security as they were under the Bush Administration. You really need to give Obama more credit.
All of that can be true, and the claim that Obama said he stopped all terrorism such that a single attack would be somehow a political issue is still false.
Obama is so surgical and careful, and yet they claim that they've stopped ALL TERRORISM FOREVER?
Bull.
Shite.
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 08:39:02 AM
I mean, what difference does it make anyway???
Save the partisan sneering, please. We'll see enough of that in commercials
ad nauseum the next two elections from plenty of APPROVED 503(c)(4) groups as it is. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 08:49:46 AM
Save the partisan sneering, please.
Sorry. I'll just start following your oh-so-above-partisanship example :hug:
There's a good chap.
I have to say the Benghazi bit is rather dull. Let's say there was a coverup - is the contention that if the American people had known The Truth™ the election would have gone the other way?
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2013, 10:01:58 AM
I have to say the Benghazi bit is rather dull. Let's say there was a coverup - is the contention that if the American people had known The Truth™ the election would have gone the other way?
I dont even think the GOP could have determined that with certainty before the election. Wasnt enough time.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:05:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2013, 10:01:58 AM
I have to say the Benghazi bit is rather dull. Let's say there was a coverup - is the contention that if the American people had known The Truth™ the election would have gone the other way?
I dont even think the GOP could have determined that with certainty before the election. Wasnt enough time.
Then why does it matter?
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 10:05:59 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:05:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2013, 10:01:58 AM
I have to say the Benghazi bit is rather dull. Let's say there was a coverup - is the contention that if the American people had known The Truth™ the election would have gone the other way?
I dont even think the GOP could have determined that with certainty before the election. Wasnt enough time.
Then why does it matter?
Incompetence
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 10:05:59 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:05:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2013, 10:01:58 AM
I have to say the Benghazi bit is rather dull. Let's say there was a coverup - is the contention that if the American people had known The Truth™ the election would have gone the other way?
I dont even think the GOP could have determined that with certainty before the election. Wasnt enough time.
Then why does it matter?
:lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:08:23 AM
Incompetence
I would argue that it was a mistake. Nothing more, nothing less. A mistake that had zero impact on anything in the short- and long-term, even.
The problem is that there are those who view any mistake, however small and inconsequential, as tantamount to treason. It's exactly for that reason that I stopped paying any attention to the GOP shills. Now that there's something that might actually be an issue (the IRS thing), I kind of find myself not really giving a shit, in a kind of "serves them right" kind of way.
There's such a thing as picking your battles, and that seems to be completely lost on the GOP anymore.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:08:23 AM
Incompetence
Any incompetence was related to needing more security in Benghazi, not what the administration said after the event. I don't understand why it was expected that they would know exactly who did what and with what motive within hours of the event. I understand even less why people are so obsessed with fairly trivial and meaningless mistakes in attribution until more facts became clear. It would have been better for the administration to say "we don't know at this time the motives of the attackers, but we will soon" but only in twenty four hour news land does it matter that the stated understanding of the administration for the motives of attackers changed. If this occurred within days of the election and the delay in information would have potentially changed the result I could buy it, but it isn't even close to that.
The important facts are:
A US ambassador was killed because of a well executed attack that took advantage of less than ideal security.
The security situation resulted from a lack of appreciation of the potential danger in Libya by the administration (despite warnings and requests for more security).
All this nonsense about what was said when is a distraction from this more important issue, and most likely a colossal waste of everybody's time.
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 10:11:17 AM
:lol:
:mellow:
It's when you do shit like that that I stop paying any attention to your arguments.
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 10:31:07 AM
I would argue that it was a mistake. Nothing more, nothing less. A mistake that had zero impact on anything in the short- and long-term, even.
Yeah that's what I don't get. If it was a mistake that still led to the same outcome, had the mistake not been made, then I don't really know why we should be all up in arms - here in May of 2013.
Btw, when I saw the headline, this weekend, about McCain pushing for more investigation into the matter, I couldn't help but think it was time for that old dude to retire. :(
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2013, 10:38:11 AM
Btw, when I saw the headline, this weekend, about McCain pushing for more investigation into the matter, I couldn't help but think it was time for that old dude to retire. :(
I love John, but cannot disagree. He has been nothing but a shill for the worst parts of the Republican Party since 2002. Which I do not understand, what is it that he has to gain at this point?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:08:23 AM
Incompetence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
Anyways . . .
I think it is justifiable to try to identify bogus 501(c)(3)s by text searching for political-like terms, including the very ones used by this Cinci office. However, obviously it was a big no-no to *only* search for those terms favored by TP types as opposed to a broader set of political terms that cover the ideological spectrum.
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 10:31:07 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:08:23 AM
Incompetence
I would argue that it was a mistake. Nothing more, nothing less. A mistake that had zero impact on anything in the short- and long-term, even.
So, a government mistake, whether under a GOP or Dem administration should not be looked into? You trust your government that much? Were not talk conspiracy shit, just oversight and accountability.
Oh, this Benghazi incident will have effects in DoS procedures.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:08:23 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 10:05:59 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:05:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2013, 10:01:58 AM
I have to say the Benghazi bit is rather dull. Let's say there was a coverup - is the contention that if the American people had known The Truth™ the election would have gone the other way?
I dont even think the GOP could have determined that with certainty before the election. Wasnt enough time.
Then why does it matter?
Incompetence
Why does it have to be incompetence?
Quote from: Queequeg on May 13, 2013, 10:45:44 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:08:23 AM
Incompetence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
Two thumbs and read my post above.
More IRS BS
Quote(Newser) – The IRS scandal goes beyond the Tea Party: Documents show that over the past two years while evaluating applications for tax-exempt status, officials also zeroed in on groups that criticized the government or educated Americans about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; as well as groups that were interested in taxes, government spending, or government debt; limiting or expanding the government; improving America; or "social economic reform."
The documents show how the Cincinnati office frequently redefined the types of groups that should be targeted for increased scrutiny, even after division chief Lois Lerner objected in June 2011, the Washington Post reports. In March 2012, then-IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman testified before Congress that the IRS was not singling out conservative groups, the Wall Street Journal reports. It wasn't until May 2012 that a neutral policy was adopted, with the IRS agreeing to target any group that was significantly concerned with political campaigns. The documents don't make it clear who the decision-maker was, Reuters reports.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:47:46 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 10:31:07 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:08:23 AM
Incompetence
I would argue that it was a mistake. Nothing more, nothing less. A mistake that had zero impact on anything in the short- and long-term, even.
So, a government mistake, whether under a GOP or Dem administration should not be looked into? You trust your government that much? Were not talk conspiracy shit, just oversight and accountability.
Oh, this Benghazi incident will have effects in DoS procedures.
What was the "mistake" in your opinion, not giving them more security, or mis-speaking about the root cause of the attack?
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 10:32:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 10:11:17 AM
:lol:
:mellow:
It's when you do shit like that that I stop paying any attention to your arguments.
I laughed because it sounded eerily similar to Hillary's bitchy response during her congressional hearing.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:47:46 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 10:31:07 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:08:23 AM
Incompetence
I would argue that it was a mistake. Nothing more, nothing less. A mistake that had zero impact on anything in the short- and long-term, even.
So, a government mistake, whether under a GOP or Dem administration should not be looked into? You trust your government that much? Were not talk conspiracy shit, just oversight and accountability.
Oh, this Benghazi incident will have effects in DoS procedures.
But it's pretty clear what the mistake is! You're talking as if we don't already understand what happened. EVERYONE knows what happened. What kind of "oversight" and "accountability" is necessary for misspeaking at a press conference after something goes wrong?
And yes, I know you're talking about the deaths in Benghazi, except that that's not what's being investigated, is it? No one is talking about what to do next to protect our embassadors. No. The focus is on who said what when in the days following the tragedy.
Quote from: sbr on May 13, 2013, 10:53:36 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:47:46 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 10:31:07 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:08:23 AM
Incompetence
I would argue that it was a mistake. Nothing more, nothing less. A mistake that had zero impact on anything in the short- and long-term, even.
So, a government mistake, whether under a GOP or Dem administration should not be looked into? You trust your government that much? Were not talk conspiracy shit, just oversight and accountability.
Oh, this Benghazi incident will have effects in DoS procedures.
What was the "mistake" in your opinion, not giving them more security, or mis-speaking about the root cause of the attack?
Both.
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 10:57:24 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:47:46 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 10:31:07 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:08:23 AM
Incompetence
I would argue that it was a mistake. Nothing more, nothing less. A mistake that had zero impact on anything in the short- and long-term, even.
So, a government mistake, whether under a GOP or Dem administration should not be looked into? You trust your government that much? Were not talk conspiracy shit, just oversight and accountability.
Oh, this Benghazi incident will have effects in DoS procedures.
But it's pretty clear what the mistake is! You're talking as if we don't already understand what happened. EVERYONE knows what happened. What kind of "oversight" and "accountability" is necessary for misspeaking at a press conference after something goes wrong?
And yes, I know you're talking about the deaths in Benghazi, except that that's not what's being investigated, is it? No one is talking about what to do next to protect our embassadors. No. The focus is on who said what when in the days following the tragedy.
Misleading.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:47:46 AM
So, a government mistake, whether under a GOP or Dem administration should not be looked into? You trust your government that much? Were not talk conspiracy shit, just oversight and accountability.
There is a cost vs. reward calculation to be done there. The administration can look into their security procedures, but under no circumstances should Congress be getting involved. If you're talking about incompetence, why would you have the absolute least competent organization in the United States federal government hold hearings about it? Unless of course your goal isn't to do anything but to try and turn this thing into some electoral hay for midterms next year.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:47:46 AM
So, a government mistake, whether under a GOP or Dem administration should not be looked into?
Ok but it's not like this particular snafu has suffered from lack of inquiry.
There are a lot of other mistakes that probably merit some attention. For example, rather than engage in the 14th investigation of Benghazi, maybe some of the geniuses who are up in lather about the Kenyan socialists should ask themselves why 3-4 years after the collapse of Fannie and Freddie, the US federal government has in effect a monopoly over residential mortgage finance. It's not like it is a big deal - only a few trillion dollars or so. Clearly it is more important to examine in minute detail how the Secretary of State micro-managed consular security detail assignments.
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 10:54:39 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 10:32:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 10:11:17 AM
:lol:
:mellow:
It's when you do shit like that that I stop paying any attention to your arguments.
I laughed because it sounded eerily similar to Hillary's bitchy response during her congressional hearing.
What an absolute horrible answer that Hillary gave.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 11:00:43 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 10:54:39 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 10:32:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 10:11:17 AM
:lol:
:mellow:
It's when you do shit like that that I stop paying any attention to your arguments.
I laughed because it sounded eerily similar to Hillary's bitchy response during her congressional hearing.
What an absolute horrible answer that Hillary gave.
Otherwise known as the appropriate answer.
Quote from: Neil on May 13, 2013, 10:59:32 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:47:46 AM
So, a government mistake, whether under a GOP or Dem administration should not be looked into? You trust your government that much? Were not talk conspiracy shit, just oversight and accountability.
If you're talking about incompetence, why would you have the absolute least competent organization in the United States federal government hold hearings about it?
:lol: So congress should not investigate anything..... Watergate, Iraq, 911, IRS, Wall Street..etc. Try again.
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 10:54:39 AM
I laughed because it sounded eerily similar to Hillary's bitchy response during her congressional hearing.
It's a fair question under the circumstances. I'm sure plenty of people have asked that same question. I don't get why it's funny.
Oh right. Because Hilary and I are both women, so it must be a woman thing. Ha. Ha. Ha. I get it. Yeah.. that's a real knee-slapper.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2013, 10:59:56 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:47:46 AM
So, a government mistake, whether under a GOP or Dem administration should not be looked into?
Ok but it's not like this particular snafu has suffered from lack of inquiry.
There are a lot of other mistakes that probably merit some attention. For example, rather than engage in the 14th investigation of Benghazi, maybe some of the geniuses who are up in lather about the Kenyan socialists should ask themselves why 3-4 years after the collapse of Fannie and Freddie, the US federal government has in effect a monopoly over residential mortgage finance. It's not like it is a big deal - only a few trillion dollars or so. Clearly it is more important to examine in minute detail how the Secretary of State micro-managed consular security detail assignments.
Surely, your on point.
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2013, 11:03:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 11:00:43 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 10:54:39 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 10:32:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 10:11:17 AM
:lol:
:mellow:
It's when you do shit like that that I stop paying any attention to your arguments.
I laughed because it sounded eerily similar to Hillary's bitchy response during her congressional hearing.
What an absolute horrible answer that Hillary gave.
Otherwise known as the appropriate answer.
If you say so. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Neil on May 13, 2013, 10:59:32 AM
If you're talking about incompetence, why would you have the absolute least competent organization in the United States federal government hold hearings about it? Unless of course your goal isn't to do anything but to try and turn this thing into some electoral hay for midterms next year.
That's a good point. How about we go ahead and appoint a special prosecutor to look into it? ;)
11B4V, if someone burns down your house while you aren't home does this prove you are incompetent?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 11:11:54 AM
11B4V, if someone burns down your house while you aren't home does this prove you are incompetent?
Let me rephrase that to keep you on point.
Raz if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove incompetence?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 11:04:09 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 13, 2013, 10:59:32 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:47:46 AM
So, a government mistake, whether under a GOP or Dem administration should not be looked into? You trust your government that much? Were not talk conspiracy shit, just oversight and accountability.
If you're talking about incompetence, why would you have the absolute least competent organization in the United States federal government hold hearings about it?
:lol: So congress should not investigate anything..... Watergate, Iraq, 911, IRS, Wall Street..etc. Try again.
Vince Foster, Black Helicopters, water fluoridation...
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 11:04:48 AM
Oh right. Because Hilary and I are both women, so it must be a woman thing. Ha. Ha. Ha. I get it. Yeah.. that's a real knee-slapper.
Yes!! It's a woman thing. How did you figure that out?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 11:16:30 AM
Let me rephrase that to keep you on point.
Raz if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove incompetence?
Let me rephrase that for you:
11B4V, if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove that the SoS said the wrong thing at a news conference?
Again, I don't think that anyone is disagreeing that there were mistakes made regarding the safety in Benghazi. EVERYONE has agreed that mistakes were made, and the SoS and the administration have said that they were looking into how to make sure those kinds of mistakes don't happen again.
Where is the cover-up?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 11:16:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 11:11:54 AM
11B4V, if someone burns down your house while you aren't home does this prove you are incompetent?
Let me rephrase that to keep you on point.
Raz if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove incompetence?
Not necessarily. For instance, I fear for my life and I call the police. They send some officers over. They stay around for a week. A month later someone kills me. Does this indicate incompetence? No. There are only so many police officers and they can't hang around my house all the time. Likewise, at Benghazi additional security did show up for a while (I think it was like five guys), and they were later withdrawn back to Tripoli (most likely to for other security threats).
From what I read the Ambassador and his couple of security guards were attacked by around 150 armed men. These men had mortars, heavy machine guns, some truck mounted artillery, anti-air guns, and rocket launchers in addition to small arms. Now you're a military guy, how many security guards armed with small arms would be need to realistically repel such a force in an urban center?
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 11:28:55 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 11:16:30 AM
Let me rephrase that to keep you on point.
Raz if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove incompetence?
Let me rephrase that for you:
11B4V, if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove that the SoS said the wrong thing at a news conference?
Again, I don't think that anyone is disagreeing that there were mistakes made regarding the safety in Benghazi. EVERYONE has agreed that mistakes were made, and the SoS and the administration have said that they were looking into how to make sure those kinds of mistakes don't happen again.
Where is the cover-up?
Lets try that again
Quote11B4V, if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove that the DoS SoS said the wrong thing at a news conference is incompetant?
Yes quite possibly and should be investigated.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 11:16:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 11:11:54 AM
11B4V, if someone burns down your house while you aren't home does this prove you are incompetent?
Let me rephrase that to keep you on point.
Raz if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove incompetence?
No, this proves appropriate allocation of resources, proportional to the potential loss for the society. :P
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 10:54:39 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 10:32:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 10:11:17 AM
:lol:
:mellow:
It's when you do shit like that that I stop paying any attention to your arguments.
I laughed because it sounded eerily similar to Hillary's bitchy response during her congressional hearing.
Derspeiss, you seem dismissive of Clinton's statements. Is this a correct reading of your attitude?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 11:36:53 AM
Lets try that again
Quote11B4V, if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove that the DoS SoS said the wrong thing at a news conference is incompetant?
Yes quite possibly and should be investigated.
It has been. Mistakes were made. Corrections and suggestions to prevent them from happening again.
Again, where is the cover-up??
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 11:34:49 AM
From what I read the Ambassador and his couple of security guards were attacked by around 150 armed men. These men had mortars, heavy machine guns, some truck mounted artillery, anti-air guns, and rocket launchers in addition to small arms.
Hell of a threat assessment by the DoS. eh? That should make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 11:39:40 AM
Derspeiss, you seem dismissive of Clinton's statements. Is this a correct reading of your attitude?
Yep. Bill Safire had her pegged back in 1996.
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 11:52:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 11:39:40 AM
Derspeiss, you seem dismissive of Clinton's statements. Is this a correct reading of your attitude?
Yep. Bill Safire had her pegged back in 1996.
Then, why bring her before a congressional hearing?
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 11:28:55 AM
Let me rephrase that for you:
11B4V, if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove that the SoS said the wrong thing at a news conference?
It does not. What strongly suggests the SoS and the rest of the administration said the wrong thing after the attack is (a) the prior warnings about an attack and (b) the absence of evidence to support the assertion that the attacks arose spontaneously in response to the Mohammed video.
QuoteAgain, I don't think that anyone is disagreeing that there were mistakes made regarding the safety in Benghazi. EVERYONE has agreed that mistakes were made
This is not accurate.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 11:49:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 11:34:49 AM
From what I read the Ambassador and his couple of security guards were attacked by around 150 armed men. These men had mortars, heavy machine guns, some truck mounted artillery, anti-air guns, and rocket launchers in addition to small arms.
Hell of a threat assessment by the DoS. eh? That should make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
You didn't answer my question. How many men would be realistically required to repel such a force?
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 11:49:03 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 11:36:53 AM
Lets try that again
Quote11B4V, if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove that the DoS SoS said the wrong thing at a news conference is incompetant?
Yes quite possibly and should be investigated.
It has been. Mistakes were made. Corrections and suggestions to prevent them from happening again.
It should have never happened in the first place. Bases in CONUS go to a higher threat level with far less information and actual threats. Let alone, Libya was a cluster fuck and the Ambassador request more security.
QuoteAgain, where is the cover-up??
You're stuck on cover-up. Me, on DoS incompetence.
How many mistakes need to be continually made to justify, "What does it matter?"
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 11:56:29 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 11:49:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 11:34:49 AM
From what I read the Ambassador and his couple of security guards were attacked by around 150 armed men. These men had mortars, heavy machine guns, some truck mounted artillery, anti-air guns, and rocket launchers in addition to small arms.
Hell of a threat assessment by the DoS. eh? That should make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
You didn't answer my question. How many men would be realistically required to repel such a force?
How many DoS executives does it take to make a good threat assessment? None apparently.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 11:54:38 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 11:52:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 11:39:40 AM
Derspeiss, you seem dismissive of Clinton's statements. Is this a correct reading of your attitude?
Yep. Bill Safire had her pegged back in 1996.
Then, why bring her before a congressional hearing?
Ah, so that was your "gotcha"?
To get her on record, of course.
I'll ask one more time. How many men are required to are realistically required to repel such a force?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 12:05:22 PM
I'll ask one more time. How many men are required to are realistically required to repel such a force?
Your question is irrelevant.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 12:05:22 PM
I'll ask one more time. How many men are required to are realistically required to repel such a force?
The answer is definitely >2.
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 12:04:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 11:54:38 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 11:52:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 11:39:40 AM
Derspeiss, you seem dismissive of Clinton's statements. Is this a correct reading of your attitude?
Yep. Bill Safire had her pegged back in 1996.
Then, why bring her before a congressional hearing?
Ah, so that was your "gotcha"?
To get her on record, of course.
And how does getting her on the record facilitate learning the truth about Benghazi if you are simply going to dismiss what she says out of hand?
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2013, 11:37:42 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 11:16:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 11:11:54 AM
11B4V, if someone burns down your house while you aren't home does this prove you are incompetent?
Let me rephrase that to keep you on point.
Raz if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove incompetence?
No, this proves appropriate allocation of resources, proportional to the potential loss for the society. :P
:lol: Mart scores
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 11:55:12 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 11:28:55 AM
Again, I don't think that anyone is disagreeing that there were mistakes made regarding the safety in Benghazi. EVERYONE has agreed that mistakes were made
This is not accurate.
Right. I don't think the ex ante case for "mistake" is that compelling. (as opposed to hindsight).
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 11:04:09 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 13, 2013, 10:59:32 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 10:47:46 AM
So, a government mistake, whether under a GOP or Dem administration should not be looked into? You trust your government that much? Were not talk conspiracy shit, just oversight and accountability.
If you're talking about incompetence, why would you have the absolute least competent organization in the United States federal government hold hearings about it?
:lol: So congress should not investigate anything..... Watergate, Iraq, 911, IRS, Wall Street..etc. Try again.
Exactly. Congress shouldn't be investigating any of those things.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 12:05:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 12:05:22 PM
I'll ask one more time. How many men are required to are realistically required to repel such a force?
Your question is irrelevant.
No. It isn't. You said
QuoteRaz if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove incompetence
So that naturally begs the question, "If there is a lack of security how much security would be required to get a positive outcome?" I posed the question to you three times and three times you failed to answer. Since you failed to answer I'll give an answer: At least a platoon would be required to reliably hold off such an attack. The State Department is not a military organization, it doesn't normally have access to military units and it must regularly operate in highly dangerous situations. It's agents are fully aware of this, but that's their job. If an major attack occurs there is not much they can do. If the additional five security guards were there, would they have been able to repel the attack? Possibly but not likely. Most likely it would mean five more dead Americans.
So now tell me, how does this prove incompetence when no amount of security that the State Department had access to or could even reasonably have access to forces that could realistically hold off an attack?
Obama is absolutely and genuinely outraged by the IRS thing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584203/obama-irs-targeting-outrageous-if-true/
Quote"This is pretty straightforward," Mr. Obama told reporters. "If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous and there's no place for it."
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 12:36:02 PM
Obama is absolutely and genuinely outraged by the IRS thing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584203/obama-irs-targeting-outrageous-if-true/
Quote"This is pretty straightforward," Mr. Obama told reporters. "If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous and there's no place for it."
I'm curious why you post this stuff. Of course he's going to say this, just like any other president in his position is going to. This is not an Obama thing, it's not even a Democrat thing. It's a politician thing. Why act all aggreived by it?
Hey Derspeiss, you wanna answer that last question I asked you?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 12:47:29 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 13, 2013, 12:02:28 AM
Obama administration did not want a revealed terrorist attack on Benghazi to make him look weak / failure on foreign policy, so he and Rice blamed it on a Youtube video for as long as possible.
:yes: There was an election looming. Obama played politics even at the expense of his dead ambassador. Then probably had a loyal minion (Rice) fall on her sword in a further deflection. She either new going in or was just a loyal dope. What a great guy, eh?
Yeah ok? Obama did not want this attack to cost him the election so...worse than Hitler? And he is a politician they are not nice guys.
I mean either way the attack happened, I do not see how some meaningless drivel the President says that I ignore anyway impacts me or this country or why I would be upset about it.
So beyond being ammo to attack Obama with, which I have no interest in doing, is there anything uncovered so far that actually impacts anything worth a damn? I mean we are supposedly fighting a 'War on Terror' so it seems logical the terrorists are going to get us in their own backyard once in a blue moon.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 12:52:35 PM
Hey Derspeiss, you wanna answer that last question I asked you?
I refer you to my earlier answer: to have her statements on record.
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 12:46:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 12:36:02 PM
Obama is absolutely and genuinely outraged by the IRS thing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584203/obama-irs-targeting-outrageous-if-true/
Quote"This is pretty straightforward," Mr. Obama told reporters. "If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous and there's no place for it."
I'm curious why you post this stuff. Of course he's going to say this, just like any other president in his position is going to. This is not an Obama thing, it's not even a Democrat thing. It's a politician thing. Why act all aggreived by it?
Eh, because it's newsworthy. There was speculation as to whether the President would condemn what happened, try to explain it away or dodge it altogether.
Of course he made the right choice in saying what he said. But it's faux-outrage. Yes, that is what politicians often do. But many of Obama's supporters put him above that.
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2013, 12:54:01 PM
So beyond being ammo to attack Obama with, which I have no interest in doing, is there anything uncovered so far that actually impacts anything worth a damn? I mean we are supposedly fighting a 'War on Terror' so it seems logical the terrorists are going to get us in their own backyard once in a blue moon.
The administration seemed to want us to think that the war on terror was over and that Obama won it.
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 01:07:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2013, 12:54:01 PM
So beyond being ammo to attack Obama with, which I have no interest in doing, is there anything uncovered so far that actually impacts anything worth a damn? I mean we are supposedly fighting a 'War on Terror' so it seems logical the terrorists are going to get us in their own backyard once in a blue moon.
The administration seemed to want us to think that the war on terror was over and that Obama won it.
:hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 01:06:25 PM
Yes, that is what politicians often do. But many of Obama's supporters put him above that.
Which is sorta funny. Obama is the very model of an American politician.
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 01:07:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2013, 12:54:01 PM
So beyond being ammo to attack Obama with, which I have no interest in doing, is there anything uncovered so far that actually impacts anything worth a damn? I mean we are supposedly fighting a 'War on Terror' so it seems logical the terrorists are going to get us in their own backyard once in a blue moon.
The administration seemed to want us to think that the war on terror was over and that Obama won it.
I don't remember a "Mission Accomplished" banner, which is the traditional way of signaling such things.
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 01:01:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 12:52:35 PM
Hey Derspeiss, you wanna answer that last question I asked you?
I refer you to my earlier answer: to have her statements on record.
That doesn't make sense in the context of my question. I'm going to guess you are going to do the same thing as 11B4V and not answer that question, because you and I both know it undermines your position. Getting her statements on record doesn't facilitate finding out the truth about Benghazi if you are simply going to dismiss them out of hand. It did facilitate "political theater", I believe that's how you described it before.
Quote from: frunk on May 13, 2013, 01:10:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 01:07:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2013, 12:54:01 PM
So beyond being ammo to attack Obama with, which I have no interest in doing, is there anything uncovered so far that actually impacts anything worth a damn? I mean we are supposedly fighting a 'War on Terror' so it seems logical the terrorists are going to get us in their own backyard once in a blue moon.
The administration seemed to want us to think that the war on terror was over and that Obama won it.
I don't remember a "Mission Accomplished" banner, which is the traditional way of signaling such things.
Spiking the football after bin Laden was whacked.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 01:12:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 01:01:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 12:52:35 PM
Hey Derspeiss, you wanna answer that last question I asked you?
I refer you to my earlier answer: to have her statements on record.
That doesn't make sense in the context of my question. I'm going to guess you are going to do the same thing as 11B4V and not answer that question, because you and I both know it undermines your position. Getting her statements on record doesn't facilitate finding out the truth about Benghazi if you are simply going to dismiss them out of hand. It did facilitate "political theater", I believe that's how you described it before.
:yawn:
You need to find something productive to do.
I'm sorry to bore you. It must be tiring to have your position demolished daily.
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 01:13:19 PM
Quote from: frunk on May 13, 2013, 01:10:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 01:07:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2013, 12:54:01 PM
So beyond being ammo to attack Obama with, which I have no interest in doing, is there anything uncovered so far that actually impacts anything worth a damn? I mean we are supposedly fighting a 'War on Terror' so it seems logical the terrorists are going to get us in their own backyard once in a blue moon.
The administration seemed to want us to think that the war on terror was over and that Obama won it.
I don't remember a "Mission Accomplished" banner, which is the traditional way of signaling such things.
Spiking the football after bin Laden was whacked.
So he shouldn't have told anyone about it, or perhaps have a day of mourning?
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 01:13:19 PM
Quote from: frunk on May 13, 2013, 01:10:26 PM
I don't remember a "Mission Accomplished" banner, which is the traditional way of signaling such things.
Spiking the football after bin Laden was whacked.
I don't remember him trumpeting it that much in the run up to the election, or ever using that as a proxy for winning the war on terror.
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 01:13:19 PM
Quote from: frunk on May 13, 2013, 01:10:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 01:07:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2013, 12:54:01 PM
So beyond being ammo to attack Obama with, which I have no interest in doing, is there anything uncovered so far that actually impacts anything worth a damn? I mean we are supposedly fighting a 'War on Terror' so it seems logical the terrorists are going to get us in their own backyard once in a blue moon.
The administration seemed to want us to think that the war on terror was over and that Obama won it.
I don't remember a "Mission Accomplished" banner, which is the traditional way of signaling such things.
Spiking the football after bin Laden was whacked.
And the message was that terrorism was no longer an issue? :huh:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 01:18:10 PM
So he shouldn't have told anyone about it, or perhaps have a day of mourning?
He should have claimed the appropriate amount of credit. He was certainly entitled to some. But not as much as he gave himself. He referred to himself so many times when he announced bin Laden's death I wanted to vomit. But that's what narcissists do.
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2013, 01:27:03 PM
And the message was that terrorism was no longer an issue? :huh:
Not necessarily. But throughout his first term, there was an effort to avoid using the term "war on terror".
You're sounding lately, D, about as petty on Obama as I was in the whole '08 to '12 period. :D
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 01:07:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2013, 12:54:01 PM
So beyond being ammo to attack Obama with, which I have no interest in doing, is there anything uncovered so far that actually impacts anything worth a damn? I mean we are supposedly fighting a 'War on Terror' so it seems logical the terrorists are going to get us in their own backyard once in a blue moon.
The administration seemed to want us to think that the war on terror was over and that Obama won it.
:huh:
I'm fairly sure that even the most ardent Obama fans don't think this. It seems a very strange reason to bring the issue into Senate hearings, too.
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 01:29:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 01:18:10 PM
So he shouldn't have told anyone about it, or perhaps have a day of mourning?
He should have claimed the appropriate amount of credit. He was certainly entitled to some. But not as much as he gave himself. He referred to himself so many times when he announced bin Laden's death I wanted to vomit. But that's what narcissists do.
I'm sure you would want to hear Obama's name much more if it was a fuck up, or would you blame the military? Exactly how many times should he have referred to himself? Perhaps he should have spoken entirely in the passive.
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 01:13:19 PM
Spiking the football after bin Laden was whacked.
Wait, do you guys think that spiking the football means that the game is over?
This explains so much about the Bengals...
:D
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 12:29:37 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 12:05:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 12:05:22 PM
I'll ask one more time. How many men are required to are realistically required to repel such a force?
Your question is irrelevant.
No. It isn't. You said
QuoteRaz if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove incompetence
Since you failed to answer I'll give an answer: At least a platoon would be required to reliably hold off such an attack. The State Department is not a military organization, it doesn't normally have access to military units and it must regularly operate in highly dangerous situations.
Well, I'm glad you take the security of our ambassador in Libya far more seriously than the DoS. Kudos to you.
QuoteIf an major attack occurs there is not much they can do.
Oh certainly not. Especially when they requested additional support :rolleyes:
QuoteIt's agents are fully aware of this, but that's their job.
again :rolleyes:
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 12:46:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 12:36:02 PM
Obama is absolutely and genuinely outraged by the IRS thing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584203/obama-irs-targeting-outrageous-if-true/
Quote"This is pretty straightforward," Mr. Obama told reporters. "If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous and there's no place for it."
I'm curious why you post this stuff. Of course he's going to say this, just like any other president in his position is going to. This is not an Obama thing, it's not even a Democrat thing. It's a politician thing. Why act all aggreived by it?
He should be outraged.
or should THIS not be looked into?
Raz, I think the answer to your question is you don't put diplomatic staff in a position where they will have to fend off an attack by 150 armed men.
BTW, where did you get that 150 figure from?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 02:33:25 PM
Raz, I think the answer to your question is you don't put diplomatic staff in a position where they will have to fend off an attack by 150 armed men.
According to Raz that's their job.
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2013, 01:35:57 PM
You're sounding lately, D, about as petty on Obama as I was in the whole '08 to '12 period. :D
I think that's the issue with Benghazi - people like derSpiess passionately claim that there's a big thing going on, but they can't make the case in a way that makes sense to anyone except hard core Republican partisans.
I have still have no idea what he is on about. Although to be honest I havent paid much attention. But it seems one needs to have a particular bent toward conspiracy theory to truly understand his point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 02:33:25 PM
Raz, I think the answer to your question is you don't put diplomatic staff in a position where they will have to fend off an attack by 150 armed men.
BTW, where did you get that 150 figure from?
I got the 150 from News Reports. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-witnesses-recount-organized-benghazi-attack Here's an example.
The US tons of diplomatic missions around the world. Many of them are in dangerous places. Do you propose we simply withdraw from all of these dangerous countries?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 02:54:51 PM
The US tons of diplomatic missions around the world. Many of them are in dangerous places. Do you propose we simply withdraw from all of these dangerous countries?
If you reread my post and focus like a laserbeam, you will see that I did not post we should not put dipolomatic staff in dangerous countries.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 02:26:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 12:29:37 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 12:05:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 12:05:22 PM
I'll ask one more time. How many men are required to are realistically required to repel such a force?
Your question is irrelevant.
No. It isn't. You said
QuoteRaz if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove incompetence
Since you failed to answer I'll give an answer: At least a platoon would be required to reliably hold off such an attack. The State Department is not a military organization, it doesn't normally have access to military units and it must regularly operate in highly dangerous situations.
Well, I'm glad you take the security of our ambassador in Libya far more seriously than the DoS. Kudos to you.
QuoteIf an major attack occurs there is not much they can do.
Oh certainly not. Especially when they requested additional support :rolleyes:
QuoteIt's agents are fully aware of this, but that's their job.
again :rolleyes:
Are you going to say something relevant or are you just going to be trite? You keep talking about added security that was requested, but refused to say how much security would actually be sufficient. I suspect it's because you and I both know the same thing. Adding more security (which would be about five guys) would be unlikely to changed the outcome, so your going on about additional support strikes me as rather moot if not disingenuous.
:lol:
QuoteOne interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history is that 39% of them don't actually know where it is. 10% think it's in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/voters-trust-clinton-over-gop-on-benghazi.html
Here's a CNN timline. Dont know the validity of it.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/politics/irs-timeline/index.html?hpt=po_c1
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 02:57:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 02:54:51 PM
The US tons of diplomatic missions around the world. Many of them are in dangerous places. Do you propose we simply withdraw from all of these dangerous countries?
If you reread my post and focus like a laserbeam, you will see that I did not post we should not put dipolomatic staff in dangerous countries.
The only way to guarantee that diplomatic personnel are not put in dangerous places is to withdraw them completely. Embassies, consulates and diplomatic missions are vulnerable by their very nature.
How would you have avoided this situation, Yi?
Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2013, 03:05:39 PM
:lol:
QuoteOne interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history is that 39% of them don't actually know where it is. 10% think it's in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/voters-trust-clinton-over-gop-on-benghazi.html
And what are the numbers for those who think it's nothing?
Hey 11B4V, My question for Yi can apply for to you. How exactly would you have prevented this Benghazi thing?
Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2013, 03:05:39 PM
:lol:
QuoteOne interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history is that 39% of them don't actually know where it is. 10% think it's in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/voters-trust-clinton-over-gop-on-benghazi.html
I would have thought Clinton murdering all those people would be a bigger scandal.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 03:10:28 PM
The only way to guarantee that diplomatic personnel are not put in dangerous places is to withdraw them completely. Embassies, consulates and diplomatic missions are vulnerable by their very nature.
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.
QuoteHow would you have avoided this situation, Yi?
With perfect hindsight I would have held off appointing an ambassador and/or limited his movement around the country until the security situation had improved.
Meri claimed that *everyone* agrees mistakes were made. Does that include you? Were there any decisions you don't agree with?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 03:05:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 02:26:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 12:29:37 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 12:05:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 12:05:22 PM
I'll ask one more time. How many men are required to are realistically required to repel such a force?
Your question is irrelevant.
No. It isn't. You said
QuoteRaz if someone kills you, after a lack of security has been identified, your request for more security is denied, does this prove incompetence
Since you failed to answer I'll give an answer: At least a platoon would be required to reliably hold off such an attack. The State Department is not a military organization, it doesn't normally have access to military units and it must regularly operate in highly dangerous situations.
Well, I'm glad you take the security of our ambassador in Libya far more seriously than the DoS. Kudos to you.
QuoteIf an major attack occurs there is not much they can do.
Oh certainly not. Especially when they requested additional support :rolleyes:
QuoteIt's agents are fully aware of this, but that's their job.
again :rolleyes:
Adding more security (which would be about five guys) would be unlikely to changed the outcome, so your going on about additional support strikes me as rather moot if not disingenuous.
So by your logic we should have just left them to fend for themselves?
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 03:22:25 PMWith perfect hindsight I would have held off appointing an ambassador and/or limited his movement around the country until the security situation had improved.
Not appointing an ambassador? Seems awfully timid.
Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2013, 03:25:32 PM
Not appointing an ambassador? Seems awfully timid.
Well I think that's really the meat of the criticism of Obama. Here's the Arab Spring, we helped off Kaddafi, everyone loves us, we reset Muslim relations. So we just have to show up and everything will be cool. Well we showed up and everything wasn't cool.
The Benghazi nutters seem to be debating against positions that I haven't seen anyone other than other Benghazi nutters put forward.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 03:17:27 PM
Hey 11B4V, My question for Yi can apply for to you. How exactly would you have prevented this Benghazi thing?
Quote
American diplomats were warned of possible violent unrest in Benghazi three days before the killings of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three members of his team, Libyan security officials say.
The claim came as the country's interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, said his government had information that the attack on the US consulate had been planned by an Islamist group with links to al-Qa'ida and with foreigners taking part
QuoteA senior official of the biggest militia in Benghazi, the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he had warned US diplomats of a rapidly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi three days before the attack. "The situation is frightening, it scares us," he said he had stressed during the meeting. Mr Stevens had been back in Libya for only a short time before US security officials decided it would be safe to make the journey to Benghazi during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The British consulate in the city was shut after an ambush of a convoy carrying Dominic Asquith, the UK ambassador, in which his bodyguard were injured. The UN and International Committee of the Red Cross offices had been bombed and there had been a spate of political assassinations.
You really have to ask that Raz? WTF
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 03:11:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2013, 03:05:39 PM
:lol:
QuoteOne interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history is that 39% of them don't actually know where it is. 10% think it's in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/voters-trust-clinton-over-gop-on-benghazi.html
And what are the numbers for those who think it's nothing?
I would sure hope it is higher than the number of people who think this is a big deal. If you are well enough informed to declare it makes the US Grant Administration appear scandal-free perhaps you should at least know the barest of facts.
Quote from: sbr on May 13, 2013, 03:32:04 PM
The Benghazi nutters seem to be debating against positions that I haven't seen anyone other than other Benghazi nutters put forward.
The Brits seemed to have made the prudent move, eh.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 03:22:25 PM
With perfect hindsight I would have held off appointing an ambassador and/or limited his movement around the country until the security situation had improved.
With perfect hindsight, this would have been very easy to avoid with a simple change in schedule.
Of course, perfect hindsight never exists so it is a useless standard for judging decisions ex ante.
IMO it is a terrible idea to condition consular representation in a country based on a stable security situation. That would require removing embassies and consular offices from a number of places. But more importantly, the places where security can be dicey are often the same places where having consular officers on site has the biggest potential impact.
Simple fact is that diplomatic representation abroad has always involved certain risks and dangers and always will.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 03:23:42 PM
So by your logic we should have just left them to fend for themselves?
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.
Yeah? And there were like a zillion warnings about the 9/11 attack. Sometimes they just get you, the Feds are not infallible....which should shock nobody. I can see being annoyed at Obama and company for screwing up and wanting to investigate and follow through but the outrage is total bullshit, and completely false and manufactured and makes the Partisan Republicans who engage in it look like hyperbolic delusional idiots. That may be what they are going for though, they have been cultivating that image for years now.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2013, 03:37:03 PM
IMO it is a terrible idea to condition consular representation in a country based on a stable security situation. That would require removing embassies and consular offices from a number of places.
And yet it seems to be standard practice to withdraw diplomatic staff when the security situation in a country deteriorates to a certain point.
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2013, 03:38:08 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 03:23:42 PM
So by your logic we should have just left them to fend for themselves?
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.
Yeah? And there were like a zillion warnings about the 9/11 attack.
What does it take to heed the warnings, what 10 or so years after 9/11. Complacency on the part of DoS.
Quotebut the outrage is total bullshit, and completely false and manufactured and makes the Partisan Republicans who engage in it look like hyperbolic delusional idiots.
This I can agree with.
The insane conspiracy theories here reminded me of another one. A guy I play on-line games with is super-insane-conspiracy-theory-guy. He comes up with some really outrageous stuff. Last week he told me that the reason behind the attack, and the reason the Administration didn't do anything to prevent it was that Ambassador Stevens had been implicated in some sort of gun-running scheme.
Anyone else hear anything that could even resemble that?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 03:22:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 03:10:28 PM
The only way to guarantee that diplomatic personnel are not put in dangerous places is to withdraw them completely. Embassies, consulates and diplomatic missions are vulnerable by their very nature.
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.
QuoteHow would you have avoided this situation, Yi?
With perfect hindsight I would have held off appointing an ambassador and/or limited his movement around the country until the security situation had improved.
Meri claimed that *everyone* agrees mistakes were made. Does that include you? Were there any decisions you don't agree with?
Meri doesn't speak for me. I imagine mistakes were made somewhere. There are always mistakes.
There are lots of places currently with a US diplomatic presence that are in dangerous areas. Would you support withdrawal of those diplomatic assets from countries like Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Mali, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Gaza, and Jerusalem? All these countries have had major civil disturbances recently or are currently in the midst of some kind of civil disturbance. I imagine there are a bunch more. I don't remember any calls in Congress to withdraw or limit the movement (and thus effectiveness) of our diplomatic assets in those places.
Quote from: sbr on May 13, 2013, 03:47:55 PM
The insane conspiracy theories here reminded me of another one. A guy I play on-line games with is super-insane-conspiracy-theory-guy. He comes up with some really outrageous stuff. Last week he told me that the reason behind the attack, and the reason the Administration didn't do anything to prevent it was that Ambassador Stevens had been implicated in some sort of gun-running scheme.
Anyone else hear anything that could even resemble that?
What! :huh: :lmfao:
The only gun running "thing" I can think would be the Mexican/border Patrol incident???? What did Stevens have to do with that? I dont know
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 03:48:00 PM
Meri doesn't speak for me. I imagine mistakes were made somewhere. There are always mistakes.
Nice duck of the question. I answered yours, answer mine. Of the decisions we know about, do you disagree with any?
QuoteThere are lots of places currently with a US diplomatic presence that are in dangerous areas. Would you support withdrawal of those diplomatic assets from countries like Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Mali, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Gaza, and Jerusalem? All these countries have had major civil disturbances recently or are currently in the midst of some kind of civil disturbance. I imagine there are a bunch more. I don't remember any calls in Congress to withdraw or limit the movement (and thus effectiveness) of our diplomatic assets in those places.
Yeah, I think it would be a smart move to pull any remaining diplomatic staff out of Syria. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 03:41:14 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2013, 03:37:03 PM
IMO it is a terrible idea to condition consular representation in a country based on a stable security situation. That would require removing embassies and consular offices from a number of places.
And yet it seems to be standard practice to withdraw diplomatic staff when the security situation in a country deteriorates to a certain point.
Indeed.
When the security situation becomes so bad that meaningful work cannot be done, then there isn't much point in remaning.
I have never heard anyone claim that such a point had been reached prior to the attack. In fact, the narrative that this was a coordinated attack makes it LESS likely that such a determination would have been made, as opposed to just an attack as a response to generally shitty conditions.
If this was a planned, coordinated attack by terrorists, then saying that we should have withdrawn our ambassador from Beghazi is like saying we should have shut down Logan International, because that is where the 9/11 terrorists got on the plane.
There are plenty of targets out there for terrorists to hit. If not Benghazi, then somewhere else.
The simple reality is that there is no reason to presume that US intelligence and security is so perfect that the bad guys won't get the occasional successful attack off - and absent such a patently ridiculous assumption, it is beyond silly to hold Obama, or even the SoS personally or politically responsible for the failure to stop this particular attack.
You might as well blame Eisenhower for not predicting every single successful German counter-attack after June 6th. In hindsight, every single one could have been predicted, if we assume perfectly competent good guys and perfectly incompetent bad guys.
Now, if you want to show that in this case, there was *exceptional* incompetence, that proper procedures were not followed, or egregious errors in judgement were made that even without the benefit of hindsight we would recognize as errors, then that is different. Of course, that is a much higher bar, and I haven't seen anything that suggests any kind of mistake was made at that level, especially not buy anyone as high up the chain as Clinton or Obama.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 03:41:14 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2013, 03:37:03 PM
IMO it is a terrible idea to condition consular representation in a country based on a stable security situation. That would require removing embassies and consular offices from a number of places.
And yet it seems to be standard practice to withdraw diplomatic staff when the security situation in a country deteriorates to a certain point.
The relevant questions to ask are:
+ At which point does that practice kick in?
+ Is that standard an accurate description of Libya in September 2012?
Right now the US maintains consular offices and emabssies in the following countries: Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Algeria, Sudan and South Sudan, Egypt, Iraq (4 major stations), Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan. [EDIT: and Yemen!] I would consider none of those places particularly safer from a security standpoint than Libya c. 9/2012. I would not be surprised in the least to hear of an attack at the same scale in any of those places.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 03:23:42 PM
So by your logic we should have just left them to fend for themselves?
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.
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".
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2013, 03:51:54 PM
There are plenty of targets out there for terrorists to hit. If not Benghazi, then somewhere else.
For example, I would consider Kenya and Tanzania to be (relatively speaking) safe postings.
Yet those were the sites for the two of worst attacks on US embassies . . .
There was enough forewarning of trouble in Libya that other countries had evacuated diplomatic staff. Comparisons to Kenya or Tanzania (or Berkut's absolutely stupid retard-level comparison to Logan Int'l) simply are not valid. This attack could not have happened "anywhere" because it was carried out by forces that didn't exactly have the ability to plan or carry out an attack in a more stable, secured environment. Nor did they have the immediate resources to do that, if they did, they would have carried out the attack on the more stable and secured environment for the greater impact. I don't think Benghazi is a big thing but it certainly seems there was a clearly and patently obvious deterioration in security that other nations had already responded to and our DoS (at least the higher ups) and probably our intelligence and military intelligence assets either missed or miscategorized, or the top political leadership chose to ignore it.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 03:54:45 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 03:23:42 PM
So by your logic we should have just left them to fend for themselves?
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.
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".
Wasnt quoting them in anyway shape or form, stating fact of the general situation in Libya. Did I say Obama/Clinton stated it was or wasnt. No, nice try.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 03:51:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 03:48:00 PM
Meri doesn't speak for me. I imagine mistakes were made somewhere. There are always mistakes.
Nice duck of the question. I answered yours, answer mine. Of the decisions we know about, do you disagree with any?
QuoteThere are lots of places currently with a US diplomatic presence that are in dangerous areas. Would you support withdrawal of those diplomatic assets from countries like Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Mali, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Gaza, and Jerusalem? All these countries have had major civil disturbances recently or are currently in the midst of some kind of civil disturbance. I imagine there are a bunch more. I don't remember any calls in Congress to withdraw or limit the movement (and thus effectiveness) of our diplomatic assets in those places.
Yeah, I think it would be a smart move to pull any remaining diplomatic staff out of Syria. :D
I didn't duck your question. I didn't understand it. Were there mistakes made? Yes, I suppose so. Saying there were no mistakes made ever is setting yourself up to fail. The difference between a mistake and a misjudgement would seem to be a fine line. I'm not sure what Meri's point was, so I don't know if I agree with it.
Oh and Yi, I found a list of attacks on US diplomatic missions
27 January 1958 Ankara, Turkey Bombing in embassy compound[1] none
26 September 1971 Phnom Penh, Cambodia Attack on embassy softball game[2] 1
1972 Manila, Philippines Attack by communist group, Marine guard wounded[3] none
19 August 1974 Nicosia, Cyprus Riot outside Embassy; Ambassador and assistant shot by sniper 2
4 August 1975 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Japanese Red Army gunmen raid Embassy none
21 November 1979 Islamabad, Pakistan Islamist riots destroy Embassy (see 1979 U.S. Embassy Burning in Islamabad) 2
2 December 1979 Tripoli, Libya Islamist riots destroy Embassy (see 1979 U.S. Embassy Burning in Libya) none
18 April 1983 Beirut, Lebanon Islamic Jihad car bomb destroys Embassy (see April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing) 63
12 December 1983 Kuwait City, Kuwait al-Dawa truck bomb outside Embassy 6
20 September 1984 Beirut, Lebanon Hezbollah truck bomb outside Embassy 24
November 1984 Bogota, Colombia Car bomb outside Embassy planted by drug cartel 1
February 1986 Lisbon, Portugal Popular Forces of 25 April car bomb outside Embassy none
14 May 1986 Jakarta, Indonesia Japanese Red Army mortar barrage none
9 June 1987 Rome, Italy Japanese Red Army mortar barrage none
17 September 1989 Bogota, Colombia RPG fired on Embassy by unknown assailant none
27 July 1993 Lima, Peru Car bomb outside Embassy planted by Shining Path none
13 September 1995 Moscow, Russia RPG fired on Embassy by unknown assailant none
21 June 1998 Beirut, Lebanon RPG fired on Embassy by Hezbollah none
7 August 1998 Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania al-Qaeda simultaneously attacks both Embassies with truck bombs (more details) 224
24 April 1999 Yekaterinburg, Russia Car bomb outside Consulate planted by unknown assailant none
22 January 2002 Calcutta, India Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami gunmen attack Consulate 5
14 June 2002 Karachi, Pakistan al-Qaeda truck bomb detonates outside Consulate (more details) 12
12 October 2002 Denpasar, Indonesia Consular Office bombed by Jemaah Islamiyah as part of the Bali bombings none
28 February 2003 Islamabad, Pakistan Unknown gunmen attack Embassy 2
30 June 2004 Tashkent, Uzbekistan Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan suicide bomber attacks Embassy 2
6 December 2004 Jeddah, Saudi Arabia al-Qaeda gunmen raid diplomatic compound 9
2 March 2006 Karachi, Pakistan Car bomb explodes outside Consulate 2
12 September 2006 Damascus, Syria Gunmen raid US Embassy 4
12 January 2007 Athens, Greece RPG Fired at Embassy by Revolutionary Struggle none
18 March 2008 Sana'a, Yemen Mortar attack against US Embassy 2
9 July 2008 Istanbul, Turkey Armed attack against Consulate (more details) 6
17 September 2008 Sana'a, Yemen Two car bombs outside US embassy in Yemeni capital 16
5 April 2010 Peshawar, Pakistan An attack near the U.S. Consulate in Peshawar, Pakistan, kills two consulate security guards and at least six others 8
11 September 2012 Cairo, Egypt, Benghazi, Libya, Sana'a A group of terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya -- killing the U.S. Ambassador, one staff member, and two security contractors. (more details) 4
1 February 2013 Ankara, Turkey A suicide bomber attacked the American Embassy in the Turkish capital, Ankara, on Friday, detonating himself inside a security entrance to the compound. (more details) 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities
It would seem like a decent amount.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2013, 03:37:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 03:22:25 PM
With perfect hindsight I would have held off appointing an ambassador and/or limited his movement around the country until the security situation had improved.
With perfect hindsight, this would have been very easy to avoid with a simple change in schedule.
Of course, perfect hindsight never exists so it is a useless standard for judging decisions ex ante.
IMO it is a terrible idea to condition consular representation in a country based on a stable security situation. That would require removing embassies and consular offices from a number of places. But more importantly, the places where security can be dicey are often the same places where having consular officers on site has the biggest potential impact.
Simple fact is that diplomatic representation abroad has always involved certain risks and dangers and always will.
Particularly when the Libyans wanted no substantial US deployments beyond what could be deployed to the US facility in Tripoli, had specifically requested no US security contractors in their country, e.g., Blackwatertards, that usually provide such protection to US diplomats through BDS and the DoS and Ambassador Stevens wanted a to take a "soft" approach to activity in Libya, which meant keeping a very low security profile.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 03:59:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 03:54:45 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 03:23:42 PM
So by your logic we should have just left them to fend for themselves?
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.
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".
Wasnt quoting them in anyway shape or form, stating fact of the general situation in Libya. Did I say Obama/Clinton stated it was or wasnt. No, nice try.
Then what's the point of proving false what nobody said?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 13, 2013, 03:59:17 PM
There was enough forewarning of trouble in Libya that other countries had evacuated diplomatic staff.
If there was sufficient forewarning, then how come not a single one of armchair experts in Congress and the commentariat came out and advocated the evacuation of the US embassy in Libya at the time?
The British didn't withdraw embassy personnel because of "forewarning of trouble." They took guys out because an assassination attempt was made on a British minister. That happened in June, 3 months before the September attack and thus had nothing to do with any warning.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 13, 2013, 03:59:17 PM
There was enough forewarning of trouble in Libya that other countries had evacuated diplomatic staff. Comparisons to Kenya or Tanzania (or Berkut's absolutely stupid retard-level comparison to Logan Int'l) simply are not valid. This attack could not have happened "anywhere" because it was carried out by forces that didn't exactly have the ability to plan or carry out an attack in a more stable, secured environment. Nor did they have the immediate resources to do that, if they did, they would have carried out the attack on the more stable and secured environment for the greater impact. I don't think Benghazi is a big thing but it certainly seems there was a clearly and patently obvious deterioration in security that other nations had already responded to and our DoS (at least the higher ups) and probably our intelligence and military intelligence assets either missed or miscategorized, or the top political leadership chose to ignore it.
It could have happened lots of places. Both JR and I gave a list of dangerous places. Are you in favor of cutting and running from over a dozen countries?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:04:21 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 03:59:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 03:54:45 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 03:23:42 PM
So by your logic we should have just left them to fend for themselves?
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.
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".
Wasnt quoting them in anyway shape or form, stating fact of the general situation in Libya. Did I say Obama/Clinton stated it was or wasnt. No, nice try.
Then what's the point of proving false what nobody said?
Quotestating fact of the general situation in Libya
So, you disagree?
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2013, 03:52:35 PM
The relevant questions to ask are:
+ At which point does that practice kick in?
+ Is that standard an accurate description of Libya in September 2012?
Right now the US maintains consular offices and emabssies in the following countries: Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Algeria, Sudan and South Sudan, Egypt, Iraq (4 major stations), Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan. [EDIT: and Yemen!] I would consider none of those places particularly safer from a security standpoint than Libya c. 9/2012. I would not be surprised in the least to hear of an attack at the same scale in any of those places.
Debateable.
Which of those countries do you think the US ambassador drives around to see people with a 2 man security detail?
One hell of a quote job. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:13:01 PM
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. :lol:
Quote from: sbr on May 13, 2013, 03:47:55 PM
The insane conspiracy theories here reminded me of another one. A guy I play on-line games with is super-insane-conspiracy-theory-guy. He comes up with some really outrageous stuff. Last week he told me that the reason behind the attack, and the reason the Administration didn't do anything to prevent it was that Ambassador Stevens had been implicated in some sort of gun-running scheme.
Anyone else hear anything that could even resemble that?
sbr,
Maybe this is what dude is talking about *shrugs*. I never heard of it before.
http://www.examiner.com/article/was-stevens-murdered-to-coverup-u-s-gun-running-from-libya-to-alqaeda-syria
Some more.
http://www.examiner.com/article/was-stevens-murdered-to-coverup-u-s-gun-running-from-libya-to-alqaeda-syria
http://www.businessinsider.com/benghazi-stevens-cia-attack-libya-2012-11#ixzz2BUcrGAHr
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2013, 04:06:09 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 13, 2013, 03:59:17 PM
There was enough forewarning of trouble in Libya that other countries had evacuated diplomatic staff.
If there was sufficient forewarning, then how come not a single one of armchair experts in Congress and the commentariat came out and advocated the evacuation of the US embassy in Libya at the time?
The British didn't withdraw embassy personnel because of "forewarning of trouble." They took guys out because an assassination attempt was made on a British minister. That happened in June, 3 months before the September attack and thus had nothing to do with any warning.
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. It's not comparable to Kenya or Tanzania at all, and you have made us all dumber for having to entertain the suggestion that it was.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 04:15:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:13:01 PM
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. :lol:
You've been dodging all day. You going to be straight with me or what? It's the very nature diplomatic posts to be isolated and vulnerable. An armed mod could capture a consulate in Paksitan tomorrow. If there's enough of them, and they're equipped well enough there really isn't anything the US can do to stop them. At least none that I know of. I asked if you knew a way to prevent such an event, but again you respond with trite remarks. I didn't say they were expendable, but I am saying they go into dangerous situations and doing so is part of their job. As a military guy, I thought you my be able to understand that.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:25:38 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 04:15:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:13:01 PM
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. :lol:
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 04:14:30 PM
Which of those countries do you think the US ambassador drives around to see people with a 2 man security detail?
You're going to question the judgement of the ambassador on the ground, when he's the one calling the shots?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 04:30:51 PM
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? :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 04:30:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 04:14:30 PM
Which of those countries do you think the US ambassador drives around to see people with a 2 man security detail?
You're going to question the judgement of the ambassador on the ground, when he's the one calling the shots?
It's languish. Of course we are. Silly wabbit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 04:32:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 04:30:51 PM
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? :lol:
No shit. Damn Seedy, missed that one bro. :lmfao:
Quote from: sbr on May 13, 2013, 03:47:55 PM
The insane conspiracy theories here reminded me of another one.
Here? What are they?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 04:28:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:25:38 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 04:15:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:13:01 PM
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. :lol:
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?
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 04:32:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 04:30:51 PM
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? :lol:
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?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 03:45:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:37:24 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 04:28:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:25:38 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 04:15:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:13:01 PM
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. :lol:
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?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:39:25 PM
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?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 04:34:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 04:32:32 PM
You're talking about the guy who begged for more security personnel? :lol:
No shit. Damn Seedy, missed that one bro. :lmfao:
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 13, 2013, 04:21:28 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 04:45:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:39:25 PM
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?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 04:41:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 04:32:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 04:30:51 PM
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? :lol:
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:54:00 PM
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 04:56:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:54:00 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2013, 04:55:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 05:05:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:55:02 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 04:41:30 PM
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.
QuoteYou 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
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2013, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 03:45:26 PM
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
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 05:11:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2013, 04:40:52 PM
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.
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?
Yes.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 05:31:02 PM
Yes, claiming it was part of a demonstration was wrong. eventually turned out to be incorrect.
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.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 05:10:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:55:02 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 04:41:30 PM
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.
QuoteYou 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:
QuoteLibya 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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 05:35:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 05:31:02 PM
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.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 05:37:08 PM
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 05:38:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 05:10:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:55:02 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 04:41:30 PM
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.
QuoteYou 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
QuoteLibya 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.
QuoteI assumed
That's your fault not mine. "Blah blah" or
QuoteBlah 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.
QuoteThe "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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.presentermedia.com%2Ffiles%2Fanimsp%2F00002000%2F2199%2Fdarts_hit_target_md_wm.gif&hash=0a8fea79802adc8efeea2d9b6beb7ee669926d72)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 05:44:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 05:37:08 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 05:48:39 PM
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
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 03:22:25 PM
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?
So, um...Where's our Ambassador to Syria right now anyway? Is he hanging out in Damascus, or has he decided to play it safe for a while in Amman?
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 06:06:00 PM
Wasn't there something floating around showing that there had been something like 17 attacks on US embassies in the past 10 years?
Bombs get set off next to US embassies all the time. That's why we build them like the Maginot Line.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 13, 2013, 06:07:40 PM
So, um...Where's our Ambassador to Syria right now anyway? Is he hanging out in Damascus, or has he decided to play it safe for a while in Amman?
Here:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/us-ambassador-makes-secret-crossing-into-syria-to-briefly-meet-with-rebels/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/us-ambassador-makes-secret-crossing-into-syria-to-briefly-meet-with-rebels/)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 05:44:13 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 05:37:08 PM
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.
Not exactly, CountDeClueless.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 06:10:17 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 06:06:00 PM
Wasn't there something floating around showing that there had been something like 17 attacks on US embassies in the past 10 years?
Bombs get set off next to US embassies all the time. That's why we build them like the Maginot Line.
Except that we lost another ambassador a while ago, didn't we? This is the second one to die in the past ten years. Was there a big to-do about the last one? I don't remember.
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 06:20:49 PM
Except that we lost another ambassador a while ago, didn't we? This is the second one to die in the past ten years. Was there a big to-do about the last one? I don't remember.
To an embassy bombing? Don't remember that.
Marco Rubio calls for the IRS commissioner to resign over this scandal! :angry:
There's only one problem: there's no IRS commissioner :lmfao:
Perhaps this is related to the slow confirmation process of Obama nominees?
Source: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/13/marco_rubio_irs_commissioner_resignation.html
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 06:22:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 06:20:49 PM
Except that we lost another ambassador a while ago, didn't we? This is the second one to die in the past ten years. Was there a big to-do about the last one? I don't remember.
To an embassy bombing? Don't remember that.
Nope. No ambassadors died, though a number of other people did. My mistake. There were, however, seven attacks from 2002 through 2008:
Quote2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured. From a June 15, 2002, Chicago Tribune article:
Police cordoned off a large area around the U.S. Consulate late Friday and began combing through the carnage and debris for clues after a car explosion killed at least 10 people, injured 51 others and left Pakistan's largest city bleeding from yet another terrorist atrocity.
No Americans were among the dead, and only six of the injured were inside the consulate compound at the time of the blast Friday morning. One Pakistani police officer on guard outside the building was among the dead, but many of those killed were pedestrians or motorists in the area at the time of the explosion.
The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad reported that five Pakistani consular employees and a Marine guard were slightly wounded by flying debris.
Suspicion for the attack immediately fell on Islamic militants known to be active in Karachi. [Chicago Tribune, 6/15/02, via Nexis]
2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan. From a July 31, 2004, Los Angeles Times article:
Suicide bombers on Friday struck the U.S. and Israeli embassies in Uzbekistan, killing two local guards and injuring at least nine others in the second wave of attacks this year against a key U.S. ally during the war in Afghanistan.
The prosecutor general's office also was hit in the coordinated afternoon attacks in the capital city of Tashkent. It sustained more damage than either of the embassies, where guards prevented bombers from entering.
The attacks came as 15 Muslim militants linked to the Al Qaeda terrorist network went on trial in a series of bombings and other assaults in March that killed 47 people.
The explosions Friday caused relatively little physical damage but rattled a country in which the U.S. has maintained an air base crucial to the battle against Islamic militants in neighboring Afghanistan. [Los Angeles Times, 7/31/04, via Nexis]
2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia. From a December 6, 2004, New York Times article:
A group of attackers stormed the American Consulate in the Saudi Arabian city of Jidda today, using explosives at the gates to breach the outer wall and enter the compound, the Saudi Interior Ministry said in a statement. At least eight people were killed in the incident, in which guards and Saudi security forces confronted the group, according to the ministry and news agencies.
Three of the attackers were killed. Five non-American employees were killed, an American embassy spokesman, Carol Kalin, told Reuters. She declined to provide the nationality of those killed, but said they were members of the consulate staff.
Reuters reported that Saudi security officials said four of their men also died in the incident, which would bring the death toll to 12. [The New York Times, 12/6/04]
2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria. From a September 13, 2006, Washington Post article:
Four armed men attacked the U.S. Embassy on Tuesday, killing one Syrian security guard and wounding several people in what authorities said was an attempt by Islamic guerrillas to storm the diplomatic compound.
Just after 10 a.m., gunmen yelling " Allahu akbar " -- "God is great" -- opened fire on the Syrian security officers who guard the outside of the embassy in Damascus's Rawda district, witnesses said. The attackers threw grenades at the compound, according to witnesses, and shot at the guards with assault rifles during the 15- to 20-minute clash, which left three of the gunmen dead and the fourth reportedly wounded. [The Washington Post, 9/13/06]
2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens. From The New York Times:
An antitank grenade was fired into the heavily fortified American Embassy here just before dawn today. The building was empty, but the attack underscored deep anti-American sentiment here and revived fears of a new round of homegrown terror.
Greek officials said they doubted the attack was the work of foreign or Islamic terrorists, but rather that of regrouped extreme leftists aiming at a specific, symbolic target: a huge American seal, of a double-headed eagle against a blue background, affixed to the front of the boxy, modern embassy near downtown. [The New York Times, 1/12/07]
2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia. From The New York Times:
Demonstrators attacked the U.S. Embassy here and set part of it ablaze Thursday as tens of thousands of angry Serbs took to the streets of Belgrade to protest Kosovo's declaration of independence.
Witnesses said that at least 300 rioters broke into the embassy and torched some of its rooms. One protester was able to rip the American flag from the facade of the building. An estimated 1,000 demonstrators cheered as the vandals, some wearing masks to conceal their faces, jumped onto the building's balcony waving a Serbian flag and chanting "Serbia, Serbia!" the witnesses said. A convoy of police officers firing tear gas was able to disperse the crowd. [The New York Times, 2/21/08]
2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen. From The New York Times:
Militants disguised as soldiers detonated two car bombs outside the United States Embassy compound in Sana, Yemen, on Wednesday morning, killing 16 people, including 6 of the attackers, Yemeni officials said.
No American officials or embassy employees were killed or wounded, embassy officials said. Six of the dead were Yemeni guards at the compound entrance, and the other four killed were civilians waiting to be allowed in.
It was the deadliest and most ambitious attack in years in Yemen, a poor south Arabian country of 23 million people where militants aligned with Al Qaeda have carried out a number of recent bombings. [The New York Times, 9/17/08]
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 06:19:57 PM
Not exactly, CountDeClueless.
I'm not the one confusing additional scrutiny to determine whether applications for tax exempt status under the framework of a relatively new law qualify as "targeting".
Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2013, 06:27:30 PM
Marco Rubio calls for the IRS commissioner to resign over this scandal! :angry:
There's only one problem: there's no IRS commissioner :lmfao:
Perhaps this is related to the slow confirmation process of Obama nominees?
Source: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/13/marco_rubio_irs_commissioner_resignation.html
Well he's on point as usual.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 05:52:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 05:38:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 05:10:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2013, 04:55:02 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 04:41:30 PM
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.
QuoteYou 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
QuoteLibya 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.
QuoteI assumed
That's your fault not mine. "Blah blah" or
QuoteBlah 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.
QuoteThe "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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.presentermedia.com%2Ffiles%2Fanimsp%2F00002000%2F2199%2Fdarts_hit_target_md_wm.gif&hash=0a8fea79802adc8efeea2d9b6beb7ee669926d72)
No, you see I have to put things in quotation marks when I quote you. I am disappointed that you have mistaken grammar for some kind of plot to misquote you. I didn't know where you got it your statements. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't just pulling bullshit stawmen out of your ass. I'm sorry I thought that highly of you. I don't even know what the fuck "Every one of those statements were on the situation in Libya that led up to the incident." is suppose to mean. Since I'm no longer allowed to assume you actually mean something by what you say, I'll take it at face value and understand it to be meaningless nonsense since it doesn't make any sense.
Conclusion: You are dishonest and childish. I'm not going to waste anymore time on you.
Good, because you're fucking up the board with your mega-quote posts.
Raz just called someone childish? :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 06:59:28 PM
Raz just called someone childish? :lol:
I did! Now ain't that sad? So childish that even I take offense.
QuoteI didn't know where you got it your statements.
I told you where.
QuoteI gave you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't just pulling bullshit stawmen out of your ass.
How was it a BS strawman? I made a statement and provided an answer for you.
QuoteI'm sorry I thought that highly of you.
Your fault again. That makes four.
QuoteI don't even know what the fuck "Every one of those statements were on the situation in Libya that led up to the incident." is suppose to mean.
Just that. Bolded it for you too. Need me to recap?
QuoteSince I'm no longer allowed to assume you actually mean something by what you say,
You misquote and assumed not me.
QuoteI'll take it at face value and understand it to be meaningless nonsense since it doesn't make any sense.
Your prerogative, most certainly. But, I gave you the answers.
QuoteConclusion: You are dishonest and childish.
Personal Attack is the last attempt by the desperate.
QuoteI'm not going to waste anymore time on you.
See you in the next thread
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 05:37:08 PM
So, where we at with this IRS thing. I read they uncovered more targeting. Not just teabagger targeting.
Who were they targeting now? People who posted anti-tax manifestos online? At any rate, fuck 'em. People need to stop cheating on their taxes.
Quote from: Neil on May 13, 2013, 07:13:12 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 05:37:08 PM
So, where we at with this IRS thing. I read they uncovered more targeting. Not just teabagger targeting.
Who were they targeting now? People who posted anti-tax manifestos online? At any rate, fuck 'em. People need to stop cheating on their taxes.
Yeah, even if they're not.
Quote from: Neil on May 13, 2013, 07:13:12 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 05:37:08 PM
So, where we at with this IRS thing. I read they uncovered more targeting. Not just teabagger targeting.
Who were they targeting now? People who posted anti-tax manifestos online? At any rate, fuck 'em. People need to stop cheating on their taxes.
Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS is a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organization. Spent $70M on political campaign ads for the 2012 election.
And yet, it's the IRS that gets the grief for scrutinizing similar groups trying to get in on the action. Funny, that.
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 07:16:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 13, 2013, 07:13:12 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 05:37:08 PM
So, where we at with this IRS thing. I read they uncovered more targeting. Not just teabagger targeting.
Who were they targeting now? People who posted anti-tax manifestos online? At any rate, fuck 'em. People need to stop cheating on their taxes.
Yeah, even if they're not.
That's why we need to investigate. :contract:
Quote from: Neil on May 13, 2013, 07:13:12 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 05:37:08 PM
So, where we at with this IRS thing. I read they uncovered more targeting. Not just teabagger targeting.
Who were they targeting now? People who posted anti-tax manifestos online? At any rate, fuck 'em. People need to stop cheating on their taxes.
FWIW
Quote(Newser) – The IRS scandal goes beyond the Tea Party: Documents show that over the past two years while evaluating applications for tax-exempt status, officials also zeroed in on groups that criticized the government or educated Americans about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; as well as groups that were interested in taxes, government spending, or government debt; limiting or expanding the government; improving America; or "social economic reform."
The documents show how the Cincinnati office frequently redefined the types of groups that should be targeted for increased scrutiny, even after division chief Lois Lerner objected in June 2011, the Washington Post reports. In March 2012, then-IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman testified before Congress that the IRS was not singling out conservative groups, the Wall Street Journal reports. It wasn't until May 2012 that a neutral policy was adopted, with the IRS agreeing to target any group that was significantly concerned with political campaigns. The documents don't make it clear who the decision-maker was, Reuters reports.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 06:10:17 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 06:06:00 PM
Wasn't there something floating around showing that there had been something like 17 attacks on US embassies in the past 10 years?
Bombs get set off next to US embassies all the time. That's why we build them like the Maginot Line.
The Consulate in Istanbul is massive, on top of a hill, has three layers of security, and is protected by massive Turks with Iraq and Afghanistan experience. I actually talked to a Circassian guy who worked there for about 15 minutes. It's a weird, weird place.
Now let me get this straight, The IRS backed Al-Qaeda in North Africa, but Ron Paul found out about it, so they had to whack the Ambassador, to stop the NRA finding out that South poverty action was running guns to support the Al-Assad regime in Syria ? :hmm:
Quote from: Queequeg on May 13, 2013, 07:28:26 PM
I actually talked to a Circassian guy who worked there for about 15 minutes.
What kind of severance package did he get?
YUK YUK YUK
Quote from: Queequeg on May 13, 2013, 07:28:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 06:10:17 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2013, 06:06:00 PM
Wasn't there something floating around showing that there had been something like 17 attacks on US embassies in the past 10 years?
Bombs get set off next to US embassies all the time. That's why we build them like the Maginot Line.
The Consulate in Istanbul is massive, on top of a hill, has three layers of security, and is protected by massive Turks with Iraq and Afghanistan experience. I actually talked to a Circassian guy who worked there for about 15 minutes. It's a weird, weird place.
It's a pretty weird place that only employs people for 15 minutes at a time, but hey ho, that's outsourcing to the private sector for you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 07:17:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 13, 2013, 07:13:12 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 05:37:08 PM
So, where we at with this IRS thing. I read they uncovered more targeting. Not just teabagger targeting.
Who were they targeting now? People who posted anti-tax manifestos online? At any rate, fuck 'em. People need to stop cheating on their taxes.
Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS is a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organization. Spent $70M on political campaign ads for the 2012 election.
And yet, it's the IRS that gets the grief for scrutinizing similar groups trying to get in on the action. Funny, that.
Maybe you guys need to fix that loophole, although I suppose that would have to involve Congress. And the only thing Congress is interested in is nonsense.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 02:41:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2013, 02:33:25 PM
Raz, I think the answer to your question is you don't put diplomatic staff in a position where they will have to fend off an attack by 150 armed men.
According to Raz that's their job.
I'm skipping most of this thread because it exploded today. But it is their job and I think most foreign service staff would accept that there's risk, in fact I think that's why many of them go for the job. The US needs diplomatic representation where it has interests and needs diplomats willing to be posted to places like post-war Tripoli, or, back in the day, Tehran. It's a public service and there's risk for them.
It's worth remembering though that Benghazi was mostly a CIA base (why the State Department apparently changed public references from a 'consulate' to 'diplomatic post') - of the 30 staff rescued only 7 were from State and I certainly think spies have to accept risk as do the diplomats who normally provide them cover. It's part of the job. And it's also why the State Department deserves more money :contract:
I would add that personally I think it'd be a scandal if the White House or Secretary of State knew about the individual risk assessments of one diplomatic post in the Middle East, or indeed any of them. It would make Carter look like a model of hands-off management.
Quote from: Neil on May 13, 2013, 07:38:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2013, 07:17:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 13, 2013, 07:13:12 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 05:37:08 PM
So, where we at with this IRS thing. I read they uncovered more targeting. Not just teabagger targeting.
Who were they targeting now? People who posted anti-tax manifestos online? At any rate, fuck 'em. People need to stop cheating on their taxes.
Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS is a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organization. Spent $70M on political campaign ads for the 2012 election.
And yet, it's the IRS that gets the grief for scrutinizing similar groups trying to get in on the action. Funny, that.
Maybe you guys need to fix that loophole, although I suppose that would have to involve Congress. And the only thing Congress is interested in is nonsense.
Maybe, but that would have robbed us of Rove's epicness on election night. Fair trade-off IMO
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2013, 06:59:28 PM
Raz just called someone childish? :lol:
Yea, he threw the tantrum and calls me childish.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 07:44:30 PM
Maybe, but that would have robbed us of Rove's epicness on election night. Fair trade-off IMO
Especially with those loooong shots of Megyn Kelly's looong legs.
She's a partisan hack and a vapid talking head, but I'd pound that so hard she'd be screaming for socialized medicine.
Looks like it goes beyond the Cincy office. So hopefully the President is proportionately more outraged.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-denounces-reported-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups/2013/05/13/a0185644-bbdf-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_print.html
QuoteThe IRS did not respond to requests for comment Monday.
IRS stonewall. :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on May 13, 2013, 07:22:35 PM... officials also zeroed in on groups ... that were interested in... improving America...
The IRS is against improving America? The bastards!
Ouch-- 4 Pinocchios :(
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html?wprss=rss_politics
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 11:18:52 AM
Ouch-- 4 Pinocchios :(
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html?wprss=rss_politics
:huh:
So he says repeatedly in interviews that it's too early to say what happened, that they don't know, that it's still being worked out... and you're focusing on whether or not he put "-ism" at the end of terror?
Again, I ask. How does this directly change anything?
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 11:33:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 11:18:52 AM
Ouch-- 4 Pinocchios :(
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html?wprss=rss_politics
:huh:
So he says repeatedly in interviews that it's too early to say what happened, that they don't know, that it's still being worked out... and you're focusing on whether or not he put "-ism" at the end of terror?
Again, I ask. How does this directly change anything?
Ask the person who wrote the article. I just relayed it, so don't shoot the messenger.
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 11:35:38 AM
Ask the person who wrote the article. Don't shoot the messenger.
Unless you decided to post this article under his orders you are not his messenger.
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 11:33:06 AM
:huh:
So he says repeatedly in interviews that it's too early to say what happened, that they don't know, that it's still being worked out... and you're focusing on whether or not he put "-ism" at the end of terror?
Again, I ask. How does this directly change anything?
That's only one line in the article. The meat of the indictment is that his claim during the debate doesn't hold up, not so much because of the distinction between act of terror and terrorist act, but he never made an affirmative statement that the Benghazi attack was either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 11:44:58 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 11:33:06 AM
:huh:
So he says repeatedly in interviews that it's too early to say what happened, that they don't know, that it's still being worked out... and you're focusing on whether or not he put "-ism" at the end of terror?
Again, I ask. How does this directly change anything?
That's only one line in the article. The meat of the indictment is that his claim during the debate doesn't hold up, not so much because of the distinction between act of terror and terrorist act, but he never made an affirmative statement that the Benghazi attack was either.
:contract:
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 11:47:37 AM
Again, I ask. How does this directly change anything?
[/quote]
:hmm: Well, I suppose you could argue that this doesn't directly change anything. I suppose you, Meri, could hold the principled position that a lie that doesn't result in loss of life, property, or injury doesn't really matter. Or I suppose you, Meri, could hold the partisan position that it doesn't ever matter when my guy lies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 11:58:19 AM
:hmm: Well, I suppose you could argue that this doesn't directly change anything. I suppose you, Meri, could hold the principled position that a lie that doesn't result in loss of life, property, or injury doesn't really matter. Or I suppose you, Meri, could hold the partisan position that it doesn't ever matter when my guy lies.
I'd wonder why we are beating this horse to death if it doesn't change anything.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 11:58:19 AM
:hmm: Well, I suppose you could argue that this doesn't directly change anything. I suppose you, Meri, could hold the principled position that a lie that doesn't result in loss of life, property, or injury doesn't really matter. Or I suppose you, Meri, could hold the partisan position that it doesn't ever matter when my guy lies.
It's the "lie" part that I don't get. If it's a lie - as in he's deliberately trying to mislead people - it's an awfully small one. I mean, he's not saying that no one died. He's not saying that additional support wasn't requested. He's not saying that those requests were denied. Those would be big lies - important lies - to me. But this? Really? He's a politician. They all do everything they can to put every situation in the best possible light for themselves.
As for the partisan thing, do you really think that no one noticed when Bush pulled this stuff? Was it trotted out with words like "impeachment!" when he did? Again I say, it's not a partisan thing, it's a politician thing. To keep harping on it as if it's news is just... worthless.
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 11:40:21 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 11:35:38 AM
Ask the person who wrote the article. Don't shoot the messenger.
Unless you decided to post this article under his orders you are not his messenger.
I volunteered :sleep:
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 12:06:41 PM
As for the partisan thing, do you really think that no one noticed when Bush pulled this stuff? Was it trotted out with words like "impeachment!" when he did? Again I say, it's not a partisan thing, it's a politician thing. To keep harping on it as if it's news is just... worthless.
Well yes there was a resolution put forth to impeach him. Also per wiki, fun Nancy made a series of odd statements.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 11:58:19 AM
:hmm: Well, I suppose you could argue that this doesn't directly change anything. I suppose you, Meri, could hold the principled position that a lie that doesn't result in loss of life, property, or injury doesn't really matter. Or I suppose you, Meri, could hold the partisan position that it doesn't ever matter when my guy lies.
You have got to be shitting me. I mean politicians lie so much they even lie when they are telling the truth.
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 12:08:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 11:40:21 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 11:35:38 AM
Ask the person who wrote the article. Don't shoot the messenger.
Unless you decided to post this article under his orders you are not his messenger.
I volunteered :sleep:
I am just saying, do not be a Tim here. You shouldn't refuse to provide commentary on an article you introduced to the conversation :P
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2013, 12:10:17 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 12:06:41 PM
As for the partisan thing, do you really think that no one noticed when Bush pulled this stuff? Was it trotted out with words like "impeachment!" when he did? Again I say, it's not a partisan thing, it's a politician thing. To keep harping on it as if it's news is just... worthless.
Well yes there was a resolution put forth to impeach him. Also per wiki, fun Nancy made a series of odd statements.
:huh:
There was a resolution put forth to impeach Bush for misquoting himself? :hmm:
There were some pretty stupid resolutions trotted out to impeach him - like the Global Warming thing for example - but I don't remember any for him misquoting himself.
I thought we were talking about lying. Also you're the one who mentioned Bush who "pulled this stuff."
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2013, 12:25:01 PM
I thought we were talking about lying. Also you're the one who mentioned Bush who "pulled this stuff."
I meant the twisting of words to make himself sound better (though admittedly, that didn't happen often with him.... it usually made him sound worse).
I don't mind that Obama is getting called on it. Hell, they all should. But he's not just getting called on it. He's being harped on as if it's this huge, horrible deal. I don't see the fuss.
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 12:38:09 PM
I meant the twisting of words to make himself sound better (though admittedly, that didn't happen often with him.... it usually made him sound worse).
His administration was pretty good with that actually. They would be releasing stats and statements that were all technically true (we have had positive economic growth for X number of quaters!) but was all designed to be misleading. So not really that much different than lying in my book. Rick Perry is also great at that.
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 12:39:46 PM
His administration was pretty good with that actually. They would be releasing stats and statements that were all technically true (we have had positive economic growth for X number of quaters!) but was all designed to be misleading. So not really that much different than lying in my book. Rick Perry is also great at that.
It's how they get elected. *shrugs* My issues with Bush were never about how he talked around things, but rather the things that he did or didn't do.
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 12:38:09 PM
I don't mind that Obama is getting called on it. Hell, they all should.
This was not your first response when Teh Forehead posted a fact-checking article calling him on it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 12:51:04 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 12:38:09 PM
I don't mind that Obama is getting called on it. Hell, they all should.
This was not your first response when Teh Forehead posted a fact-checking article calling him on it.
Um, because he's been called out for months on this, and this new article doesn't shed any new light?
At this point it's not calling him out. It's harassment.
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 12:52:55 PM
Um, because he's been called out for months on this, and this new article doesn't shed any new light?
At this point it's not calling him out. It's harassment.
Really? It was news to me. I hadn't read anything else that pointed out the falsity of his debate statement.
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2013, 12:02:52 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 11:58:19 AM
:hmm: Well, I suppose you could argue that this doesn't directly change anything. I suppose you, Meri, could hold the principled position that a lie that doesn't result in loss of life, property, or injury doesn't really matter. Or I suppose you, Meri, could hold the partisan position that it doesn't ever matter when my guy lies.
I'd wonder why we are beating this horse to death if it doesn't change anything.
Still a lie.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 11:58:19 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 11:47:37 AM
Again, I ask. How does this directly change anything?
:hmm: Well, I suppose you could argue that this doesn't directly change anything.
[/quote]
IMO the credibility of the Prez.
A 'greatest hits' of misleading Obama claims :lol:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-greatest-hits-of-misleading-obama-claims/2012/11/01/95e56334-2471-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_blog.html
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 12:12:54 PM
I am just saying, do not be a Tim here. You shouldn't refuse to provide commentary on an article you introduced to the conversation :P
Gotta keep my powder dry. With work getting busier I don't have time to fight many pitched battles.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 14, 2013, 01:13:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 11:58:19 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 11:47:37 AM
Again, I ask. How does this directly change anything?
:hmm: Well, I suppose you could argue that this doesn't directly change anything.
IMO the credibility of the Prez.
[/quote]
Of course, you've already made up your mind on his credibility so...:whistle:
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2013, 01:35:11 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 14, 2013, 01:13:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 11:58:19 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 11:47:37 AM
Again, I ask. How does this directly change anything?
:hmm: Well, I suppose you could argue that this doesn't directly change anything.
IMO the credibility of the Prez.
Of course, you've already made up your mind on his credibility so...:whistle:
[/quote]
I voted for him. But a duck is just a duck sometimes.
Quit fucking up your quotes, y'all.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2013, 01:38:30 PM
Quit fucking up your quotes, y'all.
It started from Yi. Funny though considering.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 11:58:19 AM
:hmm: Well, I suppose you could argue that this doesn't directly change anything. I suppose you, Meri, could hold the principled position that a lie that doesn't result in loss of life, property, or injury doesn't really matter. Or I suppose you, Meri, could hold the partisan position that it doesn't ever matter when my guy lies.
What lie are we talking about here?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2013, 01:38:30 PM
Quit fucking up your quotes, y'all.
Like 11B said - it was down to Yi. I don't sit around cleaning people's quotes.
Quote from: Maximus on May 14, 2013, 01:58:01 PM
What lie are we talking about here?
"I called the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism."
Quote from: mongers on May 14, 2013, 02:00:43 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 14, 2013, 01:58:01 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 11:58:19 AM
:hmm: Well, I suppose you could argue that this doesn't directly change anything. I suppose you, Meri, could hold the principled position that a lie that doesn't result in loss of life, property, or injury doesn't really matter. Or I suppose you, Meri, could hold the partisan position that it doesn't ever matter when my guy lies.
What lie are we talking about here?
That straw has a hight tensile strength ? :)
Still a lie.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 02:00:14 PM
"I called the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism."
:huh: Seriously? The beef is whether he added "ism" to a word?
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2013, 01:59:50 PM
Like 11B said - it was down to Yi. I don't sit around cleaning people's quotes.
It's Meri's fault for doing that funky response with no response. :mad:
Quote from: Maximus on May 14, 2013, 02:03:13 PM
:huh: Seriously? The beef is whether he added "ism" to a word?
For some insane reason whether or not something is terrorism is really important. The Boston Marathon thing? Terrorism so HUGE. The shooting up the New Orleans Mother's Day parade? Not terrorism so...meh.
Quote from: Maximus on May 14, 2013, 02:03:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 02:00:14 PM
"I called the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism."
:huh: Seriously? The beef is whether he added "ism" to a word?
I believe it also goes farther than that with his various appearances after the attack.
Quote from: Maximus on May 14, 2013, 02:03:13 PM
:huh: Seriously? The beef is whether he added "ism" to a word?
You know Max, I've met you and you're a bright guy, so I'm a little puzzled why you feel the need to ask a question that has already been asked in this thread and already answered.
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 02:05:04 PM
For some insane reason whether or not something is terrorism is really important. The Boston Marathon thing? Terrorism so HUGE. The shooting up the New Orleans Mother's Day parade? Not terrorism so...meh.
It's not even that. It's the difference between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism" which are semantically identical. That's one heck of a lie.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 02:06:36 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 14, 2013, 02:03:13 PM
:huh: Seriously? The beef is whether he added "ism" to a word?
You know Max, I've met you and you're a bright guy, so I'm a little puzzled why you feel the need to ask a question that has already been asked in this thread and already answered.
You've even gotten him drunk enough to do Karaoke. :)
My guess is that he didn't read the whole thread. It happens on Languish a lot.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 02:03:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2013, 01:59:50 PM
Like 11B said - it was down to Yi. I don't sit around cleaning people's quotes.
It's Meri's fault for doing that funky response with no response. :mad:
:mad:
Did not.
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 02:11:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 02:03:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2013, 01:59:50 PM
Like 11B said - it was down to Yi. I don't sit around cleaning people's quotes.
It's Meri's fault for doing that funky response with no response. :mad:
:mad:
Did not.
Am too.
Titty sprinkles.
If he said it and called it in the rose garden, why not be a man about it in various interviews following.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPGmN7Zw9Fk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDFzwYGc1Ag
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 02:06:36 PM
You know Max, I've met you and you're a bright guy, so I'm a little puzzled why you feel the need to ask a question that has already been asked in this thread and already answered.
I'm sorry but that's weak. The only way you can call that a lie is if you ignore context.
Quote from: Maximus on May 14, 2013, 02:29:24 PM
I'm sorry but that's weak. The only way you can call that a lie is if you ignore context.
Now we wrestle with the semantic issue of what's a lie and what's not. The Wash Post dude gave it 4 Pinnochios (I assume out of 10). That sounds about right to me. Obama was asked for clarification on several occaisions and waffled. He was asked a yes or no question and chose not t answer yes or no. It's a little odd to me that he would waffle on it, I don't really see the harm in calling it a terrorist act, I don't understand Obama's motivation to waffle, but there it is. Then after waffling 6 or 7 times he says in a debate he says he called it a terrorist act from the get go.
How many Pinnochios do you think that rates? Zero?
Four pinocchios is the maximum, actually. It's 4 out of 4.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 14, 2013, 02:18:57 PM
If he said it and called it in the rose garden, why not be a man about it in various interviews following.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPGmN7Zw9Fk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDFzwYGc1Ag
Wow. This is ridiculous. How is adding or not adding -ism not "manning up"? How can you guys not see how absolutely insane this is? We're in debt up to our eyeballs, there's an energy crisis on the horizon, parts of the government have been shut down, people are trying to kill American citizens, and there's a fucking debate - an actual DEBATE - on whether or not Obama should be investigated for "lying" by misquoting himself. Un-fucking-believable.
FWIW, the juxtaposition of the terms has been going on for a while.... A lot longer than Obama's been president...
QuoteJuly 14, 2004
Nunberg on "terror" vs "terrorism"
Stanford linguist Geoffrey Nunberg has an excellent column in today's New York Times, The -ism Schism.
Nunberg has been studying the rate at which politicians and journalists are swapping the phrase "war on terror" for "war on terrorism". In the first year after 9/11, the White House called our enemy "terrorism" twice as often as they called it "terror." But over the last year, the ratio reversed, with the White House using "war on terror" twice as often as "war on terrorism."
It was bad enough to declare war terrorism, a tactic. Now, our leaders are spurring us to fight terror as such. As Nunberg observes, this shift expands the scope of an already vague term. "Terror" is now being used as an umbrella term for virtually anything frightening or undesirable from unfriendly governments to Americans' reaction to the threat of terrorist attacks.
"Terror" rhetoric becomes especially toxic when it is juxtaposed with war metaphors:
"The war on terror," too, suggests a campaign aimed not at human adversaries but at a pervasive social plague. At its most abstract, terror comes to seem as persistent and inexplicable as evil itself, without raising any inconvenient theological qualms. And in fact, the White House's use of "evil" has declined by 80 percent over the same period that its use of "terror" has been increasing.
Like wars on ignorance and crime, a "war on terror" suggests an enduring state of struggle - a "never ending fight against terror and its relentless onslaughts," as Camus put it in "The Plague," his 1947 allegory on the rise and fall of Fascism. It is as if the language is girding itself for the long haul.
At the end of the day, neither word is appropriate. So maybe we should just call all y'all ignorant and call it a fucking day.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 02:35:19 PM
It's a little odd to me that he would waffle on it, I don't really see the harm in calling it a terrorist act, I don't understand Obama's motivation to waffle, but there it is.
Um....to win the election by pointing out his amazing record at fighting terrorism? I am not sure why the motivation is unclear. It was all about spin. But since this is what most of Washington politicians spend most of their time doing, controlling the message for their political advantage, I do not see why this is somehow a scandal.
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 02:39:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 02:35:19 PM
It's a little odd to me that he would waffle on it, I don't really see the harm in calling it a terrorist act, I don't understand Obama's motivation to waffle, but there it is.
Um....to win the election by pointing out his amazing record at fighting terrorism? I am not sure why the motivation is unclear. It was all about spin.
Exactly! That's what I've been saying all along. Every politician does it! But somehow, for some reason, when Obama does it, it's this ugly nefarious thing. It's insanity!
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 02:05:04 PM
For some insane reason whether or not something is terrorism is really important. The Boston Marathon thing? Terrorism so HUGE.
IIRC, it is actually extremely important whether or not something is designated terrorism for insurance purposes.
Quote from: Kleves on May 14, 2013, 02:42:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 02:05:04 PM
For some insane reason whether or not something is terrorism is really important. The Boston Marathon thing? Terrorism so HUGE.
IIRC, it is actually extremely important whether or not something is designated terrorism for insurance purposes.
It's important to the insurance of a US consolate in Benghazi if it's called an "act of terror" or an "act of terrorism"?
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 02:37:23 PM
Four pinocchios is the maximum, actually. It's 4 out of 4.
Whoa. Harsh toke. I think it's more like 1 out 4.
Quote from: Kleves on May 14, 2013, 02:42:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 02:05:04 PM
For some insane reason whether or not something is terrorism is really important. The Boston Marathon thing? Terrorism so HUGE.
IIRC, it is actually extremely important whether or not something is designated terrorism for insurance purposes.
Were there insurance issues involved in the Benghazi situation? Is all of this a ploy by the insurance lobby to get out of having to pay off claims?
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 02:40:42 PM
Exactly! That's what I've been saying all along. Every politician does it! But somehow, for some reason, when Obama does it, it's this ugly nefarious thing. It's insanity!
Is your position that every politician except Obama gets a pass when they present "nuanced versions of the truth?"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 02:44:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 02:37:23 PM
Four pinocchios is the maximum, actually. It's 4 out of 4.
Whoa. Harsh toke. I think it's more like 1 out 4.
I'd go along those lines too. Shall we dub him the waffler. I dont get his waffling either. Unless for some odd reason he was trying to protect Susan Rice.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 14, 2013, 02:53:28 PM
Unless for some odd reason he was trying to protect Susan Rice.
Well she is one fine looking high yella soul sister.
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 02:43:55 PM
It's important to the insurance of a US consolate in Benghazi if it's called an "act of terror" or an "act of terrorism"?
Dunno. I was talking specifically about the Boston bombing, which Valmy referenced.
In other (on topic) news, the DoJ is opening a criminal investigation into the IRS: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/us/politics/facing-trio-of-crises-white-house-dodges-questions.html?hp&_r=0
Quote
WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said on Tuesday that he had ordered the Justice Department and the F.B.I. to open an investigation into whether Internal Revenue Service officials broke any criminal laws by singling out conservative groups for special scrutiny.
The activities of I.R.S. officials are already the subject of an investigation by the agency's inspector general. The results of that inquiry, which are expected in the next several days, are likely to detail how officials at the agency selected political groups for extra scrutiny about their tax status.
Speaking at a news conference called on Tuesday to discuss Medicare fraud, Mr. Holder said that he had ordered a second investigation to determine whether any criminal laws may have been broken by the officials at the tax collection agency.
The attorney general said there were "a variety of statutes within the I.R.S. code" that could be the basis of a criminal violation. He said officials conducting the investigation would also look at "other things in Title 18" of the United States Code. Title 18 is the overall criminal code for the federal government.
Mr. Holder also fielded questions about the seizure of telephone records from reporters and editors at The Associated Press, which apparently came in connection with an investigation of leaks inside the executive branch.
Mr. Holder said that he had recused himself last year from the leak investigation and therefore had not made the decision to seek sweeping subpoenas for two months of call records for 20 telephone lines used by The A.P. and its journalists. He said he decided to turn over supervision of leak inquiries to his deputy, James M. Cole, "to make sure that this investigation was seen as independent" after F.B.I. agents interviewed him about leaks in June 2012.
But Mr. Holder said that the leak in question — the revelation by The A.P. of a foiled terrorist plot by Al Qaeda's branch in Yemen a year ago — was among the two or three most serious leaks he had seen since the 1970s. "It put the American people at risk," he said, without elaborating.
Mr. Holder said he was confident that his subordinates had sought the subpoenas in accord with Justice Department regulations. Members of Congress and press advocates have expressed concern about the subpoenas, revealed on Monday by The A.P., as a dangerously broad incursion into the ability of the news media to operate without government scrutiny and a violation of press freedom.
Mr. Holder declined to say whether he had also recused himself from a separate investigation of unauthorized disclosures to The New York Times about American cyberattacks on Iran's nuclear program.
The leak about the Yemen plot is being investigated by the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, Ronald C. Machen Jr., and the disclosures about the cyberattacks on Iran are being examined by the United States attorney for Maryland, Rod J. Rosenstein.
The White House deflected questions on both controversies during its own press briefing Tuesday.
The press secretary, Jay Carney, said he could not comment on the Justice Department's actions amid the continuing investigation. He was similarly reticent about the I.R.S., citing the investigation by the inspector general of the agency, which he said would shed more light on what happened. I.R.S. officials have admitted singling out dozens of Tea Party-inspired groups that had applied for tax-exempt status, submitting them to detailed questioning.
On Monday, President Obama said he would not tolerate such behavior by the I.R.S. and promised to "make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this."
The raft of allegations, on top of a recurring dispute over the White House's handling of the deadly attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, has put Mr. Obama on the defensive more so than at any other time in his presidency, threatening to engulf his domestic agenda.
At the daily news briefing, Mr. Carney manifested the difficult spot in which the White House finds itself, dodging and weaving under tough questioning over the leak investigation, the I.R.S. case and Benghazi.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 14, 2013, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 02:44:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 02:37:23 PM
Four pinocchios is the maximum, actually. It's 4 out of 4.
Whoa. Harsh toke. I think it's more like 1 out 4.
I'd go along those lines too. Shall we dub him the waffler. I dont get his waffling either. Unless for some odd reason he was trying to protect Susan Rice.
He's a lawyer. They're all lawyers.
How could that be illegal? I mean surely the IRS profiles, is that entirely illegal or only certain sorts?
QuoteAt the daily news briefing, Mr. Carney manifested the difficult spot in which the White House finds itself, dodging and weaving under tough questioning over the leak investigation, the I.R.S. case and Benghazi.
I would imagine so.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2013, 03:03:10 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 14, 2013, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 02:44:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 02:37:23 PM
Four pinocchios is the maximum, actually. It's 4 out of 4.
Whoa. Harsh toke. I think it's more like 1 out 4.
I'd go along those lines too. Shall we dub him the waffler. I dont get his waffling either. Unless for some odd reason he was trying to protect Susan Rice.
He's a lawyer. They're all lawyers.
Ah, I had forgotten that. Waffling comes natural then.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 02:50:14 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 02:40:42 PM
Exactly! That's what I've been saying all along. Every politician does it! But somehow, for some reason, when Obama does it, it's this ugly nefarious thing. It's insanity!
Is your position that every politician except Obama gets a pass when they present "nuanced versions of the truth?"
I thought that I'd been pretty clear. Every politician does it. Every politician should be called on it when it happens. But... harping on it like this is ridiculous.
To me, it's the difference between telling a child no for telling a small lie and spanking him for it. It's an inappropriate response to the crime.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2013, 03:03:10 PM
He's a lawyer. They're all lawyers.
More importantly, he's a career politician. One doesn't get to have that job without getting really good at equivocation.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 14, 2013, 03:05:28 PM
QuoteAt the daily news briefing, Mr. Carney manifested the difficult spot in which the White House finds itself, dodging and weaving under tough questioning over the leak investigation, the I.R.S. case and Benghazi.
I would imagine so.
:lol:
I watched Carney's briefing today. Even on good days, he's bad.
They really need to get better press guys. I realize you've got to stick to the script, but the last several ones over several administrations have totally sucked from an extemporaneous speaking aspect when it comes to Q&A time.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 02:44:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 02:37:23 PM
Four pinocchios is the maximum, actually. It's 4 out of 4.
Whoa. Harsh toke. I think it's more like 1 out 4.
Take it up with Mr. Kessler.
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 03:07:05 PM
I thought that I'd been pretty clear. Every politician does it. Every politician should be called on it when it happens. But... harping on it like this is ridiculous.
To me, it's the difference between telling a child no for telling a small lie and spanking him for it. It's an inappropriate response to the crime.
A couple thoughts.
Without this relentless, unfair, inappropriate harping you never would have moved your position from "nothing to see" to "it's a small lie and Obama should be spanked for it."
The Washington Post and the US Senate are not a Borg collective. The Washington Post wrote (AFAIK) one fact-checking story about his claim in the debate. That's hardly an inappropriate response.
It's an entirely different matter whether the Senate investigation is inappropriate or not, but surely you realize they are not only investigating the pressing national security issue of whether Obama's statement during the debate is true or not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 02:35:19 PM
Now we wrestle with the semantic issue of what's a lie and what's not. The Wash Post dude gave it 4 Pinnochios (I assume out of 10). That sounds about right to me. Obama was asked for clarification on several occaisions and waffled. He was asked a yes or no question and chose not t answer yes or no. It's a little odd to me that he would waffle on it, I don't really see the harm in calling it a terrorist act, I don't understand Obama's motivation to waffle, but there it is. Then after waffling 6 or 7 times he says in a debate he says he called it a terrorist act from the get go.
How many Pinnochios do you think that rates? Zero?
I'm not defending the waffling; I don't get why he would do that either. However if we believe the article derspeiss linked he called it an act of terror 3 times in the 2 days following the attack.
So yea, not a lie.
Quote from: Maximus on May 14, 2013, 03:37:40 PM
However if we believe the article derspeiss linked he called it an act of terror 3 times in the 2 days following the attack.
Not by reading. He repeated the Rose Garden formula.
"Mr. President, was the attack in Benghazi a terrorist act?"
"Those who commit terrorist acts should know we will hunt them down and bring them to justice."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 03:43:14 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 14, 2013, 03:37:40 PM
However if we believe the article derspeiss linked he called it an act of terror 3 times in the 2 days following the attack.
Not by reading. He repeated the Rose Garden formula.
"Mr. President, was the attack in Benghazi a terrorist act?"
"Those who commit terrorist acts should know we will hunt them down and bring them to justice."
He said that? IMPEACH THE BASTARD!!111
We have shitloads of problems with this country and all sorts of garbage the Executive branch does that are outrageous and this is the unconsequential nonsense we waste our time hand wringing about? God...I...just do not know what to say sometimes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 03:43:14 PM
Not by reading. He repeated the Rose Garden formula.
"Mr. President, was the attack in Benghazi a terrorist act?"
"Those who commit terrorist acts should know we will hunt them down and bring them to justice."
That's waffling, but it's also calling it a terrorist attack, unless you completely ignore context.
Whoops. Even more for the President to be outraged about :(
http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 03:51:44 PM
Whoops. Even more for the President to be outraged about :(
http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs
What the fuck? Did they have monkeys running this place?
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 03:44:42 PM
He said that? IMPEACH THE BASTARD!!111
We have shitloads of problems with this country and all sorts of garbage the Executive branch does that are outrageous and this is the unconsequential nonsense we waste our time hand wringing about? God...I...just do not know what to say sometimes.
Who's wasting their time wringing their hands? Speaking only for myself, my hands remain completely unwrung.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 04:01:55 PM
Who's wasting their time wringing their hands? Speaking only for myself, my hands remain completely unwrung.
Oh F you dude. Now this is no big deal at all?
Nevermind.
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 04:03:11 PM
Oh F you dude. Now this is no big deal at all?
Nevermind.
Right back at ya sport.
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 03:51:44 PM
Whoops. Even more for the President to be outraged about :(
http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs
Yea this IRS shit may turn out to be a big shit boomerang.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 04:06:54 PM
Right back at ya sport.
Well thanks for wasting all of our time droning on about how important something that is not important at all is. You are so full of it.
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2013, 04:47:24 PM
Well thanks for wasting all of our time droning on about how important something that is not important at all is. You are so full of it.
Go fuck yourself. I don't see the world divided into IMPEACH or I don't give a shit. And maybe you should let everyone else speak for themselves.
I disapprove of these brutal acts of antagonism on languish.
Please notice I used the "ism"
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trancefix.nl%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fcamillaisgek%2Fshrug.gif&hash=be20ab6b4a2d8b6482db8500fa35090f243cbedf)
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 03:51:44 PM
Whoops. Even more for the President to be outraged about :(
http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs
Can't, wouldn't want to come off as Narcissistic.
Actually, I was wondering where you came up with this theme of Obama's "Narcissism". http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/05/12/is-obamas-narcissim-a-national-security-concern Looks like I found it.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2013, 05:27:01 PM
Can't wouldn't want to come of as Narcissistic.
Is that in code?
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 03:57:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 03:51:44 PM
Whoops. Even more for the President to be outraged about :(
http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs
What the fuck? Did they have monkeys running this place?
Raciss
I found another, for Derspeiss to get upset about. http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/16/local/me-allsaints16
QuoteStepping up its probe of allegedly improper campaigning by churches, the Internal Revenue Service on Friday ordered a liberal Pasadena parish to turn over all the documents and e-mails it produced during the 2004 election year with references to political candidates.
Oh, wait. I did it wrong. :(
These scandals must have Raz's pucker factor way up :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 06:31:52 PM
These scandals must have Raz's pucker factor way up :lol:
None of them qualify as scandals.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2013, 03:20:42 PM
I watched Carney's briefing today. Even on good days, he's bad.
They really need to get better press guys. I realize you've got to stick to the script, but the last several ones over several administrations have totally sucked from an extemporaneous speaking aspect when it comes to Q&A time.
Yeah, the spokeskid is in over his head. I'd have to think Gibbs would be handling things a little better.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2013, 06:33:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 06:31:52 PM
These scandals must have Raz's pucker factor way up :lol:
None of them qualify as scandals.
:lol: So while Raz is doing his panicky googling to try & make himself feel better, you just sit there & deny.
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 06:36:29 PM
I'd have to think Gibbs would be handling things a little better.
Unfortunately for them, Gibbs went pro.
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 06:37:40 PM
:lol: So while Raz is doing his panicky googling to try & make himself feel better, you just sit there & deny.
No, I sit and wait.
The Benghazi thing is McCain/Graham/Paul masturbatory bullshit, the AP thing is kosher so far albeit heavy-handed, and the IRS thing is due diligence until proven otherwise.
Public Relations image concerns, yeah. Scandals? No. We know what scandals look like, dercolonelnorth.
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 06:31:52 PM
These scandals must have Raz's pucker factor way up :lol:
You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? As much as you like to think about my asshole, I'm not worried about fictional scandals.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2013, 06:41:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 06:37:40 PM
:lol: So while Raz is doing his panicky googling to try & make himself feel better, you just sit there & deny.
No, I sit and wait.
The Benghazi thing is McCain/Graham/Paul masturbatory bullshit, the AP thing is kosher so far albeit heavy-handed, and the IRS thing is due diligence until proven otherwise.
Public Relations image concerns, yeah. Scandals? No. We know what scandals look like, dercolonelnorth.
You know for the Benghazi thing being the worst scandal that has ever rocked the United States, I haven't seen what sort of actual crime was committed. Teapot dome, Watergate, Iran Contra they all had a criminal aspect to them. I've yet to see our conservative friends float out exactly what law was violated.
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 06:37:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2013, 06:33:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 06:31:52 PM
These scandals must have Raz's pucker factor way up :lol:
None of them qualify as scandals.
:lol: So while Raz is doing his panicky googling to try & make himself feel better, you just sit there & deny.
I was curious where you got this narcissism thing. After all, you said yourself, you're just the messenger.
Pretty much all politicians are narcissists to some degree. Obama just happens to have a heavier dose of it. Sorry it hurts you so much to hear that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2013, 06:41:24 PM
No, I sit and wait.
Like an old man at the bus stop :( :console:
Quote from: 11B4V on May 14, 2013, 04:24:13 PM
Yea this IRS shit may turn out to be a big shit boomerang.
Agreed.
Benghazi isn't. If you can't explain the scandal in a sentence it's not a scandal. Stop :bleeding:
QuoteNone of them qualify as scandals.
I think the IRS is. Don't care about AP. Benghazi is the world's first deconstructionist political scandal.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2013, 07:02:31 PM
Benghazi isn't. If you can't explain the scandal in a sentence it's not a scandal. Stop :bleeding:
Check out today's FT. Surprisingly harsh. (From memory)
"It is now clear that in order to gain electoral advantage, the Obama White House downplayed the connection to terrorism in the days following the attack."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 07:06:39 PM
"It is now clear that in order to gain electoral advantage, the Obama White House downplayed the connection to terrorism in the days following the attack."
Just because they want it to be doesn't make it so.
:lol:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/sasha-obama-suspicious-after-doing-a-little-diggin,32436/
Relevant section:
QuoteThe same applies to the Obama administration's response to the Benghazi terrorist attack, which Senator John McCain has labelled a "cover-up". Again, the allegations are overwrought. Republicans are desperate to land serious blows on the president when their fortunes are low. Yet there is no evidence to suggest US forces could have prevented the attack. It is clear that for electoral reasons, Mr Obama's White House played down talk of terrorism for several days after the attack. This inquiry, too, could snowball unless the administration fully co-operates.
This is the scandal? For all the talk of consulates that should've been shut down or security warnings that were ignored, the real scandal is that the White House 'played down talk of terrorism for several days'?
I thought this was like the lefty-mentals saying Bush knew about 9/11 or ignored the warnings. At least that would have justified the outrage.
Edit: Incidentally I'd compare this with the PP's response after the Madrid bombing - that was a scandal. This? Not so much.
Lies are still lies.
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 07:17:57 PM
Lies are still lies.
Maybe. But playing something down isn't necessarily lying. At worst it seems like they were 'economical with the truth'.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2013, 07:14:08 PM
Edit: Incidentally I'd compare this with the PP's response after the Madrid bombing - that was a scandal. This? Not so much.
:hmm: Actually I thought of that comparison too, and thought it fit very well. What makes that a scandal and this not?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2013, 07:14:08 PM
This is the scandal? For all the talk of consulates that should've been shut down or security warnings that were ignored, the real scandal is that the White House 'played down talk of terrorism for several days'?
And "talking points" were revised. Because, you know, incidents involving multiple parties with overlapping responsibilities never have too many cooks in the kitchen when it comes to generating public information.
Geraldo has apparently signed on to the "running guns to the Syrians" theory on Benghazi :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2013, 07:20:17 PM:hmm: Actually I thought of that comparison too, and thought it fit very well. What makes that a scandal and this not?
They blamed ETA. The Interior Minister publicly blamed ETA. The Spanish intelligence services thought it was probably Islamist but were instructed by the government to deny suspicions of extremist Islamists and confirm that at the time ETA were the only suspects. Spanish embassies were instructed to hold the line, presumably even in the face of offers of help from other governments who, rightly, suspected Islamists. State TV that night I believe played a two hour documentary on ETA and Aznar called numerous newspaper editors and journalists to support the government's version.
Of course the popular version here was that the Spanish were just cowards who wanted out of Iraq.
QuoteGeraldo has apparently signed on to the "running guns to the Syrians" theory on Benghazi
I imagine the CIA had more than enough to do in Benghazi without worrying about Syria.
I love the AP stuff. I'd like to see some journalists disappear too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2013, 07:33:14 PM
Of course the popular version here was that the Spanish were just cowards who wanted out of Iraq.
They were warned by Al Qaeda to get out of Iraq or else, they ignored it, Al Qaeda struck and promised not to strike again if Spain got out of Iraq, Spain did Al Qaeda's bidding.
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 06:54:52 PM
Pretty much all politicians are narcissists to some degree. Obama just happens to have a heavier dose of it. Sorry it hurts you so much to hear that.
He does? Can you prove this? Do you know that he mentions himself more then say his predecessor, or does just seeing his face and hearing his name sicken you?
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 14, 2013, 07:35:47 PM
I love the AP stuff. I'd like to see some journalists disappear too.
Yeah, I really struggle to care about journalists.
QuoteHe does? Can you prove this? Do you know that he mentions himself more then say his predecessor, or does just seeing his face and hearing his name sicken you?
I think W was pretty low on narcissism for a politician. I think he believed his own press for a while which was a problem.
But I don't think Obama's terribly high - just average. I think Bill was far more narcissistic.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2013, 07:41:18 PM
But I don't think Obama's terribly high - just average. I think Bill was far more narcissistic.
I think Clinton and Obama may be roughly on the same level; Bill was definitely more skilled at hiding it. Then again, Twitter didn't exist during the Clinton presidency so who knows if he would've been able to avoid it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2013, 07:41:18 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 14, 2013, 07:35:47 PM
I love the AP stuff. I'd like to see some journalists disappear too.
Yeah, I really struggle to care about journalists.
:hmm:
Quote from: mongers on May 14, 2013, 08:05:33 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2013, 07:41:18 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 14, 2013, 07:35:47 PM
I love the AP stuff. I'd like to see some journalists disappear too.
Yeah, I really struggle to care about journalists.
:hmm:
The lemmings don't like to have to think when they jump to their deaths, or want to know the reasons why.
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 08:03:53 PMI think Clinton and Obama may be roughly on the same level; Bill was definitely more skilled at hiding it. Then again, Twitter didn't exist during the Clinton presidency so who knows if he would've been able to avoid it.
I don't get the narcissism with Obama. I think he's an average politician on that front.
QuoteThe lemmings don't like to have to think when they jump to their deaths, or want to know the reasons why.
:lol: I hardly think that's a fair description of me :P
Edit: Incidentally, this is what I mean. This is not a scoop in a scandal:
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/
'Context here, too, is important.' Because the story ain't :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2013, 07:02:31 PM
I think the IRS is.
You know what would be nice? A good bipartisan pimp slapping of the IRS.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2013, 08:18:19 PM
I don't get the narcissism with Obama. I think he's an average politician on that front.
He always tries to make things more about himself than anyone else, even when he's supposedly honoring another person. I remember at Inouye's funeral, he just sat there & talked about himself most of the time. On the 57th anniversary of Rosa Parks's act of defiance, he posts a pic on Twitter of him sitting on that bus. He honored Neil Armstrong by posting a pic of himself looking up at the stars at night. He just does crap like that all the time.
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 07:27:11 PM
Geraldo has apparently signed on to the "running guns to the Syrians" theory on Benghazi :lol:
I dont know what to say. :D
Ah. I think we've got different understandings of narcissism then :lol:
As an aside I've always thought that was Obama's great oratorical trick. He weaves his own personal story with national history. In the first campaign I thought it was very useful for making him seem far less alien and foreign than a black guy called Obama should. But he always has a bit, in the speeches, about how his personal story isn't necessarily exceptional, but that it's part of and reflects America.
It's sort of like showing instead of telling. We know what Parks did, we can describe it and the effects it had, that picture shows it in total - a black President sitting anywhere on a bus. Similarly the effect of Armstrong is that we all look at the moon differently and the picture's sounds like it's going for that rather than just a picture of Armstrong (we don't look at him differently because we've only known him as a hero).
I don't see that as not honouring the person so much as saying the honour's from the effect that person had.
Same way as he used his story in the campaign to talk about, say, race in a way that I think was more useful than an academic approach. The personal story makes it more accessible and engaging.
derspiess calls that "being uppity".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2013, 08:39:56 PM
derspiess calls that "being uppity".
No. That's what you call Justice Thomas.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2013, 08:37:01 PM
Ah. I think we've got different understandings of narcissism then :lol:
I suppose.
I wish you two would kiss and make up.
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 08:49:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2013, 08:39:56 PM
derspiess calls that "being uppity".
No. That's what you call Justice Thomas.
No, "unqualified" /= "uppity".
Derspeiss mentioned that hearing Obama talk about himself makes him want to vomit. I think the key is hearing or seeing Obama makes Derspeiss ill. He's just been conditioned that way. It's a Pavlovian response.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2013, 09:06:51 PM
Derspeiss mentioned that hearing Obama talk about himself makes him want to vomit. I think the key is hearing or seeing Obama makes Derspeiss ill. He's just been conditioned that way. It's a Pavlovian response.
Hearing? Yeah, kinda. His speaking style gets under my skin. Seeing? Not sure what's there for me to object to.
I agree there shouldn't be much for you to object to, yet you do.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2013, 09:15:35 PM
I agree there shouldn't be much for you to object to, yet you do.
Go on, say it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2013, 08:37:01 PM
Ah. I think we've got different understandings of narcissism then :lol:
Actually I'd agree with der that Obama is narcissistic. I do get the vibe from him that he thinks he's better (particularly smarter) than the rest of us.
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 09:22:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2013, 09:15:35 PM
I agree there shouldn't be much for you to object to, yet you do.
Go on, say it.
I thought I already did. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2013, 10:10:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2013, 08:37:01 PM
Ah. I think we've got different understandings of narcissism then :lol:
Actually I'd agree with der that Obama is narcissistic. I do get the vibe from him that he thinks his better (particularly smarter) than the rest of us.
Well, in your case he would be right.
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2013, 10:10:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2013, 08:37:01 PM
Ah. I think we've got different understandings of narcissism then :lol:
Actually I'd agree with der that Obama is narcissistic. I do get the vibe from him that he thinks his better (particularly smarter) than the rest of us.
Yeah. I kind of get the whole condescending vibe from him, like he's always talking down to Americans. I don't really care to watch his speeches because of it.
I don't get that feeling. Mostly I find his speeches dull, like he's a teacher or something.
Steny Hoyer has trouble keeping his scandals straight :D
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/scandal-plagued-washington-lawmaker-struggles-keep-track-issues-175311063.html
Steny's busy, man.
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2013, 10:10:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2013, 08:37:01 PM
Ah. I think we've got different understandings of narcissism then :lol:
Actually I'd agree with der that Obama is narcissistic. I do get the vibe from him that he thinks he's better (particularly smarter) than the rest of us.
DSM fail.
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 08:24:36 PM
He always tries to make things more about himself than anyone else, even when he's supposedly honoring another person. I remember at Inouye's funeral, he just sat there & talked about himself most of the time. On the 57th anniversary of Rosa Parks's act of defiance, he posts a pic on Twitter of him sitting on that bus. He honored Neil Armstrong by posting a pic of himself looking up at the stars at night. He just does crap like that all the time.
Another DSM fail.
Seriously, you guys are like Martinus throwing the word "autistic" around.
Political self-promotion and having an aggressive PR/press team is not synomous with narcissistic personality disorder.
Pretty much any major national politician has a high self-regard. And success in that profession requires a talent for self-promotion.
Narcissism is something different and to quote from the Princess Bride: I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Out of all US politicians, the one that probably comes closest to the diagnostic criteria is Newt Gringich. But even he doesn't qualify.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2013, 08:52:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2013, 10:10:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 14, 2013, 08:37:01 PM
Ah. I think we've got different understandings of narcissism then :lol:
Actually I'd agree with der that Obama is narcissistic. I do get the vibe from him that he thinks he's better (particularly smarter) than the rest of us.
DSM fail.
Maybe if as amateur psychologists we had diagnosed him with a personality disorder. :tinfoil:
Like I said, I regard pretty much all politicians as being narcissistic to some degree. Presidents/Presidential candidates even moreso-- you almost have to be some sort of narcissist to want that job.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2013, 09:00:01 AM
Pretty much any major national politician has a high self-regard. And success in that profession requires a talent for self-promotion.
Narcissism is something different and to quote from the Princess Bride: I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Out of all US politicians, the one that probably comes closest to the diagnostic criteria is Newt Gringich. But even he doesn't qualify.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narcissism
QuoteDefinition of NARCISSISM
1
: egoism, egocentrism
QuoteDefinition of EGOISM
1
a : a doctrine that individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action
b : a doctrine that individual self-interest is the valid end of all actions
2
: excessive concern for oneself with or without exaggerated feelings of self-importance
I don't see any problems there and again I don't know why you are insisting on the DSM criteria for a personality disorder.
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2013, 09:00:02 AM
Maybe if as amateur psychologists we had diagnosed him with a personality disorder. :tinfoil:
The term has a meaning and it doesn't mean "thinking you are smarter" than others.
I would expect that Obama if asked in all honesty whether he thinks he is smarter than the vast majority of Americans would have to say yes. In point of fact, he is smarter.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2013, 09:03:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2013, 09:00:02 AM
Maybe if as amateur psychologists we had diagnosed him with a personality disorder. :tinfoil:
The term has a meaning and it doesn't mean "thinking you are smarter" than others.
I would expect that Obama if asked in all honesty whether he thinks he is smarter than the vast majority of Americans would have to say yes. In point of fact, he is smarter.
There's a reason I didn't say smarter than most of America. :contract:
And no, grumbler-lite, narcissism can mean other things than what you have in the DSM.
That said you're right in that it is more arrogance that I was defending with that smart comment.
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2013, 09:01:38 AM
[CITES DICTIONARY DEFINITION]
"excessive concern" or "exaggerated feelings" is the meaning that is typically associated with narcissism as a common word. That is consistent with other dictionary definitions as well.
It doesn't mean self-promotion or thinking you are smarter than others, or speaking in a condescending way.
of course you can define narcissism to mean those things or anything you want to but then you risk being misunderstood.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2013, 09:07:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2013, 09:01:38 AM
[CITES DICTIONARY DEFINITION]
"excessive concern" or "exaggerated feelings" is the meaning that is typically associated with narcissism as a common word. That is consistent with other dictionary definitions as well.
It doesn't mean self-promotion or thinking you are smarter than others, or speaking in a condescending way.
See my next post as I conceeded that. Still feel that the dictionary definition also describes him but the smart bit was not good support of that.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2013, 09:07:42 AM
of course you can define narcissism to mean those things or anything you want to but then you risk being misunderstood.
Strange to say as I have the feeling you understood D and I pretty well - your bizarre claims that we "DSM fail[ed]"when we weren't even referencing the DSM, notwithstanding.
The Gingrich comparison I think is useful. This is a man who refers to himself as a epochal revolutionary, the only true heir of Reagan, and who has stated "I have enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it. I am now a famous person. I represent real power." He is someone who according to a friend ditched his first wife b/c she wasn't pretty enough to be the wife of a President and who when questioned about his serial affairs during the debates explained them by saying: "There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate."
That is an example of a man whose own self-regard veers to the extreme and borders on delusional. Obama is nothing like that. Obama is an elitist who plays at being a man of the people but sometimes fails to keep up the mask (e.g. "cling to guns, religion"). That's why he sometimes comes across as arrogant and condescending. he is also a very ambitious and programmed politician who knows how to promote himself and doesn't have any compunctions about doing it. Again not the same thing.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2013, 09:00:01 AM
Pretty much any major national politician has a high self-regard. And success in that profession requires a talent for self-promotion.
Narcissism is something different and to quote from the Princess Bride: I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Out of all US politicians, the one that probably comes closest to the diagnostic criteria is Newt Gringich. But even he doesn't qualify.
What does that have to do with the fact that I feel like he's talking down to me when he gives speeches? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2013, 09:10:29 AM
[Strange to say as I have the feeling you understood D and I pretty well
As I have indicated, I think the word choice is singularly unhelpful because it conceals rather than reveals what makes Obama distinctive.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2013, 09:20:00 AM
The Gingrich comparison I think is useful. This is a man who refers to himself as a epochal revolutionary, the only true heir of Reagan, and who has stated "I have enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it. I am now a famous person. I represent real power." He is someone who according to a friend ditched his first wife b/c she wasn't pretty enough to be the wife of a President and who when questioned about his serial affairs during the debates explained them by saying: "There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate."
I hate Gingrich. It's not a simple disliking of his speeches for that man. I loathe him. For the very reasons you cite.
QuoteThat is an example of a man whose own self-regard veers to the extreme and borders on delusional. Obama is nothing like that. Obama is an elitist who plays at being a man of the people but sometimes fails to keep up the mask (e.g. "cling to guns, religion"). That's why he sometimes comes across as arrogant and condescending. he is also a very ambitious and programmed politician who knows how to promote himself and doesn't have any compunctions about doing it. Again not the same thing.
That's what I said. :unsure:
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 09:26:58 AM
What does that have to do with the fact that I feel like he's talking down to me when he gives speeches? :huh:
Jesus H Titty Sprinkled Christ, you're all a bunch of oversensitive fruits. He thinks too much of himself, he thinks he's smarter than I am, he talks down to me. Goddamn.
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 09:31:53 AM
That's what I said. :unsure:
My comments were not directed to you. :secret:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2013, 09:36:01 AM
Jesus H Titty Sprinkled Christ, you're all a bunch of oversensitive fruits. He thinks too much of himself, he thinks he's smarter than I am, he talks down to me. Goddamn.
I voted for the man, but that doesn't mean that I have to like everything about him.
I have no doubt that he's an incredibly intelligent man. He's obviously incredibly capable. Nonetheless, I prefer not to be lectured during speeches, so I don't listen to him. I'm certainly not crying over it; I just don't care for it.
I never feel like he's talking down to me, but then of course I'm smarter than all of you.
I could only imagine the squealing about a President Romney, and a First Lady that refers to you as "you people". :P
I don't get any of that from the man, personally. Probably because I'm on the same intellectual plane as he is. I just prefer not to flaunt it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2013, 09:42:15 AM
I don't get any of that from the man, personally. Probably because I'm on the same intellectual plane as he is. I just prefer not to flaunt it.
:highfive:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2013, 09:42:15 AM
I could only imagine the squealing about a President Romney, and a First Lady that refers to you as "you people". :P
I don't get any of that from the man, personally. Probably because I'm on the same intellectual plane as he is. I just prefer not to flaunt it.
:lol:
Despite how it may appear here (because unlike the rest of you mopes I'm willing to admit when I don't know something), my IQ is in the top 2%. How smart I am has nothing to do with how I prefer to be spoken to.
:P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2013, 09:27:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2013, 09:10:29 AM
[Strange to say as I have the feeling you understood D and I pretty well
As I have indicated, I think the word choice is singularly unhelpful because it conceals rather than reveals what makes Obama distinctive.
That he hides it better.
Also did you know arrogance is a symptom of NPD?
Quote from: katmai on May 15, 2013, 09:41:26 AM
I never feel like he's talking down to me, but then of course I'm smarter than all of you.
:huh:
Stupid people talk down to smarter people all the time.
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2013, 09:51:11 AM
That he hides it better.
Also did you know arrogance is a symptom of NPD?
I think you were doing better when you claimed to use the word in a rough common meaning sort of way.
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 09:44:23 AM
my IQ is in the top 2%.
"Of the household" doesn't really count. :hug:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2013, 09:53:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2013, 09:51:11 AM
That he hides it better.
Also did you know arrogance is a symptom of NPD?
I think you were doing better when you claimed to use the word in a rough common meaning sort of way.
Hey you opened up NPD can. I just thought that was good to add in - though again, I was not diagnosing Obama with a personality disorder. :D
Quote
IRS: Hey, We Targeted Lefty Groups, Too
(Newser) – The IRS is defending itself against the Inspector General's report on its targeting of Tea Party groups, saying they made up only a "minority" of the 471 political nonprofit groups scrutinized. And, hey, three—three!—of those 471 were Democrat-leaning groups, including one, Emerge America, that was actually denied tax-exempt status, Bloomberg reports. "[It is] important to understand that the group of centralized cases included organizations of all political views," the IRS said in a statement. It also said that although "Inappropriate shortcuts" were used to identify some of the groups, most of them would have still been singled out for extra scrutiny had the agency gone about it correctly, reports ABC.
The other two more liberal groups on the list that received the extra examination seem largely positive about the experience. "I'm not saying it was fun but it was important," said a spokesperson from Progress Texas. But in a letter to the IRS, Republican lawmakers Darrell Issa and Jim Jordan claim the extra scrutiny put the Tea Party groups and others "in a state of purgatory where they often languished without action for periods as long as two years," Fox News reports. "The actions of the IRS are unconscionable and appalling," they wrote.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2013, 09:42:15 AM
I don't get any of that from the man, personally.
It could also be the contrast with his predecessor. That was a man that could not be accused of talking down to anyone.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2013, 09:54:35 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 09:44:23 AM
my IQ is in the top 2%.
"Of the household" doesn't really count. :hug:
Unfortunately, in my house I'm probably in the bottom 20%. :(
Quote from: 11B4V on May 15, 2013, 09:56:09 AM
Quote
IRS: Hey, We Targeted Lefty Groups, Too
(Newser) – The IRS is defending itself against the Inspector General's report on its targeting of Tea Party groups, saying they made up only a "minority" of the 471 political nonprofit groups scrutinized. And, hey, three—three!—of those 471 were Democrat-leaning groups, including one, Emerge America, that was actually denied tax-exempt status, Bloomberg reports. "[It is] important to understand that the group of centralized cases included organizations of all political views," the IRS said in a statement. It also said that although "Inappropriate shortcuts" were used to identify some of the groups, most of them would have still been singled out for extra scrutiny had the agency gone about it correctly, reports ABC.
The other two more liberal groups on the list that received the extra examination seem largely positive about the experience. "I'm not saying it was fun but it was important," said a spokesperson from Progress Texas. But in a letter to the IRS, Republican lawmakers Darrell Issa and Jim Jordan claim the extra scrutiny put the Tea Party groups and others "in a state of purgatory where they often languished without action for periods as long as two years," Fox News reports. "The actions of the IRS are unconscionable and appalling," they wrote.
Interesting how in all this people think the IRS is some sort of docile and submissive government asian chick and not the actual enforcement agency that it is, one that "scrutinizes" as part of its investigative mission.
And naturally, of course liberal groups would "seem largely positive about the experience" compared to secessionist anti-government groups that want to eliminate the very Federal government they need to deal with sometimes. Duh.
Weren't there significantly more Tea Party groups that were applying for 501c4 status than Democrat-leaning groups?
Quote from: frunk on May 15, 2013, 10:14:14 AM
Weren't there significantly more Tea Party groups that were applying for 501c4 status than Democrat-leaning groups?
Yeah, but don't let that stop anybody.
So nothing for the IRS to apologize for? Nothing for the President to be outraged over? :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on May 15, 2013, 10:19:23 AM
So nothing for the IRS to apologize for? Nothing for the President to be outraged over? :lol:
Regardless of what's determined by the investigation (and I do believe it should be investigated), the IRS is going to apologize, and the president is going to be upset. (Though, to be fair, I think the president said that IF the IRS acted inappropriately, he would be outraged.)
Quote from: derspiess on May 15, 2013, 10:19:23 AM
So nothing for the IRS to apologize for? Nothing for the President to be outraged over? :lol:
Not really, no. I think he's overreacting myself.
Conservatives like their leaders dumber than themselves. No wonder they have a hard time finding suitable candidates.
QuoteRepublican lawmakers Darrell Issa and Jim Jordan claim the extra scrutiny put the Tea Party groups and others "in a state of purgatory where they often languished without action for periods as long as two years," Fox News reports
Wait- now there complaining about the IRS not doing something?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2013, 11:29:49 AM
QuoteRepublican lawmakers Darrell Issa and Jim Jordan claim the extra scrutiny put the Tea Party groups and others "in a state of purgatory where they often languished without action for periods as long as two years," Fox News reports
Wait- now there complaining about the IRS not doing something?
Yes. Not processing their application.
Quote from: The Brain on May 15, 2013, 11:53:17 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 09:44:23 AM
my IQ is in the top 2%.
:(
*shrugs*
I've tested that high since I was in high school. It doesn't mean anything. I still can't do basic Calc. :P
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 11:37:30 AM
Yes. Not processing their application.
As long as they timely filed their application, my understanding is that they can claim the exemption in the interim.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2013, 12:39:29 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 11:37:30 AM
Yes. Not processing their application.
As long as they timely filed their application, my understanding is that they can claim the exemption in the interim.
I didn't say it was a valid complaint, just that that was their complaint. ;)
Yikes, even Charlie Rangel took a swipe at the Prez.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/charlie-rangel-irs-associated-press-comments-91398.html?hp=r6
Quote from: derspiess on May 15, 2013, 01:44:49 PM
Yikes, even Charlie Rangel took a swipe at the Prez.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/charlie-rangel-irs-associated-press-comments-91398.html?hp=r6
but he's blek.
Quote from: derspiess on May 15, 2013, 07:56:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2013, 10:22:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2013, 09:22:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2013, 09:15:35 PM
I agree there shouldn't be much for you to object to, yet you do.
Go on, say it.
I thought I already did. :huh:
Pussy.
:huh:
Quote from: derspiess on May 15, 2013, 01:44:49 PM
Yikes, even Charlie Rangel took a swipe at the Prez.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/charlie-rangel-irs-associated-press-comments-91398.html?hp=r6
And if Charlie Rangel says something, the GOP listens!
BO to speak on the IRS issue at 6pm.
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 09:39:08 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2013, 09:36:01 AM
Jesus H Titty Sprinkled Christ, you're all a bunch of oversensitive fruits. He thinks too much of himself, he thinks he's smarter than I am, he talks down to me. Goddamn.
I voted for the man, but that doesn't mean that I have to like everything about him.
I have no doubt that he's an incredibly intelligent man. He's obviously incredibly capable. Nonetheless, I prefer not to be lectured during speeches, so I don't listen to him. I'm certainly not crying over it; I just don't care for it.
I'm no Obama fan but he's Goliath compared to David if we're stacking his intellect against average voters (people like meri, raz etc.)
We'll need a new IRS Commissioner, resigned today. BTW, it's Steven Miller that was just canned, I was confusing him with previous commissioner Dough Shulman (who also was the one who spoke to a House Committee about this last year.) Wall Street Journal is reporting it as "Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew requested the resignation of Steven Miller." So basically a straight up firing.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 15, 2013, 05:56:19 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 15, 2013, 09:39:08 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2013, 09:36:01 AM
Jesus H Titty Sprinkled Christ, you're all a bunch of oversensitive fruits. He thinks too much of himself, he thinks he's smarter than I am, he talks down to me. Goddamn.
I voted for the man, but that doesn't mean that I have to like everything about him.
I have no doubt that he's an incredibly intelligent man. He's obviously incredibly capable. Nonetheless, I prefer not to be lectured during speeches, so I don't listen to him. I'm certainly not crying over it; I just don't care for it.
I'm no Obama fan but he's Goliath compared to David if we're stacking his intellect against average voters (people like meri, raz etc.)
God I wish. If I could be average I'd be fucking thrilled.
I think you are average.
Well actually Raz probably isn't an average voter, I'm guessing he's not allowed to vote.
Only if it falls on "Day Out" day at the clinic.
They are big on letting you exercise your rights like that.
:lol:
IRS BOLO
Quote'Be On the Look Out'
Among the criteria used by IRS officials to flag applications was a "Be On the Look Out" list, which was discontinued in 2012, according to the report.
The criteria included:
-- Whether "Tea Party," "Patriots" or "9/12 Project" was referenced in the case file.
-- Whether the issues outlined in the application included government spending, government debt or taxes.
-- Whether there was advocating or lobbying to "make America a better place to live."
-- Whether a statement in the case file criticized how the country is being run.
-- Whether it advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/politics/irs-conservative-targeting/index.html?hpt=po_c1
I bet the right wing blogs are just bouncing off the walls right now.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 16, 2013, 01:51:22 AM
I bet the right wing blogs are just bouncing off the walls right now.
Of course they are; this is a bigger victory for them than if we debuted the aliens we have stored at Area 51. It's every anti-gubbint tinfoiler's wet dream.
Sounds like Chris Matthews lost that thrill going up his leg :(
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/chris-matthews-sours-on-obama-164095.html
Chris Matthews isn't the pinko left-winger and Obama mouthpiece you guys seem to think he is. He never has been.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2013, 08:12:56 AM
Chris Matthews isn't the pinko left-winger and Obama mouthpiece you guys seem to think he is. He never has been.
He hasn't *always* been-- hell, he used to guest host for Limbaugh. But yeah, he has been for the past few years. He jumped on the Hillary bandwagon early but has been an Obamaroid ever since he first got the thrill up his leg.
Nonsense. You confuse his disdain for what the Republican Party has become with Obamism. You guys make that mistake a lot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2013, 08:32:31 AM
Nonsense. You confuse his disdain for what the Republican Party has become with Obamism. You guys make that mistake a lot.
They're indistinguishable.
Sure thing, derobstructionism.
Quote from: derspiess on May 16, 2013, 08:38:27 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2013, 08:32:31 AM
Nonsense. You confuse his disdain for what the Republican Party has become with Obamism. You guys make that mistake a lot.
They're indistinguishable.
No they aren't. :huh:
Quote from: derspiess on May 16, 2013, 08:38:27 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2013, 08:32:31 AM
Nonsense. You confuse his disdain for what the Republican Party has become with Obamism. You guys make that mistake a lot.
They're indistinguishable.
Huh? Obama is the worst President since the last guy. But I sure have a crap load of disdain for the Republicans.
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2013, 09:02:32 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 16, 2013, 08:38:27 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2013, 08:32:31 AM
Nonsense. You confuse his disdain for what the Republican Party has become with Obamism. You guys make that mistake a lot.
They're indistinguishable.
Huh? Obama is the worst President since the last guy. But I sure have a crap load of disdain for the Republicans.
Are you Chris Matthews? :huh:
Quote from: derspiess on May 16, 2013, 09:08:39 AM
Are you Chris Matthews? :huh:
Oh I thought you meant in general :blush:
Yeah ok in his case maybe they are.
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2013, 09:09:43 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 16, 2013, 09:08:39 AM
Are you Chris Matthews? :huh:
Oh I thought you meant in general :blush:
Don't worry, I thought so too.
Quote from: derspiess on May 16, 2013, 08:10:40 AM
Sounds like Chris Matthews lost that thrill going up his leg :(
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/chris-matthews-sours-on-obama-164095.html
Chris is just sour because his favorite hair dye was discontinued, due to adverse toxicity results.
I used to love Darrell Hammond's Hardball skits on SNL.
"THAT'S IT FOR HARDBALL-- I'M GONNA GO OUTSIDE AND YELL AT CARS"
Stewart has been good these last couple of days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuRTUdo5V84
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=602RdrxgyqY
I really do love Stewart. Unabashedly pro-left, but perfectly sane about it, and actually manages to be partisan without feeling the need to have blinders on all the time.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2013, 08:32:31 AM
Nonsense. You confuse his disdain for what the Republican Party has become with Obamism. You guys make that mistake a lot.
:yes:
Not that you can convince derspiess of that...
Quote from: merithyn on May 16, 2013, 11:22:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2013, 08:32:31 AM
Nonsense. You confuse his disdain for what the Republican Party has become with Obamism. You guys make that mistake a lot.
:yes:
Not that you can convince derspiess of that...
DS just adapt the OHC (Obama, Holder, Carney) mentality when dealing with liberals. I dont know, I saw this the same time you did, My deputy handled that...etc...etc. This hat trick of issues isnt going away. The more the BO and his boyz play dumb, the more ground they lose.
Chris Mathews does nothing but suck on the Administrations tit. Along with the whole of MSNBC.
Chris Matthews is totally in the bag.
In breaking news, US Marshals lost track of two terrorists who had been placed in the witness protection program. They appear to have fled the country, whereabouts unknown.
Quote from: Berkut on May 16, 2013, 10:28:27 AM
I really do love Stewart. Unabashedly pro-left, but perfectly sane about it, and actually manages to be partisan without feeling the need to have blinders on all the time.
Agree.
Colbert had a good skit last nite w/a congresswoman that was quite funny.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 16, 2013, 01:51:22 AM
I bet the right wing blogs are just bouncing off the walls right now.
From what I can tell, it almost seems like they're trying to restrain themselves a bit. Possibly because they don't want to get their hopes up, or maybe they don't want to taint the mainstream coverage?
Meanwhile, it seems like the mainstream places like Politico are going whole hog on the scandals.
I really hope all these scandals force Congress to finally properly oversee and check the Executive Branch like they are supposed to.
Weird pic of the day:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BKZwgaKCQAAcBir.jpg)
Actually the vid of them running out with the umbrellas is even more fun. :D
Quote from: derspiess on May 16, 2013, 12:12:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 16, 2013, 01:51:22 AM
I bet the right wing blogs are just bouncing off the walls right now.
From what I can tell, it almost seems like they're trying to restrain themselves a bit. Possibly because they don't want to get their hopes up, or maybe they don't want to taint the mainstream coverage?
Meanwhile, it seems like the mainstream places like Politico are going whole hog on the scandals.
Good, I wouldn't want them accusing the President of Treason and demanding impeachment.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 16, 2013, 01:08:30 PM
Good, I wouldn't want them accusing the President of Treason and demanding impeachment.
Like I said, they're generally restraining themselves :P
Quote from: derspiess on May 16, 2013, 01:24:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 16, 2013, 01:08:30 PM
Good, I wouldn't want them accusing the President of Treason and demanding impeachment.
Like I said, they're generally restraining themselves :P
Still going to be some hign drama and entertainment. A lot of waffling and such. Carney is priceless.
Is there some kind of official military stance for holding an umbrella? Why are those guys holding their stomachs? Are they signalling its time for lunch so the speeches need to be cut short?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2013, 03:32:41 PM
Is there some kind of official military stance for holding an umbrella?
Heh. You know there is.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2013, 03:32:41 PM
Is there some kind of official military stance for holding an umbrella?
I think there's even an official military stance for urinating.
Miller is getting drilled.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 17, 2013, 12:05:21 PM
Miller is getting drilled.
As he properly should.
Pity it will probably result in people just seeing this sort of thing as the corruption of the Obama administration and not a sympton of larger problems. But I am hopeful for a reform movement.
Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2013, 12:07:42 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 17, 2013, 12:05:21 PM
Miller is getting drilled.
As he properly should.
Pity it will probably result in people just seeing this sort of thing as the corruption of the Obama administration and not a sympton of larger problems. But I am hopeful for a reform movement.
A bipartisan anal probe of the IRS is a good thing IMO.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 17, 2013, 12:09:25 PM
A bipartisan anal probe of the IRS is a good thing IMO.
:yes:
You're all anti-tax secessionists. I hope you're all audited.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2013, 12:33:29 PM
You're all anti-tax secessionists. I hope you're all audited.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-C1YRxPpPdWI%2FUIa_3vmbrfI%2FAAAAAAAAOYM%2FekuB3_8rE6U%2Fs400%2Fkstew-door-slam-zathura-o.gif&hash=1c53d611b645b95d0737e1cb2bbd4dbde8f3bd29)
:lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOpcqteueqg
Yay, so it's Beat Up The Bureaucrat For Sound Bites Day. Oooh, so exciting.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2013, 02:56:16 PM
Yay, so it's Beat Up The Bureaucrat For Sound Bites Day. Oooh, so exciting.
I was disappointed. I thought he was actually going to raise the roof (as the video title suggested) and I was going to say that would be the 2nd interesting thing I've seen on C-SPAN, right after the time my mother was on it with her permed 'do.
I preferred Lou Golmert's "casting aspersions on my asparagus" misstep with Holder the other day myself.
http://youtu.be/DE4fCcsw6Fs
Ah, Lou. Don't mess with Texas.
Hey Before: who's the chick in the GIF? A very young Tea Leoni?
I thought it was Alicia Silverstone at first.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2013, 03:16:38 PM
Hey Before: who's the chick in the GIF? A very young Tea Leoni?
Oy vey Mutton.
That is Kristen Stewart from the Twilight movies and more.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2013, 03:18:04 PM
I thought it was Alicia Silverstone at first.
The movie is Zathura circa 2005 :nerd:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2013, 03:16:38 PM
Hey Before: who's the chick in the GIF? A very young Tea Leoni?
The twilight broad Stewart IIRC
I always thought Tea Leoni was hawt as balls anyway.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2013, 02:56:16 PM
Yay, so it's Beat Up The Bureaucrat For Sound Bites Day. Oooh, so exciting.
:punk:
That clip makes baby Raz cry.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2013, 03:20:43 PM
I always thought Tea Leoni was hawt as balls anyway.
Was? She looks great in Building Heist.
Cool beans, I will check it out, I haven't seen her in anything since You Kill Me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2013, 03:15:00 PM
I preferred Lou Golmert's
That man is such a retard I am surprised he is able to breathe oxygen. Stupidest man in DC and that is really saying something.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2013, 03:37:27 PM
Cool beans, I will check it out, I haven't seen her in anything since You Kill Me.
Have you seen that movie where she and Ben Stiller travel around the country looking for his biological parents? Nice underwear scene in that one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2013, 03:53:02 PM
Have you seen that movie where she and Ben Stiller travel around the country looking for his biological parents? Nice underwear scene in that one.
Oh yeah. She's never been much on the skin radar through her career, though.
edit: LOL, started to Google her, first three pre-pop choices that came up were "Tea Leoni Feet", "Tea Leoni IMDB" and "Tea Leoni and David Ducovny" :lol:
Ugh, feet.
There are much, much worse things out there.
GOOGLE TEA LEONI AMPUTEE TOILET HARDWARE HANDJOB PORN
Quote from: derspiess on May 17, 2013, 03:30:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2013, 02:56:16 PM
Yay, so it's Beat Up The Bureaucrat For Sound Bites Day. Oooh, so exciting.
:punk:
That clip makes baby Raz cry.
No, I'm used to terrorist attacks against the government.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2013, 04:22:19 PM
There are much, much worse things out there.
GOOGLE TEA LEONI AMPUTEE TOILET HARDWARE HANDJOB PORN
Hits: 1 Website created by: CountDeMoney
Somebody'll buy the clips.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2013, 06:34:50 PM
Somebody'll buy the clips.
People will buy anything. If you were to claim to have shitty cellphone video of Obama smoking crack, Fox would offer you a quarter million dollars for it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2013, 06:34:50 PM
Somebody'll buy the clips.
You should publish a magazine.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 17, 2013, 05:27:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 17, 2013, 03:30:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2013, 02:56:16 PM
Yay, so it's Beat Up The Bureaucrat For Sound Bites Day. Oooh, so exciting.
:punk:
That clip makes baby Raz cry.
No, I'm used to terrorist attacks against the government.
Criticizing a government agency is terrorism?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FsQ8UzMO.jpg&hash=11fb3c95d9709c5ffcb42e633ce39c854a0a11fa)
Impressive retort...
It's a blowout.
Lois Lerner gets 4 Pinocchios, Languish to complain about Pinnochio inflation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-bushel-of-pinocchios-for-irss-lois-lerner/2013/05/19/771687d2-bfdd-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_blog.html
This IRS thing is far more serious. The Benghazi thing was ineptness, this is on the malevolent side.
In other scandal news, it sounds like the DOJ leaked documents to try & smear the Fast & Furious whistleblower.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/05/report-faults-former-us-attorney-dennis-burke-for-164374.html?hp=r3
Quote from: Valmy on May 20, 2013, 02:07:22 PM
This IRS thing is far more serious. The Benghazi thing was ineptness, this is on the malevolent side.
I have yet to see actual ineptness.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 03:36:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 20, 2013, 02:07:22 PM
This IRS thing is far more serious. The Benghazi thing was ineptness, this is on the malevolent side.
I have yet to see actual ineptness.
Of course not :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 03:36:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 20, 2013, 02:07:22 PM
This IRS thing is far more serious. The Benghazi thing was ineptness, this is on the malevolent side.
I have yet to see actual ineptness.
Christ Raz. We have the Marine Corps to protect embassies in hotspots around the world. But an ambassador is placed in post revolutionary Libya protected by the local version of General Butt Naked and you don't see a fuck up? Obama and Hillary weren't the ones making the calls, but it seems evident someone made a mistake.
You really need to get your head out of that echo chamber. Were you frothing this much about "Travelgate", Vince Foster and Paula Jones back in the 1990's?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 03:45:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 03:36:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 20, 2013, 02:07:22 PM
This IRS thing is far more serious. The Benghazi thing was ineptness, this is on the malevolent side.
I have yet to see actual ineptness.
Christ Raz. We have the Marine Corps to protect embassies in hotspots around the world. But an ambassador is placed in post revolutionary Libya protected by the local version of General Butt Naked and you don't see a fuck up? Obama and Hillary weren't the ones making the calls, but it seems evident someone made a mistake.
You think he should be walking around with a Company of Marines?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 03:45:13 PM
Obama and Hillary weren't the ones making the calls, but it seems evident someone made a mistake.
Yeah, the ambassador.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 03:48:13 PM
You think he should be walking around with a Company of Marines?
Either that or its equivalent, or not gone at all.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 04:04:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 03:48:13 PM
You think he should be walking around with a Company of Marines?
Either that or its equivalent, or not gone at all.
Okay, the first one is not really something we can do. Most countries object to large groups of very heavily armed men wandering through their country. The second one means we would have to withdraw or severely limit our diplomatic activities in a whole bunch of countries. Like most of Africa, the Middle East and several Latin American countries. This doesn't seem like a good solution.
When you put diplomatic personnel in a country you accept a risk that they could be attacked. If this is an example of ineptness then every President since Washington has been guilty of it.
Libya wasn't just any third world country. It was a war-torn country with jihadists running around.
What I would like cleared up at this point are: why nothing was done to try and assist the ambassador and his bodyguards during the siege (apparently some special forces types in Tripoli were ready to move but were told to stand down), and why Obama apparently dumped it all on Panetta at 5:00pm that day and detached himself from the whole situation.
The question is not whether they can be attacked; diplomats *can* be attacked just about anywhere in the world. The question is whether the host country can provide a reasonable degree of security. If they cannot, then the question becomes whether we can provide a reasonable degree of security using our own resouces, as we have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 04:21:48 PM
Libya wasn't just any third world country. It was a war-torn country with jihadists running around.
What I would like cleared up at this point are: why nothing was done to try and assist the ambassador and his bodyguards during the siege (apparently some special forces types in Tripoli were ready to move but were told to stand down), and why Obama apparently dumped it all on Panetta at 5:00pm that day and detached himself from the whole situation.
Were is your source on this "standing down"?
:bleeding: Oh FFS what have I done?
I meant 'at worst' there Raz.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 04:04:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 03:48:13 PM
You think he should be walking around with a Company of Marines?
Either that or its equivalent, or not gone at all.
That's not your call; that's the ambassador's.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc396%2Fjenniferwriter%2Fjerry1.gif&hash=968431488799f8b801ac8c46cdcf40bf8875e62e)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2013, 04:22:20 PM
The question is not whether they can be attacked; diplomats *can* be attacked just about anywhere in the world. The question is whether the host country can provide a reasonable degree of security. If they cannot, then the question becomes whether we can provide a reasonable degree of security using our own resouces, as we have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States was an occupying force in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 04:23:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 04:21:48 PM
Libya wasn't just any third world country. It was a war-torn country with jihadists running around.
What I would like cleared up at this point are: why nothing was done to try and assist the ambassador and his bodyguards during the siege (apparently some special forces types in Tripoli were ready to move but were told to stand down), and why Obama apparently dumped it all on Panetta at 5:00pm that day and detached himself from the whole situation.
Were is your source on this "standing down"?
Gregory Hicks's testimony a week & a half ago.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 04:31:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 04:23:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 04:21:48 PM
Libya wasn't just any third world country. It was a war-torn country with jihadists running around.
What I would like cleared up at this point are: why nothing was done to try and assist the ambassador and his bodyguards during the siege (apparently some special forces types in Tripoli were ready to move but were told to stand down), and why Obama apparently dumped it all on Panetta at 5:00pm that day and detached himself from the whole situation.
Were is your source on this "standing down"?
Gregory Hicks's testimony a week & a half ago.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/
Funny how that was a week and a half ago, eh. Yet Raz has no clue.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 04:31:19 PM
The United States was an occupying force in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes it was.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2013, 04:26:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 04:04:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 03:48:13 PM
You think he should be walking around with a Company of Marines?
Either that or its equivalent, or not gone at all.
That's not your call; that's the ambassador's.
The ambassador has a responsibility to keep himself safe. It isn't just about his own life: it creates a shitstorm when an ambassador gets killed.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 04:36:32 PM
The ambassador has a responsibility to keep himself safe. It isn't just about his own life: it creates a shitstorm when an ambassador gets killed.
The ambassador was dedicated to BUILDING BRIDGES with ENGAGEMENT.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 04:16:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 04:04:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 03:48:13 PM
You think he should be walking around with a Company of Marines?
Either that or its equivalent, or not gone at all.
Okay, the first one is not really something we can do. Most countries object to large groups of very heavily armed men wandering through their country. The second one means we would have to withdraw or severely limit our diplomatic activities in a whole bunch of countries. Like most of Africa, the Middle East and several Latin American countries. This doesn't seem like a good solution.
When you put diplomatic personnel in a country you accept a risk that they could be attacked. If this is an example of ineptness then every President since Washington has been guilty of it.
Raz, the ambassadors to many countries are protected by marines. The marines don't go wandering through the hotspots in war torn countries, but then neither do ambassadors.
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 01:08:56 PM
Lois Lerner gets 4 Pinocchios, Languish to complain about Pinnochio inflation.
Yeah the Pinocchio claim is really quite weak. Especially when the main attack is on the numbers, and WaPo doesn't even have the numbers for 2012. If this is 4 out of 4 what is left when there is a real set of bald faced lies?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 20, 2013, 04:33:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 04:31:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 04:23:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 04:21:48 PM
Libya wasn't just any third world country. It was a war-torn country with jihadists running around.
What I would like cleared up at this point are: why nothing was done to try and assist the ambassador and his bodyguards during the siege (apparently some special forces types in Tripoli were ready to move but were told to stand down), and why Obama apparently dumped it all on Panetta at 5:00pm that day and detached himself from the whole situation.
Were is your source on this "standing down"?
Gregory Hicks's testimony a week & a half ago.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/
Funny how that was a week and a half ago, eh. Yet Raz has no clue.
Why? Sane people generally have their eyes glaze over when someone mentions Benghazi.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2013, 04:39:02 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 04:36:32 PM
The ambassador has a responsibility to keep himself safe. It isn't just about his own life: it creates a shitstorm when an ambassador gets killed.
The ambassador was dedicated to BUILDING BRIDGES with ENGAGEMENT.
Nick Berg had a similar plan.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 04:44:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2013, 04:39:02 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 04:36:32 PM
The ambassador has a responsibility to keep himself safe. It isn't just about his own life: it creates a shitstorm when an ambassador gets killed.
The ambassador was dedicated to BUILDING BRIDGES with ENGAGEMENT.
Nick Berg had a similar plan.
Nick Berg was a CIA contractor working cellular monitoring. You putz.
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 04:31:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 04:23:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 04:21:48 PM
Libya wasn't just any third world country. It was a war-torn country with jihadists running around.
What I would like cleared up at this point are: why nothing was done to try and assist the ambassador and his bodyguards during the siege (apparently some special forces types in Tripoli were ready to move but were told to stand down), and why Obama apparently dumped it all on Panetta at 5:00pm that day and detached himself from the whole situation.
Were is your source on this "standing down"?
Gregory Hicks's testimony a week & a half ago.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/
Hicks never said "stand down". Also the DoD said such an action was impossible.
QuoteThe team, in Tripoli already to train Libyan forces, requested to hop on a Libyan C-130 cargo plane to head to Benghazi. But Special Operations Command Africa told them not to go, because "there was nothing this team could do to assist," Little said, opting to tell the team to stay in Tripoli to assist with consular staff's evacuation from Benghazi.
According to Little and Lapan, the C-130 the team wanted to fly to Benghazi on had space for the men, but it didn't arrive in the city until after the battle ended. "There's no evidence they could have arrived in Benghazi before the end of the attack," said Lapan, a spokesman for Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/bengazi-pentagon/
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 04:31:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 04:23:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 04:21:48 PM
What I would like cleared up at this point are: why nothing was done to try and assist the ambassador and his bodyguards during the siege (apparently some special forces types in Tripoli were ready to move but were told to stand down), and why Obama apparently dumped it all on Panetta at 5:00pm that day and detached himself from the whole situation.
Were is your source on this "standing down"?
Gregory Hicks's testimony a week & a half ago.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/
Time to play . . . Benghazi WHACK-A-MOLE!
Now that we've put paid to the arguments that the ambassador shouldn't have been there at all, or that his security was unreasonably low given available resources, or that the WH or Clinton had any personal resposbility for anything, or that Obama didn't use the right suffixes, we get to open door #11.
I have no idea whether there is anything to what Hicks says. But problems with the testimony leap off the page. Accounts of conversations he wasn't privy too. Hearsay statement from unidentified Libyans in the classic "people in the know have said" mode. Expressions of "my personal opinion" about military efficiacy from a non-military person.
And most troubling, self-serving boasting about the size of his balls. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2013, 04:33:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 04:31:19 PM
The United States was an occupying force in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes it was.
Do you see perhaps a difference in security in a country where the US rules and a country that US doesn't.
But if you really believe this, and are willing to declare every US president incompetent for maintaining US diplomatic personnel in dangerous areas, then please write your congressmen and demand the US withdraw from it's Diplomatic personnel from most of the Middle East, Africa and Mexico.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 05:04:09 PM
Do you see perhaps a difference in security in a country where the US rules and a country that US doesn't.
But if you really believe this, and are willing to declare every US president incompetent for maintaining US diplomatic personnel in dangerous areas, then please write your congressmen and demand the US withdraw from it's Diplomatic personnel from most of the Middle East, Africa and Mexico.
I could have sworn I'd already addressed the every president incompetent angle.
In another twist to this scandal the Indiana State Police said it would have helped if it could, but was "Ominously kept in the dark by the Obama administration". The Conspiracy deepens. :ph34r:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 05:08:17 PM
In another twist to this scandal the Indiana State Police said it would have helped if it could, but was "Ominously kept in the dark by the Obama administration". The Conspiracy deepens. :ph34r:
:lol: I wonder if Sheriff Arpaio isn't already on the case as well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2013, 05:06:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 05:04:09 PM
Do you see perhaps a difference in security in a country where the US rules and a country that US doesn't.
But if you really believe this, and are willing to declare every US president incompetent for maintaining US diplomatic personnel in dangerous areas, then please write your congressmen and demand the US withdraw from it's Diplomatic personnel from most of the Middle East, Africa and Mexico.
I could have sworn I'd already addressed the every president incompetent angle.
You did? I don't remember you calling Reagan incompetent. But go ahead, call him incompetent.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 04:50:48 PM
Hicks never said "stand down". Also the DoD said such an action was impossible.
QuoteThe team, in Tripoli already to train Libyan forces, requested to hop on a Libyan C-130 cargo plane to head to Benghazi. But Special Operations Command Africa told them not to go, because "there was nothing this team could do to assist," Little said, opting to tell the team to stay in Tripoli to assist with consular staff's evacuation from Benghazi.
According to Little and Lapan, the C-130 the team wanted to fly to Benghazi on had space for the men, but it didn't arrive in the city until after the battle ended. "There's no evidence they could have arrived in Benghazi before the end of the attack," said Lapan, a spokesman for Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/bengazi-pentagon/
I think I'd have sent them anyway just in case. It wouldn't have hurt anything.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 05:18:49 PM
You did? I don't remember you calling Reagan incompetent. But go ahead, call him incompetent.
:lol: Ciao Razz.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 20, 2013, 05:19:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 04:50:48 PM
Hicks never said "stand down". Also the DoD said such an action was impossible.
QuoteThe team, in Tripoli already to train Libyan forces, requested to hop on a Libyan C-130 cargo plane to head to Benghazi. But Special Operations Command Africa told them not to go, because "there was nothing this team could do to assist," Little said, opting to tell the team to stay in Tripoli to assist with consular staff's evacuation from Benghazi.
According to Little and Lapan, the C-130 the team wanted to fly to Benghazi on had space for the men, but it didn't arrive in the city until after the battle ended. "There's no evidence they could have arrived in Benghazi before the end of the attack," said Lapan, a spokesman for Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/bengazi-pentagon/
I think I'd have sent them anyway just in case. It wouldn't have hurt anything.
Except of course, they could have died. Or there might be a similar attack in Tripoli which they can't defend against cause they are now in transit to Benghazi. Besides that, it wouldn't hurt anything.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2013, 05:21:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 05:18:49 PM
You did? I don't remember you calling Reagan incompetent. But go ahead, call him incompetent.
:lol: Ciao Razz.
Seriously though, your arguments were based on 20/20 hindsight.
Piers Morgan :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-Z0S_-PI8U
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2013, 04:58:07 PM
Time to play . . . Benghazi WHACK-A-MOLE!
Now that we've put paid to the arguments that the ambassador shouldn't have been there at all, or that his security was unreasonably low
I haven't been following this story much, so I may have missed key details, but how did the above arguments get closed?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 05:49:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2013, 04:58:07 PM
Time to play . . . Benghazi WHACK-A-MOLE!
Now that we've put paid to the arguments that the ambassador shouldn't have been there at all, or that his security was unreasonably low
I haven't been following this story much, so I may have missed key details, but how did the above arguments get closed?
It didnt. Ended the usual way here.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 04:50:48 PM
Hicks never said "stand down". Also the DoD said such an action was impossible.
He said "They didn't miss the flight. They were told not to board the flight." He raised no objections when it was later mentioned by the committee member that it essentially meant a stand-down order. But I almost don't blame you for hiding behind that to try & save face.
QuoteQuoteThe team, in Tripoli already to train Libyan forces, requested to hop on a Libyan C-130 cargo plane to head to Benghazi. But Special Operations Command Africa told them not to go, because "there was nothing this team could do to assist," Little said, opting to tell the team to stay in Tripoli to assist with consular staff's evacuation from Benghazi.
According to Little and Lapan, the C-130 the team wanted to fly to Benghazi on had space for the men, but it didn't arrive in the city until after the battle ended. "There's no evidence they could have arrived in Benghazi before the end of the attack," said Lapan, a spokesman for Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/bengazi-pentagon/
Thing is, they had no idea how long the siege would go on. Seems odd not to have made an effort.
But why am I bothering to discuss with you? In your mind, zero mistakes were made, nothing happened, what difference does it make, etc.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 05:49:13 PM
I haven't been following this story much, so I may have missed key details, but how did the above arguments get closed?
After no one was able to mount an argument for them that did not rely either on hindsight or magic (ie conjuring up additional resources that didn't exist).
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 06:15:22 PM
He said "They didn't miss the flight. They were told not to board the flight."
Interesting use of the passive voice.
Hillary for 2016
"What difference does it make"
What a great bumper sticker.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2013, 06:16:08 PM
After no one was able to mount an argument for them that did not rely either on hindsight or magic (ie conjuring up additional resources that didn't exist).
This is not accurate. Warnings were recieved. Other countries withdrew staff because of percieved threat.
Where's the evidence to substantiate the counter-claim, that the risks in Benghazi were tolerable ex ante?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2013, 06:22:05 PM
This is not accurate. Warnings were recieved. Other countries withdrew staff because of percieved threat.
Other countries don't take the diplomatic lead in environments like post-Mad Dog Libya.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2013, 06:22:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2013, 06:16:08 PM
After no one was able to mount an argument for them that did not rely either on hindsight or magic (ie conjuring up additional resources that didn't exist).
This is not accurate. Warnings were recieved. Other countries withdrew staff because of percieved threat.
Where's the evidence to substantiate the counter-claim, that the risks in Benghazi were tolerable ex ante?
Of course it's not accurate. Typical Left Wing Languish dribble.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2013, 06:16:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 05:49:13 PM
I haven't been following this story much, so I may have missed key details, but how did the above arguments get closed?
After no one was able to mount an argument for them that did not rely either on hindsight or magic (ie conjuring up additional resources that didn't exist).
I'm not going to go to Libya. It doesn't seem safe. I thought that way pre bengazi.
I would think an American ambassador would be a bigger target than me, and thus should either bring a bunch of security or not go at all.
It isn't a big deal to me--sometimes mistakes are made and bad things happen. Just like rolling through Dallas in an open car was probably a mistake for Kennedy. People don't hold that against his administration, and that was a much more important situation.
Fact check rips IRS official over Tea Party targeting claims
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/20/fact-check-rips-irs-official-over-tea-party-targeting-claims/#ixzz2TshPq9I7
QuoteA detailed fact-check published Monday tore into an IRS official's claim that the agency's scrutiny of conservative groups started in response to an influx of nonprofit applications, showing the practice started well before the forms started flooding in.
The piece in The Washington Post disputed a central claim that Lois Lerner, head of the exempt organizations division, and other IRS officials made as they admitted to targeting conservative groups for additional scrutiny as they sought tax-exempt status.
Lerner claimed they did so in response to a "very big uptick" between 2010 and 2012 in the number of applications for a status known as 501(c)(4).
Indeed, there was an uptick recorded in that time period. But, as the Post wrote, "it was relatively small."
"The real jump did not come until 2011, long after the targeting of conservative groups had been implemented," the Post wrote.
The inspector general report released last week said a Cincinnati office began drafting the new criteria as early as May 2010. But statistics included in the report show the number of applications in that group actually declined between 2009 and 2010 -- from 1,751 to 1,735.
The Post fact-check column adjusted the numbers to reflect the rise from one calendar year to the next, as opposed to fiscal year. Even then, the increase was from 1,745 to 1,865.
Applications did not begin to rise significantly until 2011 and 2012.
The Post column gave this and several other Lerner claims a rating of "four Pinocchios," which is the worst score given by the newspaper's fact-check column.
"In some ways, this is just scratching the surface of Lerner's misstatements and weasely wording when the revelations about the IRS's activities first came to light on May 10," the Post wrote.
The column also questioned her claim that they looked at the issue after seeing "information in the press." However, as the Post points out, the IG report said Lerner was briefed on the program in June 2011. Press reports didn't appear until early 2012.
Further, Lerner claimed, as she publicly acknowledged the program, that nobody had asked her about it before. But she was asked about the probe during congressional testimony two days earlier. It has since emerged that Lerner contacted a friend to pose the question about the IRS program to her at a May 10 conference
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/20/fact-check-rips-irs-official-over-tea-party-targeting-claims/#ixzz2TshA7Kpb
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2013, 06:22:05 PM
This is not accurate. Warnings were recieved. Other countries withdrew staff because of percieved threat.
Where's the evidence to substantiate the counter-claim, that the risks in Benghazi were tolerable ex ante?
Yi - we've been through this before. Britain withdrew staff beause of an attempt on its envoy. I.e. a specific attack not a "perceived threat." And that was months before.
"warnings were received" Seriously? Has there been some recent breakout of a virulent strain of vague use of the passive voice?
Name any overseas diplo posting in the ME or Africa where after the fact one could not claim at any time that "warnings were received"?
And no I am not taking up the invitation to prove a negative. I think the burden fairly rests with those who would make the extraordinary claim that ex ante the US should not have posted diplomats to a crucial, hydrocarbon-rich post-Arab Spring state like Libya, especially where the record reflects not a single op-ed, piece of testimony, or statement by anyone of any kind suggesting such a thing.
and on another front.
Quote
A Fox News correspondent was accused in a Justice Department affidavit of being a possible criminal "co-conspirator" for his alleged role in publishing sensitive security information -- in a leak case that takes the highly unusual step of claiming a journalist broke the law.
According to court documents, the Justice Department obtained a portfolio of information about Fox News' James Rosen's conversations and visits to the State Department. This included a search warrant for his personal emails.
The effort follows that by the department to secretly obtain two months of phone records from Associated Press journalists as part of a separate leak probe. The department in this case, though, went a step further -- as an FBI agent claimed there's evidence the Fox News correspondent broke the law, "at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator."
Michael Clemente, Fox News' executive vice president of news, defended Rosen in a statement issued Monday afternoon.
"We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter," Clemente said. "In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press."
The case has also caught the attention of Congress. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said in a statement Monday he was "very concerned" about the reports of "possible criminal prosecution for doing what appears to be normal news-gathering protected by the First Amendment."
He added: "The sort of reporting by James Rosen detailed in the report is the same sort of reporting that helped Mr. Rosen aggressively pursue questions about the Administration's handling of Benghazi. National security leaks are criminal and put American lives on the line, and federal prosecutors should, of course, vigorously investigate. But we expect that they do so within the bounds of the law, and that the investigations focus on the leakers within the government -- not on media organizations that have First Amendment protections and serve vital function in our democracy."
In the case involving Rosen, a government adviser was accused of leaking information after a 2009 story was published online which said North Korea planned to respond to looming U.N. sanctions with another nuclear test.
An affidavit entered by FBI agent Reginald Reyes claimed there was "probable cause" to believe Rosen -- identified only as "the reporter" -- had violated a provision of U.S. law barring the unauthorized disclosure of defense information. This is where Reyes labeled Rosen as a possible "co-conspirator" -- an allegation used to gain access to two days' worth of emails.
The search warrant for that request was ultimately approved, the records show.
Investigators, in pursuing the case, also obtained records of Rosen's visits to the State Department headquarters by tracking security-badge information. As first reported by The Washington Post, a court affidavit said they used the badge records to log his visits as well as the movements of the adviser, Stephen Jim-Woo Kim.
The FBI agent said in the affidavit that the visits suggested a "face-to-face" meeting.
According to the Post, investigators also obtained two months of phone records from Kim's office.
Rosen said Monday that "as a reporter, I always honor the confidentiality of my dealings with all of my sources."
He was not contacted by any government or law enforcement representative during the investigation.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, asked about the case Monday, said he could not comment on the "ongoing investigation." He said President Obama is a "strong defender of the First Amendment," but also is "insistent that we protect our secrets, that we protect classified information."
The Department of Justice said in a statement Monday that "leaks of classified information to the press can pose a serious risk of harm to our national security and it is important that we pursue these matters using appropriate law enforcement tools."
The U.S. attorney's office for the District of Columbia also said the government, before seeking approval for the search warrant, "exhausted all reasonable non-media alternatives for collecting this evidence."
While Kim has already been indicted, the office said no other charges have been brought. "Based on the investigation and all of the facts known to date, no other individuals, including the reporter, have been charged since Mr. Kim was indicted nearly three years ago," the office said.
Attorney General Eric Holder said at a House hearing last week that he is not interested in prosecuting the press.
"With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I've ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be a wise policy," he said on May 15.
The seizure of records from the AP offices also spanned two months.
AP President Gary Pruitt said on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday that the AP records grab was not only unconstitutional but damaging to the operation of the press.
"It will hurt," he said. "We're already seeing some impact. Officials are saying they're reluctant to talk."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/20/justice-department-obtained-records-fox-news-journalist/#ixzz2Tsii9Br4
The Republican hypocrisy on the whole "leaks" thing is totally hysterical.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 03:45:13 PM
Christ Raz. We have the Marine Corps to protect embassies in hotspots around the world.
In fairness the main job of marines is to protect the interests of the US - above all by protecting sensitive information or equipment and, in a situation like Benghazi, protect it until it can be destroyed.
Protecting diplomatic staff or spies is relatively low in the official list of priorities.
QuoteRaz, the ambassadors to many countries are protected by marines. The marines don't go wandering through the hotspots in war torn countries, but then neither do ambassadors.
Again, diplomatic posts are protected by marines and generally the focus is on locking the building down in case of an assault. They'll also provide security for visiting dignitaries but they're not there to protect the staff, especially once they're off the premises.
This was the situation in Tehran in 79 and from what I understand it's still the situation now.
QuoteThe question is whether the host country can provide a reasonable degree of security. If they cannot, then the question becomes whether we can provide a reasonable degree of security using our own resouces, as we have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Not all countries will allow you to build enormous fortresses in their capital city. The real question is whether your interests in having a diplomatic post there, including for the CIA, outweighs the potential risks. I think in Libya it certainly does.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2013, 07:17:27 PM
The Republican hypocrisy on the whole "leaks" thing is totally hysterical.
That all you got? :(
That's all I need. The story writes itself.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2013, 07:15:04 PM
Yi - we've been through this before. Britain withdrew staff beause of an attempt on its envoy. I.e. a specific attack not a "perceived threat." And that was months before.
"warnings were received" Seriously? Has there been some recent breakout of a virulent strain of vague use of the passive voice?
Name any overseas diplo posting in the ME or Africa where after the fact one could not claim at any time that "warnings were received"?
And no I am not taking up the invitation to prove a negative. I think the burden fairly rests with those who would make the extraordinary claim that ex ante the US should not have posted diplomats to a crucial, hydrocarbon-rich post-Arab Spring state like Libya, especially where the record reflects not a single op-ed, piece of testimony, or statement by anyone of any kind suggesting such a thing.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction between a specific attack and a perceived threat. Presumably Britain pulled staff because they thought they were at risk.
My understanding, based on Before's little tiny table, is that the Libyans passed on a warning of a threat, and that al Qaeda in Somewhere had issued a statement about the desirability of attacking US personnel in Libya.
I agree that there are very few countries in the world where US diplomats recieve zero threats. Maybe none. But the number of counties in which (a) credible threats are made against US personnel, (b) the host country does not have the capability to protect US personnel against those threats, and (c) the US is not a military occupyer capable of providing large escorts for diplomats, is quite a bit smaller.
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 07:33:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2013, 07:30:51 PM
That's all I need. The story writes itself.
Lazy.
I had cheeseburgers for dinner. I feel bloated, in the way God would feel bloated if he ate like Ed.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 20, 2013, 06:20:11 PM
Hillary for 2016
"What difference does it make"
What a great bumper sticker.
About as good as the one in the 90s that Hillary was the real president during Bill's terms.
Sheilbh, regardless of where personnel protection falls on the list of Marine priorities, if they are securing a facility the occupants are also being protected.
Anyway, putting high value targets in unstable countries with some virulent anti American/western attitudes is just going to get them killed if you don't have adequate security. I frankly don't see why having an ambassador is critical to CIA operations or why we should be so concerned with Libya at all.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 07:38:39 PM
Sheilbh, regardless of where personnel protection falls on the list of Marine priorities, if they are securing a facility the occupants are also being protected.
Anyway, putting high value targets in unstable countries with some virulent anti American/western attitudes is just going to get them killed if you don't have adequate security. I frankly don't see why having an ambassador is critical to CIA operations or why we should be so concerned with Libya at all.
Should we remove our ambassadors from Mali and South Sudan given their general state of disarray?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 07:38:39 PM
Anyway, putting high value targets in unstable countries with some virulent anti American/western attitudes is just going to get them killed if you don't have adequate security. I frankly don't see why having an ambassador is critical to CIA operations or why we should be so concerned with Libya at all.
I'm trying to come up with the most polite way of saying that the US government doesn't make decisions about importance of diplomatic representation based on what you think. :)
There is a POV that says we don't really need a State Departments or diplomats - my own view is that attitude is probably based on lack of understanding of all the functions that postings can fill. But for the purposes of this little debate it doesn't matter. As a nation we made the decision to have consular representation and facilities in all sorts of dangerous places, so the question is whether doing so in Libya with the resources allocated was, against that existing background and policy, a judgment call so poor as to rise to the level of negligence.
That case has not come close to being made, at least as I see it. Yi is making another effort up above but it is just more of the same kind of garden variety on generalized warnings, threats and al_qaeda drum-beating that come into play in any "hot" ME or NAfrica posting. of which there are still quite a number. Or even elsewhere. So I cannot help but draw the conclusion that the folks making this argument, however well-intentioned, are exploiting 20/20 hindsight to engage in egregious Monday morning quarterbacking.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 07:38:39 PM
Sheilbh, regardless of where personnel protection falls on the list of Marine priorities, if they are securing a facility the occupants are also being protected.
Not necessarily.
For example the personnel may be dispersed over the facilities, the marines probably wouldn't have to try and collect them in one area. They also won't be trying to protect the entire post. In the event of a successful invasion their job would normally be to protect the central, most important building and within that a room were sensitive communications can be destroyed. In a place like Benghazi where two thirds of the staff were spies, chances are the most important building to protect would be the one the CIA were based in, not necessarily the one State Department employees were.
QuoteAnyway, putting high value targets in unstable countries with some virulent anti American/western attitudes is just going to get them killed if you don't have adequate security. I frankly don't see why having an ambassador is critical to CIA operations or why we should be so concerned with Libya at all.
Well some virulent anti-American groups. Personally I think that US interests in Libya and the Middle East outweigh the risk. Those risks are real but you're better with the CIA and State there, on the ground, than not.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2013, 07:48:25 PM
That case has not come close to being made, at least as I see it. Yi is making another effort up above but it is just more of the same kind of garden variety on generalized warnings, threats and al_qaeda drum-beating that come into play in any "hot" ME or NAfrica posting. of which there are still quite a number. Or even elsewhere. So I cannot help but draw the conclusion that the folks making this argument, however well-intentioned, are exploiting 20/20 hindsight to engage in egregious Monday morning quarterbacking.
You conveniently ignored the issue of the capability and willingness of the Libyan security forces.
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2013, 07:41:23 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 07:38:39 PM
Sheilbh, regardless of where personnel protection falls on the list of Marine priorities, if they are securing a facility the occupants are also being protected.
Anyway, putting high value targets in unstable countries with some virulent anti American/western attitudes is just going to get them killed if you don't have adequate security. I frankly don't see why having an ambassador is critical to CIA operations or why we should be so concerned with Libya at all.
Should we remove our ambassadors from Mali and South Sudan given their general state of disarray?
A quick google indicates there is a marine presence at the embassy in Mali.
The embassy in Sudan was apparently evacuated by non emergency personnel when marines protection was denied.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-16/world/35494944_1_evacuation-order-consulate-attack-sudan
I don't know much about South Sudan (including if marines are there) to comment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2013, 07:55:30 PM
You conveniently ignored the issue of the capability and willingness of the Libyan security forces.
You are mistaking oversight due to lack of relevance with oversight for the sake of convenience. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2013, 07:56:31 PM
You are mistaking oversight due to lack of relevance with oversight for the sake of convenience. ;)
:huh: You think the ability of the host country to provide security for diplomatic personnel is irrelevant?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2013, 07:58:28 PM
:huh: You think the ability of the host country to provide security for diplomatic personnel is irrelevant?
To the question of whether to have a post at all? Not really.
There are plenty of places where local security either is poorly capable or not reliable.
Indeed, since the shortcomings of Libyan security were publically known at the time, had anyone really thought that such shortcomings could justify pulling all US presence out, surely someone somewhere would have said so? Of course, that never happened.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2013, 07:48:25 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 20, 2013, 07:38:39 PM
Anyway, putting high value targets in unstable countries with some virulent anti American/western attitudes is just going to get them killed if you don't have adequate security. I frankly don't see why having an ambassador is critical to CIA operations or why we should be so concerned with Libya at all.
I'm trying to come up with the most polite way of saying that the US government doesn't make decisions about importance of diplomatic representation based on what you think. :)
There is a POV that says we don't really need a State Departments or diplomats - my own view is that attitude is probably based on lack of understanding of all the functions that postings can fill. But for the purposes of this little debate it doesn't matter. As a nation we made the decision to have consular representation and facilities in all sorts of dangerous places, so the question is whether doing so in Libya with the resources allocated was, against that existing background and policy, a judgment call so poor as to rise to the level of negligence.
That case has not come close to being made, at least as I see it. Yi is making another effort up above but it is just more of the same kind of garden variety on generalized warnings, threats and al_qaeda drum-beating that come into play in any "hot" ME or NAfrica posting. of which there are still quite a number. Or even elsewhere. So I cannot help but draw the conclusion that the folks making this argument, however well-intentioned, are exploiting 20/20 hindsight to engage in egregious Monday morning quarterbacking.
As I tried to convey by introducing the comment with "anyway", I was making an aside comment. And I wasn't making an aside comment on the value of diplomatic services in general, but that Libya is not a critical national interest concern and we should have had a hands off approach going back to win we started bombing them. Crap like this was a very foreseeable consequence of the hands on approach we took, and I posted quite a bit on it at the time--this is absolutely not monday morning quarterbacking from me.
I am not at all sure how a very small country (in terms of population) is going to provide a decent ROI from the expenditures of the recent past. I am also skeptical our engagement has made day to day life better in Libya. I think the world (and us) would be better off if we took a big step back from the foreign adventurism we seem to be addicted to.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2013, 08:04:38 PM
To the question of whether to have a post at all? Not really.
There are plenty of places where local security either is poorly capable or not reliable.
There are fewer places in which attacks have been launched against US diplomatic personnel and local security forces have all run away.
QuoteIndeed, since the shortcomings of Libyan security were publically known at the time, had anyone really thought that such shortcomings could justify pulling all US presence out, surely someone somewhere would have said so? Of course, that never happened.
US embassy staffs are regularly pulled from countries because of perceived threat, yet never once have I read an op-ed, or heard a talking head on a cable network or Sunday morning show discussing the need to do so. Nobody pretends to have the intelligence the executive branch does. If Obama had run it up the flagpole, as is his wont, before sending the ambassador to Benghazi with two triggermen, you might have a good point.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2013, 07:36:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 07:33:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2013, 07:30:51 PM
That's all I need. The story writes itself.
Lazy.
I had cheeseburgers for dinner. I feel bloated, in the way God would feel bloated if he ate like Ed.
I had a Big Boy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2013, 08:12:59 PM
US embassy staffs are regularly pulled from countries because of perceived threat,
No that is not a very regular occurence. It is not that common that an entire overseas embassy is pulled based on security threats. It happened in Syria because there was a very hot civil war going on but also because it was clear that we could have no useful influence on the government anyway. Things have to get pretty hot before a whole embassy is pulled. The locals reporting general "were gonna get you" threats from al-qaeda influenced orgs is not enough to do it. If it was, then the US really would be pulling staffs regularly, and al-Qaeda would quickly figure out they could veto US consular presence anywhere in the world just by ginning up convincing threats.
Quoteyet never once have I read an op-ed, or heard a talking head on a cable network or Sunday morning show discussing the need to do so.
Yes, exactly. And the reason has nothing to do with special secret intel. The reason is that it is not deemed a newsworthy subject. At any given time, the risk to the manifold US installations overseas are endemic. It is a risk that the US assumes. Determinations of the precise level of risk or return are made by the people on the spot and the mid-level bureau officers responsible for those facilities. Those kinds of decisions don't get micro-managed at cabinet level unless specifically escalated. And so the press doesn't cover them. No one cares or shows any interest unless and until something terrible happens, and then of course, it is very easy to say what should or should not have been done.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 20, 2013, 08:31:16 PM
No one cares or shows any interest unless and until something terrible happens, and then of course, it is very easy to say what should or should not have been done.
This is true. But the fact that it is easy to say does not mean it's wrong.
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 06:15:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 04:50:48 PM
Hicks never said "stand down". Also the DoD said such an action was impossible.
He said "They didn't miss the flight. They were told not to board the flight." He raised no objections when it was later mentioned by the committee member that it essentially meant a stand-down order. But I almost don't blame you for hiding behind that to try & save face.
QuoteQuoteThe team, in Tripoli already to train Libyan forces, requested to hop on a Libyan C-130 cargo plane to head to Benghazi. But Special Operations Command Africa told them not to go, because "there was nothing this team could do to assist," Little said, opting to tell the team to stay in Tripoli to assist with consular staff's evacuation from Benghazi.
According to Little and Lapan, the C-130 the team wanted to fly to Benghazi on had space for the men, but it didn't arrive in the city until after the battle ended. "There's no evidence they could have arrived in Benghazi before the end of the attack," said Lapan, a spokesman for Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/bengazi-pentagon/
Thing is, they had no idea how long the siege would go on. Seems odd not to have made an effort.
But why am I bothering to discuss with you? In your mind, zero mistakes were made, nothing happened, what difference does it make, etc.
Not even, the shrinks know what's in my mind :contract: You are drinking the Conservative kool-aid produced in all the blogs about how Obama deliberately murdered an ambassador for a laugh and you accusing me of being close minded?
Yi had the right idea. I'm done with you for the day, Raz. Cards game is starting, anyway.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 08:58:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 06:15:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 04:50:48 PM
Hicks never said "stand down". Also the DoD said such an action was impossible.
He said "They didn't miss the flight. They were told not to board the flight." He raised no objections when it was later mentioned by the committee member that it essentially meant a stand-down order. But I almost don't blame you for hiding behind that to try & save face.
QuoteQuoteThe team, in Tripoli already to train Libyan forces, requested to hop on a Libyan C-130 cargo plane to head to Benghazi. But Special Operations Command Africa told them not to go, because "there was nothing this team could do to assist," Little said, opting to tell the team to stay in Tripoli to assist with consular staff's evacuation from Benghazi.
According to Little and Lapan, the C-130 the team wanted to fly to Benghazi on had space for the men, but it didn't arrive in the city until after the battle ended. "There's no evidence they could have arrived in Benghazi before the end of the attack," said Lapan, a spokesman for Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/bengazi-pentagon/
Thing is, they had no idea how long the siege would go on. Seems odd not to have made an effort.
But why am I bothering to discuss with you? In your mind, zero mistakes were made, nothing happened, what difference does it make, etc.
Not even, the shrinks know what's in my mind :contract: You are drinking the Conservative kool-aid produced in all the blogs about how Obama deliberately murdered an ambassador for a laugh and you accusing me of being close minded?
Now that's just your Obama Left Wing Retardism showing. Too afraid to take a critical lokk at "Your boy".
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 20, 2013, 08:15:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2013, 07:36:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 07:33:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2013, 07:30:51 PM
That's all I need. The story writes itself.
Lazy.
I had cheeseburgers for dinner. I feel bloated, in the way God would feel bloated if he ate like Ed.
I had a Big Boy.
I made chicken tenders and a big salad. I am: Healthy McHealtherson
Quote from: fahdiz on May 20, 2013, 09:03:30 PM
I made chicken tenders and a big salad. I am: Healthy McHealtherson
You are: Elaine.
Quote from: fahdiz on May 20, 2013, 09:03:30 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 20, 2013, 08:15:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2013, 07:36:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 07:33:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2013, 07:30:51 PM
That's all I need. The story writes itself.
Lazy.
I had cheeseburgers for dinner. I feel bloated, in the way God would feel bloated if he ate like Ed.
I had a Big Boy.
I made chicken tenders and a big salad. I am: Healthy McHealtherson
I don't have time for that. I need grease.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2013, 09:04:08 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on May 20, 2013, 09:03:30 PM
I made chicken tenders and a big salad. I am: Healthy McHealtherson
You are: Elaine.
I don't like to brag, but I *do* have some pretty fine dance moves.
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 09:01:50 PM
Yi had the right idea. I'm done with you for the day, Raz. Cards game is starting, anyway.
Eh, Yi's got Minksy on his ass right now. He'll do fine. Of course I'm ignoring 11b4dishonesty at the moment, for you know, dishonesty.
When ever I start watching the Cards they take the opportunity to blow a lead. <_<
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 09:14:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 09:01:50 PM
Yi had the right idea. I'm done with you for the day, Raz. Cards game is starting, anyway.
Eh, Yi's got Minksy on his ass right now. He'll do fine. Of course I'm ignoring 11b4dishonesty at the moment, for you know, dishonesty.
When ever I start watching the Cards they take the opportunity to blow a lead. <_<
Was not dishonest. You made several mistakes that you shouldnt have made. When you were called you resorted to personal attacks, the last position of the desperate.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 20, 2013, 07:11:57 PM
Fact check rips IRS official over Tea Party targeting claims
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com
I didn't get past that. Got a better source?
Quote from: merithyn on May 20, 2013, 10:43:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 20, 2013, 07:11:57 PM
Fact check rips IRS official over Tea Party targeting claims
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com
I didn't get past that. Got a better source?
Google it. BTW disprove it. It may be from Fox, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I would like to applaud 11B4V's heroic attempt to keep this thread on topic.
Quote from: Valmy on May 20, 2013, 10:52:34 PM
I would like to applaud 11B4V's heroic attempt to keep this thread on topic.
I do try. As I said before, a good bipartisan anal probe of the IRS will be good. Also, the Black Savior is not done loping off heads. Wanna take bets on the current head of the Obamacare IRS department's shelf life?
To me, the Benghazi thing boils down to either
You think it's not a big deal, which in that case your a blind Left Wing Nut Job.
or
You think it's a big deal, which your a vindictive Right Wing Nut Job
Does it matter in the scheme of things to the Obama admin...no. He's on his down slope. The Dems are more worried about anything he does that might have an impact in 2016.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 20, 2013, 11:01:35 PM
Also, the Black Savior is not done loping off heads.
Well, to be fair, the acting IRS director was already planning to step down. He just left a few weeks earlier than he otherwise would've. No heads have really rolled yet.
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 11:04:40 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 20, 2013, 11:01:35 PM
Also, the Black Savior is not done loping off heads.
Well, to be fair, the acting IRS director was already planning to step down. He just left a few weeks earlier than he otherwise would've. No heads have really rolled yet.
Oh, true that. He was being a slicky boy with that one.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 20, 2013, 11:01:35 PM
I do try. As I said before, a good bipartisan anal probe of the IRS will be good.
We'll see. I am hopeful but it is not like the Republicans do not use the IRS when they are in power. Stats have consistently shown audits in blue states go up when they are in power and in red states when the Dems are in power. This particular scandal I hope will shed some light on it but I have a feeling the Republicans will only push this so far. Same with the AP writer thing.
The reason the Benghazi thing is being kicked around still I suspect because ultimately this threatens nobody except Obama's reputation. It is about as safe and politically clean scandal you are going to get...and also why I have little use for it.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 09:14:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2013, 09:01:50 PM
Yi had the right idea. I'm done with you for the day, Raz. Cards game is starting, anyway.
Eh, Yi's got Minksy on his ass right now. He'll do fine. Of course I'm ignoring 11b4dishonesty at the moment, for you know, dishonesty.
When ever I start watching the Cards they take the opportunity to blow a lead. <_<
See what I mean?
Quote from: Valmy on May 20, 2013, 11:07:04 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 20, 2013, 11:01:35 PM
I do try. As I said before, a good bipartisan anal probe of the IRS will be good.
We'll see. I am hopeful but it is not like the Republicans do not use the IRS when they are in power. Stats have consistently shown audits in blue states go up when they are in power and in red states when the Dems are in power. This particular scandal I hope will shed some light on it but I have a feeling the Republicans will only push this so far. Same with the AP writer thing.
The reason the Benghazi thing is being kicked around still I suspect because ultimately this threatens nobody except Obama's reputation. It is about as safe and politically clean scandal you are going to get...and also why I have little use for it.
It's a political scandal in the same sense the Vince Foster dying was a scandal.
First lawsuit filed against IRS
Quote
4 hours ago
First lawsuit filed against IRS
Posted by
CNN Senior Producer Kevin Bohn
Washington (CNN) – A Northern California tea party group filed the first lawsuit against the U.S. government stemming from the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups for more scrutiny as they applied for tax-exempt status.
"The IRS and its agents singled out groups like NorCal Tea Party Patriots for intensive and intrusive scrutiny, probing their members' associates, speech, activities and beliefs," the suit claimed on Monday.
"NorCal and its members suffered years of delay and expense while awaiting the exemption and spending valuable time and money answering the IRS' questions. The result was a muffling and muzzling of free expression" the lawsuit claimed.
The group alleged violations under the Privacy Act as well as violations of its constitutional rights guaranteeing free expression and equal protection under the law.
It is asking for unspecified damages and named the IRS, Treasury Department and unnamed current and former IRS employees.
NorCal Tea Party Patriots first applied for the tax-exempt status in March of 2010 but it took more than two years to receive it.
The inspector general for the IRS found this month the agency developed and followed a faulty policy to determine whether applicants for tax-exempt status were engaged in political activities, which would disqualify them from receiving tax-exempt status.
The inspector general confirmed that agents from 2010 through early 2012 used inappropriate words, such as "tea party" and "patriots," and other criteria off and on to single out applications for more examination.
The watchdog who conducted the audit, J. Russell George, found the criteria resulted in substantial delays and the request of unnecessary information from the groups.
The lawsuit alleged that the "IRS engaged in a tactic of suffocating NorCal Tea Party Patriots and other similarly situated groups with requests that were so searching and extensive that they would have presented a serious challenge even for sophisticated businesses."
Group officials said the IRS asked for a wide variety of information. This included a list of all events and activities conducted since July 2010 and information about their website; Internet related activities; materials they distributed; information about their board of directors and the names of donors, contributors and grantors.
They were also asked if they conducted or would conduct rallies or exhibitions for or against public policies, legislation, public officers, political candidates, the officials said.
Mark Meckler, president of a Tea Party-aligned group Citizens for Self-Governance, helped bring the lawsuit and told CNN that he expects other groups to join.
Meckler and the president of the NorCal group will hold a news conference on Tuesday in Washington to talk about the case.
"When the federal government runs amok, it is up to us to reign it in. Neither party in Congress can be relied upon to satisfactorily resolve this issue. They created the IRS, fund the IRS, and oversee the IRS. All of this abuse happened on their watch," Meckler said in a press release.
The IRS did not respond to a request for comment regarding the lawsuit, which was filed in Cincinnati where the IRS office responsible for the tax-exempt determinations is located.
Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller answered questions before a House committee on Friday.
"I want to apologize on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service for the mistakes that we made and for the poor service we provided. The affected organizations and the American public deserve better," Miller told the Ways and Means Committee.
"I do not believe that partisanship motivated the people who engaged in the practices" described in the inspector general's report. "I think that what happened here was that foolish mistakes were made by people who were trying to be more efficient in their workload selection," he said.
IRS officials are expected to testify at congressional hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Several other groups have said they plan to sue the IRS.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/20/first-lawsuit-filed-against-irs/?hpt=po_c2
Quote from: 11B4V on May 21, 2013, 11:04:06 AM
First lawsuit filed against IRS
Good. I'd love to see this get vetted through the courts.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 11:38:03 PM
It's a political scandal in the same sense the Vince Foster dying was a scandal.
You seem to have a Vince Foster fixation.
Quote from: merithyn on May 21, 2013, 11:09:40 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 21, 2013, 11:04:06 AM
First lawsuit filed against IRS
Good. I'd love to see this get vetted through the courts.
I hope so too. It could get ugly.
Quote from: merithyn on May 21, 2013, 11:09:40 AM
Good. I'd love to see this get vetted through the courts.
Ladies and gentlemen, the power of precedent. It'd be awesome to have this go through the legal system; it might be a scandal for the current administration, but a good court chokehold on this nonsense would be a great deterrent to both sides.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 21, 2013, 11:44:11 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 21, 2013, 11:09:40 AM
Good. I'd love to see this get vetted through the courts.
Ladies and gentlemen, the power of precedent. It'd be awesome to have this go through the legal system; it might be a scandal for the current administration, but a good court chokehold on this nonsense would be a great deterrent to both sides.
:yes:
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2013, 11:19:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2013, 11:38:03 PM
It's a political scandal in the same sense the Vince Foster dying was a scandal.
You seem to have a Vince Foster fixation.
It's an excellent example of a fake scandal cooked up by the right. You still have your copy of the Clinton Chronicles?
Derspeiss, how you would you have avoided this obvious incompetence?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 01:08:54 PM
Derspeiss, how you would you have avoided this obvious incompetence?
You mean if I were Vince Foster? Why are you asking me?
The Benghazi thing. If it's such a clear case of either incompetence, or malice then it should be easy to see a way to avoid it. I'm not seeing one, therefore I'm not seeing it as incompetence (or malice). Yi is trying to argue that the US should have simply withdrawn assets, but that opens an big can of worms and I wouldn't think you would go in for such a wimpy solution. So I'm curious who would avoided this disaster.
What big can of worms is that? What big can of worms did the Brits open when they pulled out?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 21, 2013, 11:44:11 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 21, 2013, 11:09:40 AM
Good. I'd love to see this get vetted through the courts.
Ladies and gentlemen, the power of precedent. It'd be awesome to have this go through the legal system; it might be a scandal for the current administration, but a good court chokehold on this nonsense would be a great deterrent to both sides.
I for one look forward to the inevitable exoneration of the Internal Revenue Service.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 21, 2013, 02:07:39 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 21, 2013, 11:44:11 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 21, 2013, 11:09:40 AM
Good. I'd love to see this get vetted through the courts.
Ladies and gentlemen, the power of precedent. It'd be awesome to have this go through the legal system; it might be a scandal for the current administration, but a good court chokehold on this nonsense would be a great deterrent to both sides.
I for one look forward to the inevitable exoneration of the Internal Revenue Service.
A bet?
The Internal Revenue Service frowns upon illegal gambling.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 02:01:29 PM
The Benghazi thing. If it's such a clear case of either incompetence, or malice then it should be easy to see a way to avoid it. I'm not seeing one, therefore I'm not seeing it as incompetence (or malice). Yi is trying to argue that the US should have simply withdrawn assets, but that opens an big can of worms and I wouldn't think you would go in for such a wimpy solution. So I'm curious who would avoided this disaster.
I think we could have limited the ambassador's mobility and increased his security detail (I know, utter craziness). And I think the aftermath could've been handled better than it was. I don't think Obama had anything sinister going on-- I just think he's a very poor executive. He's great at campaigning, agitating and litigating, but he just sucks as an executive. And why shouldn't he? He had no experience in that type of role.
How much more security are we talking here?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 02:24:43 PM
How much more security are we talking here?
A platoon of infantry oughtta do it.
And you think that's realistic? To have an infantry platoon follow around the ambassador everywhere he goes? You think many countries will agree to that? Do you think Congress will approve of cash for that? What about guys lower down on the chain? Deputies, CIA station chiefs, and other diplomatic personnel who could be targets. How much security should they have? I don't know of any US ambassador that had such an escort in US history and this is hardly the first time an ambassador was in danger or even killed. Does every other President "suck as an executive" for failure to give an ambassador a infantry platoon as his personal body guard?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 21, 2013, 11:39:05 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 21, 2013, 11:09:40 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 21, 2013, 11:04:06 AM
First lawsuit filed against IRS
Good. I'd love to see this get vetted through the courts.
I hope so too. It could get ugly.
I doubt it, at least in the way you are thinking.
The plaintiffs are going to have to get through a whole thicket of immunity doctrines that protect the government and its officers.
The Rehnquist and Roberts courts in particular have been very hostile to civil suits against the government alleging violations of civil rights.
These plaintiffs are going to have it even tougher b/c they are going to struggle to show actual damages as well.
Because I'm in a good mood, I'll answer all your stupid questions.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 02:34:05 PM
And you think that's realistic? To have an infantry platoon follow around the ambassador everywhere he goes?
I did mention limiting his mobility. Don't pretend as if Libya were a stable country, Raz.
QuoteYou think many countries will agree to that?
Libya damned well better have. We helped them win their civil war and AFAIK are giving them aid to help rebuild.
QuoteDo you think Congress will approve of cash for that?
It's a shitload less money than what we spent on the cruise missile strikes in Libya alone. Don't see why the cost of an infantry platoon would break the bank.
QuoteWhat about guys lower down on the chain? Deputies, CIA station chiefs, and other diplomatic personnel who could be targets. How much security should they have?
Probably not as much. Do you want me to work out a chart? Because I won't.
QuoteI don't know of any US ambassador that had such an escort in US history and this is hardly the first time an ambassador was in danger or even killed.
First, it's just a platoon. Keep things in perspective. Secondly, it seems pretty obvious that you don't let a VIP like an ambassador move around a volatile region like post-civil war Libya with just a couple bodyguards.
QuoteDoes every other President "suck as an executive" for failure to give an ambassador a infantry platoon as his personal body guard?
You're personally bothered by that, aren't you? Obama is simply a subpar executive. Tough to accept that your god-king is a human with flaws, isn't it?
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2013, 02:45:32 PMObama is simply a subpar executive.
He isn't.
It's simply the best line of attack you can come up with, since you can find nothing of substance to hold against him.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 21, 2013, 02:34:53 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 21, 2013, 11:39:05 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 21, 2013, 11:09:40 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 21, 2013, 11:04:06 AM
First lawsuit filed against IRS
Good. I'd love to see this get vetted through the courts.
I hope so too. It could get ugly.
I doubt it, at least in the way you are thinking.
The plaintiffs are going to have to get through a whole thicket of immunity doctrines that protect the government and its officers.
The Rehnquist and Roberts courts in particular have been very hostile to civil suits against the government alleging violations of civil rights.
These plaintiffs are going to have it even tougher b/c they are going to struggle to show actual damages as well.
I'll defer to you all true legal beagles to fight that out here on languish.
Quote from: Jacob on May 21, 2013, 02:50:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2013, 02:45:32 PMObama is simply a subpar executive.
He isn't.
He is.
QuoteIt's simply the best line of attack you can come up with, since you can find nothing of substance to hold against him.
I never thought it was some sinister plot. My contention from the beginning that it was a mishandled situation. But heaven forbid we dare criticize the current administration.
Quote
But heaven forbid we dare criticize the current administration.
This right here.
I repeatedly call him the worst civil rights President we have ever had and I rarely get crap for it. Odd.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2013, 02:57:12 PM
I repeatedly call him the worst civil rights President we have ever had and I rarely get crap for it. Odd.
Interesting. On what level?
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2013, 02:53:46 PMI never thought it was some sinister plot. My contention from the beginning that it was a mishandled situation. But heaven forbid we dare criticize the current administration
It's not that you criticize the current administration. It's that you've thrown so much shit over the course of this administrations that any criticism you put forward has to have a significant amount of reasoning and convincing argument behind it to give it any chance of sticking.
Which you haven't really offered.
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2013, 02:57:12 PM
I repeatedly call him the worst civil rights President we have ever had and I rarely get crap for it. Odd.
Stop attacking him where he's actually been crappy and express outrage on how he hasn't responded to my twitter complaints about Benghazi!
Happy?
Quote from: Valmy on May 21, 2013, 02:57:12 PM
I repeatedly call him the worst civil rights President we have ever had and I rarely get crap for it. Odd.
It's not related to a scandal that gets a lot of coverage. And you generally seem fairly inoffensive to lefties. Plus that is a criticism that usually comes from the left, so it gets swept under the rug.
Quote from: Jacob on May 21, 2013, 03:00:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2013, 02:53:46 PMI never thought it was some sinister plot. My contention from the beginning that it was a mishandled situation. But heaven forbid we dare criticize the current administration
It's not that you criticize the current administration. It's that you've thrown so much shit over the course of this administrations that any criticism you put forward has to have a significant amount of reasoning and convincing argument behind it to give it any chance of sticking.
Which you haven't really offered.
Quote from: Jacob on May 21, 2013, 03:00:19 PM
It's not that you criticize the current administration. It's that you've thrown so much shit over the course of this administrations that any criticism you put forward has to have a significant amount of reasoning and convincing argument behind it to give it any chance of sticking.
Which you haven't really offered.
So does that invalidate others' criticism as well? Like 11B, who actually voted for Obama?
You must not be in that good a mood because you aren't actually answering my questions.
Derspeiss, you and Yi are both doing the same thing. You are saying that since the President didn't take extraordinary and unprecedented steps, he's an incompetent. The situation in Libya was not and is not unique. There have been similar situations in the past as there are now. Yemen, Pakistan, Lebanon are all situations in the fairly recent past with similar situations. Are Presidents Reagan and Bush just as incompetent as Obama for their failure to provide an infantry platoon as the personal escort of an ambassador?
Poor Raz :(
C'mon Derspeiss, you are man enough to answer this one. Are they incompetent or not? If not, why?
QuoteSo does that invalidate others' criticism as well? Like 11B, who actually voted for Obama?
Yes of course, I'm a right wing gun nut here on languish. :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2013, 03:04:46 PMSo does that invalidate others' criticism as well? Like 11B, who actually voted for Obama?
Nope. Just yours :)
Spicy, you gonna take lip like that from a foreigner?
Quote from: Jacob on May 21, 2013, 03:18:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2013, 03:04:46 PMSo does that invalidate others' criticism as well? Like 11B, who actually voted for Obama?
Nope. Just yours :)
I'm reminded of the stock conservative response whenever someone criticized Bush. "OMG BUSHITLER!!!!!1111oneoneeleven". Yi was particularly fond of this to brush off any criticism.
The IRS thing is heating up :lol:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 02:21:49 PM
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?
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.
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?
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2013, 04:59:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2013, 05:29:54 PMI 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?
Quote from: Jacob on May 21, 2013, 05:40:05 PM
I don't think you brought up the security concerns up prior to the attack?
You think correctly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2013, 05:41:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 21, 2013, 05:40:05 PM
I don't think you brought up the security concerns up prior to the attack?
You think correctly.
I know :hug:
Quote from: Jacob on May 21, 2013, 05:42:09 PM
I know :hug:
You had a question mark at the end of your first post?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2013, 05:43:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 21, 2013, 05:42:09 PM
I know :hug:
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2013, 05:29:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2013, 04:59:51 PM
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?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 05:45:26 PM
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.
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
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2013, 05:47:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 05:45:26 PM
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...
Quote
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."
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2013, 05:47:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 05:45:26 PM
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.
No Yi, you have not. I know of no such post where you state whether or not you would withdraw from the places I listed or how long a withdrawal will last.
Quote from: Jacob on May 21, 2013, 05:47:55 PM
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
What can do you expect from a convict?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2013, 04:22:20 PM
The question is not whether they can be attacked; diplomats *can* be attacked just about anywhere in the world. The question is whether the host country can provide a reasonable degree of security. If they cannot, then the question becomes whether we can provide a reasonable degree of security using our own resouces, as we have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
@Raz. Page 37 default, 1st post.
Quote
The question is not whether they can be attacked; diplomats *can* be attacked just about anywhere in the world. The question is whether the host country can provide a reasonable degree of security. If they cannot, then the question becomes whether we can provide a reasonable degree of security using our own resouces, as we have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
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.
Pretty apt analogy, Yi. Arguing with Raz is very much like a Kafka novel.
Well, I'm not as brilliant as Kafka, but I do try to make you understand the absurdities of your arguments.
Quote from: Jacob on May 21, 2013, 05:52:29 PM
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! :lol:
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
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 06:44:56 PM
Well, I'm not as brilliant as Kafka, but I do try to make you understand the absurdities of your arguments.
Nobody said you're Kafka. Just Kafkaesque-- i.e., like something out of his novels.
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2013, 02:53:46 PM
But heaven forbid we dare criticize the current administration.
That Sounds Familiar, 9/11/01--5/1/03
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 21, 2013, 06:47:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2013, 02:53:46 PM
But heaven forbid we dare criticize the current administration.
That Sounds Familiar, 9/11/01--5/1/03
:yawn:
Yawn, yawn, yawn.
Not back then it wasn't. :P Don't play dumb. You're not as good at it as Raz.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 06:19:00 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2013, 06:45:51 PM
Three more Pinocchios for your side
Gepetto has a good fair labor practices lawsuit against WaPo . . .
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2013, 07:15:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 06:19:00 PM
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?
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2013, 06:45:51 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 21, 2013, 05:52:29 PM
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! :lol:
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/
Quote
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 08:03:05 PM
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????"
QuoteAnd 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 08:07:33 PM
Looks like we still have to catch up.
Nah, you're way ahead.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2013, 08:15:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 08:03:05 PM
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????"
QuoteAnd 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?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 08:30:04 PM
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.
QuoteBut 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.
QuoteLet'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?
I retract the no one cares. That's speaking for others.
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?
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.
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.
I think it's abundantly clear now that sticking around in Tehran was not the best idea.
:lol: 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?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 10:42:09 PM
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?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 10:42:09 PM
:lol: 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%?
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2013, 10:58:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 10:42:09 PM
:lol: 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%?
Nobody can be 100% trusted.
Now, am I to understand that no other place other then Libya should have had American diplomats leave in last 30 years? It was right for the American diplomatic staff to stay in Lebanon despite it being in civil war with no central control and the embassy having suffered a major attack and would suffer another major attack a year later along with a marines barracks? It was right for the US to maintain it's diplomatic staff in Yemen after it's embassy was under assault for 20 minutes, the second attack on that facility that year? You can think of no other occasion when the US should have withdrawn it's diplomats but did not over the last three decades except for Libya? Is this correct, Yi?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 11:36:54 PM
Nobody can be 100% trusted.
Yet I imagine the US ambassador to Canada doesn't travel around the country an American armed escort. Look Raz, you can't have it both ways. Either Pakistan is an example of a place that's dangerous for diplomatic staff which we didn't leave, or there's absolutely no way to assess risk and any attack is the result of random chance.
QuoteNow, am I to understand that no other place other then Libya should have had American diplomats leave in last 30 years? It was right for the American diplomatic staff to stay in Lebanon despite it being in civil war with no central control and the embassy having suffered a major attack and would suffer another major attack a year later along with a marines barracks? It was right for the US to maintain it's diplomatic staff in Yemen after it's embassy was under assault for 20 minutes, the second attack on that facility that year? You can think of no other occasion when the US should have withdrawn it's diplomats but did not over the last three decades except for Libya? Is this correct, Yi?
I am pretty sure there are several countries we have pulled staff out of in the last 30 years.
I think the attack on the Marine barracks is very helpful to my case. Most people seem to agree now that the Marine deployment to Lebanon was based on the naive thinking that everybody in that country would be so happy to see the stabilizing influence of the US there that our troops would be at minimal risk. Obviously there were at least a couple people there that didn't feel that way.
The pontificating from up on high in the Committee over the IRS is fantastic. I particularly like the chairman's comparison of the agency to Enron.
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2013, 11:20:48 PM
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.
Yep. And even though we established that on like page 2 we keep going around and around without managing to dredge up even one reason it deserves this sort of attention. I mean the attack happened in September of last fucking year.
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2013, 08:55:35 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 21, 2013, 11:20:48 PM
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.
Yep. And even though we established that on like page 2 we keep going around and around without managing to dredge up even one reason it deserves this sort of attention. I mean the attack happened in September of last fucking year.
I love the committee's reference right now of how Benghazi's bleeding into the IRS issue, to the effect "this is the same administration that lied to the American public about the attack in Benghazi being caused by a video now expects us to believe the IRS office in Cincinnati was acting alone. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARENT BUYING IT"
You guys should really be watching this if you can. It's a bona fide GOPgasm.
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2013, 06:45:51 PM
Glad you mentioned that. Reminded me of something I forgot to post earlier. Three more Pinocchios for your side! :lol:
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
This whole fucking thing is like a Languish argument between grumbler, Raz, and derspiess, played out in public with a slew of reddit guys commenting as it goes. It's fucking ridiculous.
Tell me what any other president would have done differently? Of course he's going to figure out the best angle to go at this. THAT'S WHAT THEY DO! He didn't lie. He didn't cover anything up. He just tried to figure out how to go at this in a way that would put things in the best possible light and wouldn't compromise the investigation. Duh. That's not only politician behavior, it's fucking HUMAN NATURE.
This is complete insanity, and sadly, now, all that matters is who said what when and whether anyone can be caught in a lie on that. Nobody is even cares anymore if any of this actually affected anything. The POINT of the argument is moot, lost in semantics, and attempts at "gotcha's".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2013, 12:44:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2013, 11:36:54 PM
Nobody can be 100% trusted.
Yet I imagine the US ambassador to Canada doesn't travel around the country an American armed escort. Look Raz, you can't have it both ways. Either Pakistan is an example of a place that's dangerous for diplomatic staff which we didn't leave, or there's absolutely no way to assess risk and any attack is the result of random chance.
QuoteNow, am I to understand that no other place other then Libya should have had American diplomats leave in last 30 years? It was right for the American diplomatic staff to stay in Lebanon despite it being in civil war with no central control and the embassy having suffered a major attack and would suffer another major attack a year later along with a marines barracks? It was right for the US to maintain it's diplomatic staff in Yemen after it's embassy was under assault for 20 minutes, the second attack on that facility that year? You can think of no other occasion when the US should have withdrawn it's diplomats but did not over the last three decades except for Libya? Is this correct, Yi?
I am pretty sure there are several countries we have pulled staff out of in the last 30 years.
I think the attack on the Marine barracks is very helpful to my case. Most people seem to agree now that the Marine deployment to Lebanon was based on the naive thinking that everybody in that country would be so happy to see the stabilizing influence of the US there that our troops would be at minimal risk. Obviously there were at least a couple people there that didn't feel that way.
Wait, are you now saying the Lebanon diplomatic deployment was mistake or not? I had given you ample opportunity do so. I also made it clear I was talking about areas that the US had not pulled out of but should have. I also gave you an opportunity to use Pakistan as a current place diplomats should withdraw from using the the Yi doctrine of deployment, yet you declined. Now you want to use that as an example of unreliable security forces. Are you for withdrawing from Pakistan now?
Sometimes diplomacy is dangerous, and sometimes being the most forward deployed assets representing America's interests in dangerous and ambiguous environments--a role in which Ambassador Stevens embraced in Libya--can be costly when things go wrong.
It's a terrible tragedy and a terrible loss of dedicated individuals in harm's way, but it's not a scandal. It's the cost of doing business at the tip of America's diplomatic spear.
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2013, 09:40:57 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 21, 2013, 06:45:51 PM
Glad you mentioned that. Reminded me of something I forgot to post earlier. Three more Pinocchios for your side! :lol:
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
This whole fucking thing is like a Languish argument between grumbler, Raz, and derspiess, played out in public with a slew of reddit guys commenting as it goes. It's fucking ridiculous.
Tell me what any other president would have done differently? Of course he's going to figure out the best angle to go at this. THAT'S WHAT THEY DO! He didn't lie. He didn't cover anything up. He just tried to figure out how to go at this in a way that would put things in the best possible light and wouldn't compromise the investigation. Duh. That's not only politician behavior, it's fucking HUMAN NATURE.
This is complete insanity, and sadly, now, all that matters is who said what when and whether anyone can be caught in a lie on that. Nobody is even cares anymore if any of this actually affected anything. The POINT of the argument is moot, lost in semantics, and attempts at "gotcha's".
Did you read the article? It sounds like you're talking about something else.
So the IRS investigation was completed a year ago but they just recently decided to spill it? Yowza.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329067/Congress-hosts-IRS-bloodbath-slamming-tax-authorities-partisan-targeting-conservatives-official-refuses-answer-questions.html
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 10:58:04 AM
So the IRS investigation was completed a year ago but they just recently decided to spill it? Yowza.
And you are surprised? The Executive Branch loves its secrecy.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 10:12:22 AMDid you read the article? It sounds like you're talking about something else.
The article is about saying the administration overstated allegations of Republican doctoring of White House emails. The fact remains that a major GOP talking point of last week centred around these emails, but were based on what can most charitably be described as factual misunderstandings of the content of those emails.
The White House claims that the factual misunderstanding of the emails means the GOP doctored them, which the article says there is insufficient proof for; perhaps the incorrect interpretations and the outrage they generated were honest mistakes rather than deliberately misrepresentations. In any case, the GOP talking points and attacks were counterfactual, the point being contended is whether that was deliberate or due to incompetence.
The bottom line remains that there is not - as Berkut said - "any rational analysis [that] makes a reasonable person conclude that [Obama] had anything to do with the decision process that resulted in their death.
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2013, 10:59:16 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 10:58:04 AM
So the IRS investigation was completed a year ago but they just recently decided to spill it? Yowza.
And you are surprised? The Executive Branch loves its secrecy.
But it was supposed to be the most transparent administration in history :(
I'm sure the election had nothing to do with it.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 10:58:04 AM
So the IRS investigation was completed a year ago but they just recently decided to spill it? Yowza.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329067/Congress-hosts-IRS-bloodbath-slamming-tax-authorities-partisan-targeting-conservatives-official-refuses-answer-questions.html
Yet Issa knew back in 2012. Why didn't he spill it if it was such a big deal?
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 11:05:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2013, 10:59:16 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 10:58:04 AM
So the IRS investigation was completed a year ago but they just recently decided to spill it? Yowza.
And you are surprised? The Executive Branch loves its secrecy.
But it was supposed to be the most transparent administration in history :(
I'm sure the election had nothing to do with it.
Wait that was a campaign promise, wasn't it? :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on May 22, 2013, 11:03:37 AM
The bottom line remains that there is not - as Berkut said - "any rational analysis [that] makes a reasonable person conclude that [Obama] had anything to do with the decision process that resulted in their death.
That sort of touches on my main criticism of Obama. He doesn't have anything to do with anything. He mostly seems to give speeches, play golf, vacation, and attend fundraisers.
Quote from: Jacob on May 21, 2013, 05:47:55 PM
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
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 11:05:26 AM
But it was supposed to be the most transparent administration in history :(
Yeah well he got elected and decided he should try for the other thing.
QuoteI'm sure the election had nothing to do with it.
Might have been. But I suspect all things like like this are kept secret.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 11:05:26 AM
But it was supposed to be the most transparent administration in history :(
I'm sure the election had nothing to do with it.
I'm sure there are hundreds of internal investigations conducted every year throughout the breadth of the federal government, with founded or unfounded results, that never see the congressional light of day.
And no, I'm sure the election had nothing to do with it, either. Especially since it was wrapped up in early May by careerist bureaucrats, not political appointees--of which the IRS possesses only two.
Quote from: Jacob on May 22, 2013, 11:08:25 AM
Yet Issa knew back in 2012. Why didn't he spill it if it was such a big deal?
Issa and many others suspected it was going on. And of course they were all dismissed as LOL PARANOID TEABAGGERS. It wasn't publicly confirmed by anyone until just recently.
I'm disappointed in Valmy drinking the Kool-Aid of Konspiracy.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 11:09:27 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 22, 2013, 11:03:37 AM
The bottom line remains that there is not - as Berkut said - "any rational analysis [that] makes a reasonable person conclude that [Obama] had anything to do with the decision process that resulted in their death.
That sort of touches on my main criticism of Obama. He doesn't have anything to do with anything. He mostly seems to give speeches, play golf, vacation, and attend fundraisers.
I was under the impression that the president was supposed to be pretty hands off with IRS investigations, at least since Nixon.
In any case, I think it's pretty funny how you're basically going "the president did this TERRIBLE THING! He's HORRIBLE! Oh... wait... he didn't do this terrible thing? That's because HE NEVER DOES ANYTHING! He's HORRIBLE!"
It's almost like you've decided that the conclusion is that he's HORRIBLE, and you're just looking for whatever facts you can to make that case.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 11:09:27 AM
That sort of touches on my main criticism of Obama. He doesn't have anything to do with anything. He mostly seems to give speeches, play golf, vacation, and attend fundraisers.
Wow, way to spin that around.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 11:12:14 AM
I'm disappointed in Valmy drinking the Kool-Aid of Konspiracy.
You seemed fine with it when I was complaining about Bush doing the same shit.
Quote from: Jacob on May 22, 2013, 11:12:33 AM
I was under the impression that the president was supposed to be pretty hands off with IRS investigations, at least since Nixon.
In any case, I think it's pretty funny how you're basically going "the president did this TERRIBLE THING! He's HORRIBLE!
Am I? :huh:
QuoteOh... wait... he didn't do this terrible thing? That's because HE NEVER DOES ANYTHING! He's HORRIBLE!"
It's almost like you've decided that the conclusion is that he's HORRIBLE, and you're just looking for whatever facts you can to make that case.
I think at this point the burden of proof is almost on those claiming he's not a below average president :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 11:11:53 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 22, 2013, 11:08:25 AM
Yet Issa knew back in 2012. Why didn't he spill it if it was such a big deal?
Issa and many others suspected it was going on. And of course they were all dismissed as LOL PARANOID TEABAGGERS. It wasn't publicly confirmed by anyone until just recently.
"Suspected?"
QuoteAt a hearing Tuesday, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George told the Senate Finance Committee that the Treasury Department informed Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-CA) office of its investigation into the IRS in 2012, and has had communications with this staff since then.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 11:15:55 AM
Am I? :huh:
Yes :hug:
Just ask Valmy.
QuoteI think at this point the burden of proof is almost on those claiming he's not a below average president :lol:
So then you're conceding that there is no substance to the IRS "scandal" and the Benghazi "scandal"?
Quote from: Jacob on May 22, 2013, 11:16:45 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 11:11:53 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 22, 2013, 11:08:25 AM
Yet Issa knew back in 2012. Why didn't he spill it if it was such a big deal?
Issa and many others suspected it was going on. And of course they were all dismissed as LOL PARANOID TEABAGGERS. It wasn't publicly confirmed by anyone until just recently.
"Suspected?"
QuoteAt a hearing Tuesday, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George told the Senate Finance Committee that the Treasury Department informed Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-CA) office of its investigation into the IRS in 2012, and has had communications with this staff since then.
That's a bit vague.
Quote from: Jacob on May 22, 2013, 11:19:20 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 11:15:55 AM
I think at this point the burden of proof is almost on those claiming he's not a below average president :lol:
So then you're conceding that there is no substance to the IRS "scandal" and the Benghazi "scandal"?
I think that is pretty much what we are left with.
Note that Obama can in fact be a below average president (not something I would argue against myself - I certainly have not been impressed with him) while not at all being responsible for either "scandal".
Quote from: Jacob on May 22, 2013, 11:19:20 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 11:15:55 AM
Am I? :huh:
Yes :hug:
Just ask Valmy.
I'd rather you tell me.
QuoteQuoteI think at this point the burden of proof is almost on those claiming he's not a below average president :lol:
So then you're conceding that there is no substance to the IRS "scandal" and the Benghazi "scandal"?
No.
:lol:
IRS stalled conservative groups, but gave speedy approval to Obama foundation
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-16/politics/39310148_1_tax-exempt-status-foundation-application
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 10:12:22 AM
Did you read the article? It sounds like you're talking about something else.
It was the article that precipitated the response. It is that article - "he said this!", "no, he said this!", "nuh uh, the emails say this!", "no they don't! yer stoopid!" - that made me feel like I was listening to my kids argue over stupid shit that neither will even remember tomorrow. In six months, what is this going to mean to anyone?
It's a game of "gotcha'", and I don't have time for it - from either side.
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2013, 11:13:45 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 11:12:14 AM
I'm disappointed in Valmy drinking the Kool-Aid of Konspiracy.
You seemed fine with it when I was complaining about Bush doing the same shit.
That's because the Bush Administration was being run by Darth Cheney, the Hand of Evil Himself.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 11:27:56 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2013, 11:13:45 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 11:12:14 AM
I'm disappointed in Valmy drinking the Kool-Aid of Konspiracy.
You seemed fine with it when I was complaining about Bush doing the same shit.
That's because the Bush Administration was being run by Darth Cheney, the Hand of Evil Himself.
Cop out.
Pfft, that's so not a cop-out.
Besides, there were some things done by the Bush Administration that I didn't necessarily have a problem with in the first place.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 11:21:58 AMI'd rather you tell me.
I did :)
QuoteNo.
Then you are setting up the following choice:
a) Obama is horrible because of what he did in these terrible "scandals"; or
b) Obama is horrible because he had nothing to do with these terrible "scandals", which proves that he does nothing.
It's pretty clear that you've decided that Obama is horrible, whatever the fact pattern.
Quote from: Jacob on May 22, 2013, 11:35:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 11:21:58 AMI'd rather you tell me.
I did :)
QuoteNo.
Then you are setting up the following choice:
a) Obama is horrible because of what he did in these terrible "scandals"; or
b) Obama is horrible because he had nothing to do with these terrible "scandals", which proves that he does nothing.
It's pretty clear that you've decided that Obama is horrible, whatever the fact pattern.
What have I said about what Obama did in these scandals? You're acting like I've given the impression that I think Obama is some sort of evil genius pulling all the strings, and I don't believe I have.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 11:05:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2013, 10:59:16 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 10:58:04 AM
So the IRS investigation was completed a year ago but they just recently decided to spill it? Yowza.
And you are surprised? The Executive Branch loves its secrecy.
But it was supposed to be the most transparent administration in history :(
I'm sure the election had nothing to do with it.
Wait that was a campaign promise, wasn't it? :lol:
Yeah but we all knew at the time that such would never happen. For one thing, it doesn't even make sense to do so.
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2013, 11:47:32 AM
Yeah but we all knew at the time that such would never happen. For one thing, it doesn't even make sense to do so.
I was actually hopeful he'd follow through with it. I didn't want him to win in 2008 but it would've been one of those "silver lining" things for me had it happened.
Either way, it doesn't let him off the hook for not following through.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 09:48:16 AM
Sometimes diplomacy is dangerous, and sometimes being the most forward deployed assets representing America's interests in dangerous and ambiguous environments--a role in which Ambassador Stevens embraced in Libya--can be costly when things go wrong.
It's a terrible tragedy and a terrible loss of dedicated individuals in harm's way, but it's not a scandal. It's the cost of doing business at the tip of America's diplomatic spear.
Indeed.
And Stevens was the Ambassador. He could have said - I'm not budging from Tripoli until the security gets beefed up; let the CIA deal with Benghazi on their own. As the man on the ground, he made the informed decision to run the risk of that trip, because of the benefit it could bring to US interests in the region. It was a courageous decision, but tragically one that cost him his life. Exploiting that tragedy to score political points against Obama is disgraceful.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 11:22:31 AM
IRS stalled conservative groups
I still don't undertsand this "stalling" business.
If the IRS doesn't rule, the organization gets to claim the deduction in the meantime.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 11:53:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2013, 11:47:32 AM
Yeah but we all knew at the time that such would never happen. For one thing, it doesn't even make sense to do so.
I was actually hopeful he'd follow through with it. I didn't want him to win in 2008 but it would've been one of those "silver lining" things for me had it happened.
Either way, it doesn't let him off the hook for not following through.
As I called him the chocolate milk kid, I don't care much about any of the promises he broke - other than that they help confirm my opinion. ^_^
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 11:45:01 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 22, 2013, 11:35:25 AM
Then you are setting up the following choice:
a) Obama is horrible because of what he did in these terrible "scandals"; or
b) Obama is horrible because he had nothing to do with these terrible "scandals", which proves that he does nothing.
It's pretty clear that you've decided that Obama is horrible, whatever the fact pattern.
What have I said about what Obama did in these scandals? You're acting like I've given the impression that I think Obama is some sort of evil genius pulling all the strings, and I don't believe I have.
Well... I asked you if you conceded there was no substance to the scandals, and you did not. So it seems you're still trying to have it both from piles a) and b), or maybe just from one of them - as long as the conclusion is that Obama is horrible. You have not allowed for, even theoretically, a scenario in which Obama is not horrible in relation to the IRS and Benghazi "scandals".
So yeah it seems pretty clear that you started with your conclusion and are working backwards from there.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 22, 2013, 11:55:50 AM
If the IRS doesn't rule, the organization gets to claim the deduction in the meantime.
Do they keep that deduction even if their application is later rejected?
Quote from: Kleves on May 22, 2013, 12:03:38 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 22, 2013, 11:55:50 AM
If the IRS doesn't rule, the organization gets to claim the deduction in the meantime.
Do they keep that deduction even if their application is later rejected?
As no applications have been rejected to this point, that's a hypothetical question.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 12:06:58 PM
Quote from: Kleves on May 22, 2013, 12:03:38 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 22, 2013, 11:55:50 AM
If the IRS doesn't rule, the organization gets to claim the deduction in the meantime.
Do they keep that deduction even if their application is later rejected?
As no applications have been rejected to this point, that's a hypothetical question.
I had heard that a Democrat organization had been rejected. Is that not so?
Quote from: Jacob on May 22, 2013, 12:01:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 11:45:01 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 22, 2013, 11:35:25 AM
Then you are setting up the following choice:
a) Obama is horrible because of what he did in these terrible "scandals"; or
b) Obama is horrible because he had nothing to do with these terrible "scandals", which proves that he does nothing.
It's pretty clear that you've decided that Obama is horrible, whatever the fact pattern.
What have I said about what Obama did in these scandals? You're acting like I've given the impression that I think Obama is some sort of evil genius pulling all the strings, and I don't believe I have.
Well... I asked you if you conceded there was no substance to the scandals, and you did not. So it seems you're still trying to have it both from piles a) and b), or maybe just from one of them - as long as the conclusion is that Obama is horrible. You have not allowed for, even theoretically, a scenario in which Obama is not horrible in relation to the IRS and Benghazi "scandals".
Not true.
QuoteSo yeah it seems pretty clear that you started with your conclusion and are working backwards from there.
Then by all means feel free to ignore me if my criticism of Obama is baseless.
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2013, 12:09:06 PM
I had heard that a Democrat organization had been rejected. Is that not so?
Who cares. Not relevant to the witch hunt.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 12:06:58 PM
As no applications have been rejected to this point, that's a hypothetical question.
I've not been following this "scandal" (or any of the others) that closely; are you saying that no group has ever been rejected for this kind of tax exempt status since 2010? If so, that seems like a scandal in itself.
In any case, the "hypothetical" question could be pretty important for groups waiting for their applications to be processed, and could have a chilling effect even if their application is not eventually rejected.
Seems like a totally nonhypothetical question to me. Unless the IRS regs explicitly say "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it."
It's non-hypothetical.
They keep the deduction unless the IRS rules against them, the IRS ruling is then upheld in administrative proceedings, and then a Court rules against the taxpayer and finds no legal entitlement to the deduction.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 12:09:40 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 22, 2013, 12:01:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 11:45:01 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 22, 2013, 11:35:25 AM
Then you are setting up the following choice:
a) Obama is horrible because of what he did in these terrible "scandals"; or
b) Obama is horrible because he had nothing to do with these terrible "scandals", which proves that he does nothing.
It's pretty clear that you've decided that Obama is horrible, whatever the fact pattern.
What have I said about what Obama did in these scandals? You're acting like I've given the impression that I think Obama is some sort of evil genius pulling all the strings, and I don't believe I have.
Well... I asked you if you conceded there was no substance to the scandals, and you did not. So it seems you're still trying to have it both from piles a) and b), or maybe just from one of them - as long as the conclusion is that Obama is horrible. You have not allowed for, even theoretically, a scenario in which Obama is not horrible in relation to the IRS and Benghazi "scandals".
Not true.
QuoteSo yeah it seems pretty clear that you started with your conclusion and are working backwards from there.
Then by all means feel free to ignore me if my criticism of Obama is baseless.
Okay, what situation is there where Obama is not not horrible?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 12:45:31 PM
Okay, what situation is there where Obama is not not horrible?
I recall he liked Obama's terrorist zapping drones.
He's good at basketball. :)
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2013, 12:59:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 12:45:31 PM
Okay, what situation is there where Obama is not not horrible?
I recall he liked Obama's terrorist zapping drones.
No, to Narcissistic. Obama did not give enough credit to Bush and Reagan. Anyway, I was thinking something closer to the horrible "scandals" we've been talking about.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 12:45:31 PM
Okay, what situation is there where Obama is not not horrible?
The recent Korea thing. I wasn't happy about delaying our missile test, but overall I'd give his administration a B or B+ on how they handled it.
Sandy
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 01:17:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 12:45:31 PM
Okay, what situation is there where Obama is not not horrible?
The recent Korea thing. I wasn't happy about delaying our missile test, but overall I'd give his administration a B or B+ on how they handled it.
A little closer to our topic here.
The Credit Card Act
Actually, I am a little impressed that Derspeiss could get over the nausea he feels when he sees the President to give him a B.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 12:45:31 PM
Okay, what situation is there where Obama is not not horrible?
His lame gun exc orders. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 01:30:51 PM
Actually, I am a little impressed that Derspeiss could get over the nausea he feels when he sees the President to give him a B.
You know you'd be a lot more credible (not to mention likable) if you weren't so dishonest.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 01:23:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 01:17:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 12:45:31 PM
Okay, what situation is there where Obama is not not horrible?
The recent Korea thing. I wasn't happy about delaying our missile test, but overall I'd give his administration a B or B+ on how they handled it.
A little closer to our topic here.
Okay, then give me some choices if you're putting in limitations.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 01:52:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 01:30:51 PM
Actually, I am a little impressed that Derspeiss could get over the nausea he feels when he sees the President to give him a B.
You know you'd be a lot more credible (not to mention likable) if you weren't so dishonest.
That's my line. You said that simply hearing Obama makes you ill. http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9814.msg581680.html#msg581680
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 01:53:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 01:23:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 01:17:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 12:45:31 PM
Okay, what situation is there where Obama is not not horrible?
The recent Korea thing. I wasn't happy about delaying our missile test, but overall I'd give his administration a B or B+ on how they handled it.
A little closer to our topic here.
Okay, then give me some choices if you're putting in limitations.
What sort of findings could come from a Congressional hearing on the Beghazi thing would make you happy with the President?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 01:59:11 PM
That's my line. You said that simply hearing Obama makes you ill. http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9814.msg581680.html#msg581680
I know that's your line. It's also dishonest.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 02:00:22 PM
What sort of findings could come from a Congressional hearing on the Beghazi thing would make you happy with the President?
That's an odd question, but I can't imagine any plausible findings that would make me happy with him. Why are you asking? I assume this is another Raztrap attempt.
Please tell me what is dishonest so I can rectify the mistake.
Now it's the purpose of all these hearings and investigations to learn what really happened? Since we we apparently don't know the truth, (cause if we did we wouldn't continue to have investigations and hearings), there is plenty of room for things to be revealed that would put the President in your good graces.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 02:36:11 PM
Please tell me what is dishonest so I can rectify the mistake.
Claiming that I'm nauseated at the sight of Obama.
QuoteNow it's the purpose of all these hearings and investigations to learn what really happened? Since we we apparently don't know the truth, (cause if we did we wouldn't continue to have investigations and hearings), there is plenty of room for things to be revealed that would put the President in your good graces.
Not a whole lot of room for the President to come out looking like a hero, no.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 02:39:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 02:36:11 PM
Please tell me what is dishonest so I can rectify the mistake.
Claiming that I'm nauseated at the sight of Obama.
QuoteNow it's the purpose of all these hearings and investigations to learn what really happened? Since we we apparently don't know the truth, (cause if we did we wouldn't continue to have investigations and hearings), there is plenty of room for things to be revealed that would put the President in your good graces.
Not a whole lot of room for the President to come out looking like a hero, no.
Okay, nauseated by the sound of Obama. is that better? What about simply, "Obama Nauseates you?"
So you can't conceive of a situation where Obama is not at fault?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 02:41:58 PM
Okay, nauseated by the sound of Obama. is that better? What about simply, "Obama Nauseates you?"
No. His speaking style nauseates me. To be fair, I shuddered whenever Bush-43 spoke.
QuoteSo you can't conceive of a situation where Obama is not at fault?
I suppose I could. Point?
Everyone shuddered when Bush spoke. He wasn't very good at it. So Obama speaking is causing nausea in Derspeiss is fair game.
My point? Well conceive of some situations where Obama is not at fault in Benghazi or the IRS scandal!
FWIW, Drudge is flashing (without a link for now) that Issa is going to recall Lois Lerner to testify, on the basis that she waived her 5th Amendment rights by making an opening statement. As I said to Scippy on Facebook, that's pretty much how Jim Rockford got into trouble :D
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 02:53:14 PM
Everyone shuddered when Bush spoke. He wasn't very good at it.
Yeah, but as a Bush supporter, imagine how self-conscious it made me :D
QuoteSo Obama speaking is causing nausea in Derspeiss is fair game.
If you think it's worth using, I suppose.
QuoteMy point? Well conceive of some situations where Obama is not at fault in Benghazi or the IRS scandal!
Okay. Now what?
Tell us about them. Give us some realistic scenarios where you wouldn't find Obama at fault involving the IRS thing and Benghazi.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 03:01:34 PM
Tell us about them. Give us some realistic scenarios where you wouldn't find Obama at fault involving the IRS thing and Benghazi.
My starting point for both is that he is not directly at fault. At this point, I don't think he has anything directly to do with the IRS thing and I would just like to know why he apparently disengaged himself from the Benghazi thing while it was still going on.
I never said he was a monster.
So if you were to find out Obama wasn't as disengaged as you thought, or couldn't be engaged due to some factor, or something along those lines you would have a much higher opinion of him?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/irs-official-lois-lerner-not-done-anything-wrong-153037583.html
Quote"I have not done anything wrong," Lerner told the House Oversight Committee during a hearing about the IRS' practices Wednesday. "I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee."
Lerner's opening statement before the committee was the only information she would provide at the hearing. As advised by her attorney, Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself by testifying and declined to respond to questions from lawmakers. She added that by refusing to subject herself to questions "some people will assume I have done something wrong. I have not."
I don't get this. She says she did nothing illegal and then invoked her 5th amendment not to incriminate herself? I guess I see how one could do that but doesn't that seem..like you're sending two different signals?
Quote from: Kleves on May 22, 2013, 12:18:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 12:06:58 PM
As no applications have been rejected to this point, that's a hypothetical question.
I've not been following this "scandal" (or any of the others) that closely; are you saying that no group has ever been rejected for this kind of tax exempt status since 2010? If so, that seems like a scandal in itself.
In any case, the "hypothetical" question could be pretty important for groups waiting for their applications to be processed, and could have a chilling effect even if their application is not eventually rejected.
None of the
targeted groups that faced due diligence that are now complaining had any applications rejected.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 03:39:41 PM
So if you were to find out Obama wasn't as disengaged as you thought, or couldn't be engaged due to some factor, or something along those lines you would have a much higher opinion of him?
Not sure what you're thinking could come out of this to elevate Obama in my mind. You seem to be playing it as if it were a binary thing where either he comes out as a superhero or the devil.
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2013, 03:40:30 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/irs-official-lois-lerner-not-done-anything-wrong-153037583.html
Quote"I have not done anything wrong," Lerner told the House Oversight Committee during a hearing about the IRS' practices Wednesday. "I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee."
Lerner's opening statement before the committee was the only information she would provide at the hearing. As advised by her attorney, Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself by testifying and declined to respond to questions from lawmakers. She added that by refusing to subject herself to questions "some people will assume I have done something wrong. I have not."
I don't get this. She says she did nothing illegal and then invoked her 5th amendment not to incriminate herself? I guess I see how one could do that but doesn't that seem..like you're sending two different signals?
Yeah. This things go' git messy.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 02:54:29 PM
FWIW, Drudge is flashing (without a link for now) that Issa is going to recall Lois Lerner to testify, on the basis that she waived her 5th Amendment rights by making an opening statement.
Issa's confidence in the strength of his legal position can be gauged by the fact that after asserting his waiver position, he dismissed Lerner.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 04:06:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 03:51:07 PM
due diligence
:lol:
Ask yourself why these groups are in such a panic about not getting a final response from the IRS when the law permits them to claim the deduction in the interim.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 22, 2013, 04:24:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 04:06:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 03:51:07 PM
due diligence
:lol:
Ask yourself why these groups are in such a panic about not getting a final response from the IRS when the law permits them to claim the deduction in the interim.
So, no other inconvenience for them, then? All they have to deal with is the uncertainty of getting approved?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 22, 2013, 04:23:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 02:54:29 PM
FWIW, Drudge is flashing (without a link for now) that Issa is going to recall Lois Lerner to testify, on the basis that she waived her 5th Amendment rights by making an opening statement.
Issa's confidence in the strength of his legal position can be gauged by the fact that after asserting his waiver position, he dismissed Lerner.
That was earlier. Apparently he feels more strongly now.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html?hp=t3_3
QuoteDuring the incident, Issa did not flat-out say whether or not Lerner had indeed waived her rights but instead tried to coax her into staying by offering to narrow the scope of questions.
By the afternoon, Issa was taking a harder stand.
"The precedents are clear that this is not something you can turn on and turn off," he told POLITICO. "She made testimony after she was sworn in, asserted her innocence in a number of areas, even answered questions asserting that a document was true ... So she gave partial testimony and then tried to revoke that."
He said he was not expecting that.
"I understand from her counsel that there was a plan to assert her Fifth Amendment rights," he continued. "She went ahead and made a statement, so counsel let her effectively under the precedent, waive — so we now have someone who no longer has that ability."
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 04:29:53 PM
That was earlier. Apparently he feels more strongly now.
No doubt he feels more strongly now that he is not in the same room with Lerner's lawyer.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 04:26:15 PM
So, no other inconvenience for them, then? All they have to deal with is the uncertainty of getting approved?
Correct.
And the discomfort of that uncertainty is precisely proportional to the weakness of their claim to tax exempt status.
If you hear the sheep barking loudly enough, chances are what you've actually got are wolves in disguise.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 22, 2013, 04:35:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 04:29:53 PM
That was earlier. Apparently he feels more strongly now.
No doubt he feels more strongly now that he is not in the same room with Lerner's lawyer.
Well, he's calling her back. We'll see how it unfolds.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 22, 2013, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 04:26:15 PM
So, no other inconvenience for them, then? All they have to deal with is the uncertainty of getting approved?
Correct.
And the discomfort of that uncertainty is precisely proportional to the weakness of their claim to tax exempt status.
If you hear the sheep barking loudly enough, chances are what you've actually got are wolves in disguise.
Or maybe they're being given the ol' IRS full cavity search in the process.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 22, 2013, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 04:26:15 PM
So, no other inconvenience for them, then? All they have to deal with is the uncertainty of getting approved?
Correct.
And the discomfort of that uncertainty is precisely proportional to the weakness of their claim to tax exempt status.
If you hear the sheep barking loudly enough, chances are what you've actually got are wolves in disguise.
Then the IRS need not have apologized.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 04:06:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2013, 03:39:41 PM
So if you were to find out Obama wasn't as disengaged as you thought, or couldn't be engaged due to some factor, or something along those lines you would have a much higher opinion of him?
Not sure what you're thinking could come out of this to elevate Obama in my mind. You seem to be playing it as if it were a binary thing where either he comes out as a superhero or the devil.
Nope, simply he could come out as not an incompetent.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 04:44:53 PM
Then the IRS need not have apologized.
Which is my opinion as well. But, they have a self-esteem issue. They're sensitive to how they're portrayed, so I can understand why whatsherface spoke out of turn with an uncomfortable public apology.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 04:51:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 04:44:53 PM
Then the IRS need not have apologized.
But, they have a self-esteem issue.
:lol: I like that. A bully with a self-esteem issue. :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 04:53:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 04:51:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 04:44:53 PM
Then the IRS need not have apologized.
But, they have a self-esteem issue.
:lol: I like that. A bully with a self-esteem issue. :lol:
Isn't that what all interpretations of acting out, e.g. "bullying", is reduced to? Self-esteem issues?
The IRS just wants to be loved.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 04:44:53 PM
Then the IRS need not have apologized.
If the IRS used improper and politically biased criteria in targeting information requests -- and at least one of the offices admitted to this - damn right they should apologize.
My comments are only addressed to the complaints about having to wait for a final approval.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 22, 2013, 05:01:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 04:44:53 PM
Then the IRS need not have apologized.
If the IRS used improper and politically biased criteria in targeting information requests -- and at least one of the offices admitted to this - damn right they should apologize.
My comments are only addressed to the complaints about having to wait for a final approval.
Ah
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2013, 04:41:07 PM
Well, he's calling her back. We'll see how it unfolds.
Here's my prediction.
Lerner's lawyer writes back saying: thanks but no thanks.
Issa then seeks to have her held in contempt. At that point there are two possibilities: a contempt prosecution is brought, or it isn't. If the latter, it dies quietly. If the former, then Lerner immediately moves to have the case thrown out on the basis of her privilege invocation. She will cite the Supreme Court's opinion in Ohio v. Reiner, which held that a witness who denies all criminal culpability and asserts their innocence is still entitled to assert the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. (which makeses sense if you think about it; otherwise a plea of not guilty would also waive the 5th).
And that will be the end of it.
Why can't you just re-assert your 5th Amendment rights at any time? I get that just by talking you are effectively waiving it, but it doesn't just cease to exist then. At what theoretical point does it supposedly come back? Hell, I'd say you could selectively choose which questions to answer, claiming the 5th on every one you don't. (That could be wrong for all I know, but it seems like it should be that way to me.) Looks like Issa is just being a jackass. Loopholes to get around the constitution is DC's favorite sport.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 22, 2013, 07:04:10 PM
Looks like Issa is just being a jackass.
Why break out of character?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2013, 07:05:23 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 22, 2013, 07:04:10 PM
Looks like Issa is just being a jackass.
Why break out of character?
Found out that he's a car thief, a convict, and a fire-starter. I just thought he was a snake.
IRS Staff Cite Link to Washington
"Internal Revenue Service employees in the agency's Cincinnati office tell congressional investigators that IRS officials in Washington helped direct the probe of tea-party groups that began in 2010.
Transcripts of the interviews appear to contradict earlier statements by top IRS officials, who have blamed lower-level workers in Cincinnati."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324069104578527713122409302.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324069104578527713122409302.html)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.dailyfinance.com%2Fmedia%2F2012%2F09%2Firs-435cs091212.jpg&hash=17457fee69a015860560d38c32b8ed1c01fadcbc)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 22, 2013, 05:01:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 22, 2013, 04:44:53 PM
Then the IRS need not have apologized.
If the IRS used improper and politically biased criteria in targeting information requests -- and at least one of the offices admitted to this - damn right they should apologize.
Do you have any doubts they targeted the Tea Party?
I don't.
Quote from: Phillip V on June 05, 2013, 08:09:19 PM
IRS Staff Cite Link to Washington
"Internal Revenue Service employees in the agency's Cincinnati office tell congressional investigators that IRS officials in Washington helped direct the probe of tea-party groups that began in 2010.
Transcripts of the interviews appear to contradict earlier statements by top IRS officials, who have blamed lower-level workers in Cincinnati."
Yeah, at this point I'd blame it all on my bosses, too.
Their testimony wasn't nearly as good as all the poor Tea Partiers though. BECAUSE I HAD TO FILL OUT FORMS I CANT SLEEP AT NIGHT NOW WONDERING WHAT MY GOVERNMENT WILL DO TO ME
Isn't it pretty clear by now that most of the IRS "scandal" is predicated on outright lies from the Republican side and Fox?
http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/the_big_irs_stretch_1.php?page=all
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/06/05/18773674-dont-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-a-good-story?lite
... and isn't it clear that the targeted groups should have been targeted?
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/irs-scrutiny-politics-92254.html
That doesn't matter, Xiacob. The GOP bubble has an infinity echo.
Quote from: Jacob on June 05, 2013, 11:04:15 PM
Isn't it pretty clear by now that most of the IRS "scandal" is predicated on outright lies from the Republican side and Fox?
http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/the_big_irs_stretch_1.php?page=all
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/06/05/18773674-dont-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-a-good-story?lite
... and isn't it clear that the targeted groups should have been targeted?
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/irs-scrutiny-politics-92254.html
:hmm:
So, what parts are reasonable Republicans continuing to find issue with? It seems that a lot of the hyperbole has been blown out of the water. Is it that the Cincinnati office fucked up (which I agree is the issue)?
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2013, 11:35:24 PM
:hmm:
So, what parts are reasonable Republicans continuing to find issue with? It seems that a lot of the hyperbole has been blown out of the water. Is it that the Cincinnati office fucked up (which I agree is the issue)?
I assume the parts that they started out with: people in the IRS targeted Tea Party affiliated 501c4s for extra scrutiny.
The absence of a smoking gun in the White House doesn't make that go away, and the ambiguity of the law and the IRS regulation doesn't make that go away.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 11:39:53 PM
I assume the parts that they started out with: people in the IRS targeted Tea Party affiliated 501c4s for extra scrutiny.
Agreed that this is an issue. Finding where this started - and ended - is important. Making sure that no other office thinks that they can do this is imperative.
QuoteThe absence of a smoking gun in the White House doesn't make that go away,
If there's zero proof that the White House knew about it, yeah, it pretty much should go away. Saying something happened because you want to believe that it happened doesn't make it real. And in this country, we believe in innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until... well, until I say so.
Quoteand the ambiguity of the law and the IRS regulation doesn't make that go away.
What specifically are you talking about? Which law is ambiguous, and with IRS regulation are you taking issue with? And have these already been addressed during the investigation?
You misunderstood me. I meant the absence of evidence of White House involvement doesn't make the scandal over the IRS's conduct go away.
The law governing 501c4's is ambiguous. It doesn't set out clear guidelines on what constitutes political activity vs. social whatever activity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 11:52:11 PM
You misunderstood me. I meant the absence of evidence of White House involvement doesn't make the scandal over the IRS's conduct go away.
The law governing 501c4's is ambiguous. It doesn't set out clear guidelines on what constitutes political activity vs. social whatever activity.
Ah, okay. Yes, I agree on both points. :)
That being said, I think the "scandal" seems to be a locality thing in Cincinnati rather than an IRS-wide concern. That makes me feel better about the situation. Doesn't excuse them, but does make me feel better.
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2013, 11:54:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 11:52:11 PM
You misunderstood me. I meant the absence of evidence of White House involvement doesn't make the scandal over the IRS's conduct go away.
The law governing 501c4's is ambiguous. It doesn't set out clear guidelines on what constitutes political activity vs. social whatever activity.
Ah, okay. Yes, I agree on both points. :)
That being said, I think the "scandal" seems to be a locality thing in Cincinnati rather than an IRS-wide concern. That makes me feel better about the situation. Doesn't excuse them, but does make me feel better.
Dont bet on that.
Stop! Issa Time!
QuoteGOP to Darrell Issa: Cool it
By: John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman
June 6, 2013 04:57 AM EDT
Shortly after Darrell Issa dubbed Jay Carney a "paid liar" on CNN last Sunday, House Republican leadership staffers called the California Republican's aides with a message: Cool it.
Issa's aides promptly responded: The remark was over the top, they agreed, according to sources familiar with the interaction.
But Issa himself is unbowed. In an interview with POLITICO, he again accused the White House of being less than truthful on key subjects — while avoiding the word "liar" — and refused to apologize for his Carney broadside.
"In this case, you have an administration where what they say initially and what turns out to be the truth continues to evolve," Issa said. "And I don't think they'd question that."
Issa added that "the White House has tried to vilify me rather than getting into the facts."
Internal discussion has continued all week about Issa's outburst at President Barack Obama's top spokesman. Top Republicans have privately quizzed Issa's friends and members of his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about how exactly Issa could slip up at such an inopportune time.
GOP leaders are concerned that the sometimes unpredictable chairman could jeopardize the biggest gift handed to them in months — public outrage over the IRS scandal, combined with questions over Benghazi. They think Issa should stop personalizing the scandals by insulting Obama and his aides and focus on the facts.
House Republicans, however, aren't urging Issa to pull his punches on the substance of the controversies. They just want him to tone down his brash style and stop the personal attacks.
Issa's behavior came up at meetings of GOP leaders several times this week, according to sources involved. The first time complaints surfaced — and where the frustration with Issa was most clearly expressed — was in a small Monday meeting of the House GOP leadership.
Since then, Issa has not appeared on television — a development Republican leadership has welcomed.
"He has made this personal," one senior Republican told POLITICO. "He's added an unnecessary element to the news cycle."
"When you make Jay Carney the issue, that's the problem," said another senior House GOP leadership aide. "No one cares about Jay Carney. That's a sideshow; it's not the real issue."
On Wednesday, Issa brushed off the internal GOP complaints about his Carney tirade. He insisted he wasn't aware of the naysaying.
"I didn't hear anything," Issa told POLITICO, referring to any discussions with GOP leadership.
Asked repeatedly about the Carney remarks, Issa declined to comment directly. A very measured, deliberate Issa didn't back down from the substance of his charge against the White House spokesman or apologize for it. But he wouldn't mention Carney's name again either.
"What is said by the White House directly or indirectly — there are people who speak on behalf of the president in many ways — has often been an evolving truth," Issa said in an interview. "Meaning the original statement and the final truth have very little in common. Benghazi certainly would be a good example. The IRS scandal is certainly a good example."
As Issa continues to aggressively pursue a wide-ranging investigation into the Obama administration, his freewheeling style has benefits and liabilities for House Republicans.
House GOP leaders are pleased with the substance of Issa's probes into Benghazi and the IRS targeting of conservative groups. But they worry that Issa's brash style and loose lips threaten what they believe should be a tight narrative focused on out-of-control bureaucrats and poor — or nonexistent — leadership from Obama.
During a May 14 appearance on CBS's "This Morning," for instance, Issa claimed the IRS scandal was a secret political operation designed to benefit Obama's reelection campaign, explosive allegations that have not been backed up by existing evidence. "This was the targeting of the president's political enemies effectively and lies about it during the election year, so that it wasn't discovered until afterwards," Issa claimed.
Democrats dismiss Issa as a political hatchet man more interested in headlines than truth, and many blame the media for being complicit in those efforts.
"This is a classic Issa thing where we conclude in advance what happened, and then we try to make the facts fit," complained Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a member of the Oversight panel and vocal Issa critic. "He cherry-picks evidence, he leaks to the press, he makes charges on Sunday shows that always get a headline because you people [the media] are hopelessly compliant. ... He cynically understands the press will be compliant, and it doesn't matter whether he can substantiate what he alleges."
But this time, Issa has earned the ire of Republican leadership with personal broadsides against the president and his aides.
Personal attacks like the Carney remarks can derail the IRS investigation, these sources argue — and they say the attacks need to stop. It's a trap Issa has fallen into before and gives Democrats an opening to discredit the chairman. These criticisms have been delivered clearly to Issa, according to these GOP sources.
The Carney episode — which Republicans hope is isolated but fear might not be — starkly displays the challenges Republicans face in maintaining the scandals as a political plus.
For the first few weeks, Republicans saw the Oversight hearings as a gift — no one likes the IRS, dead diplomats in Libya or the government snooping on reporters. But one misstep — like referring to a White House press secretary as a "paid liar" — could cause the effort to backfire.
While Obama is a tempting target for Republicans approaching a midterm election, the GOP must look like it's doing more than personally attacking a popular president instead of promoting a positive legislative agenda.
"I've come to expect this, it doesn't surprise me at all" said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Oversight panel. "I'm going to concentrate on the facts and not concentrate on anything that's going to take me away from that."
In the coming days and weeks, Issa faces key tests that could help determine both his political future, and the political sustainability of his investigations.
Will Issa release a full, unedited transcript of the interviews of IRS employees conducted by his panel? As of now, Issa has declined to do so, although partial transcripts were released for his Sunday show appearance, which infuriated Democrats.
On Thursday, Issa is hauling IRS officials to the Capitol to discuss what he considers lavish spending on conferences at the agency. Appearing in front of his committee will be Inspector General J. Russell George; Gregory Kutz, assistant inspector general for audit; Faris Fink, commissioner of the small business and self-employed division; and Danny Werfel, acting commissioner of the IRS.
Cummings said Democrats aren't going to let up on the IRS, telling POLITICO the conference spending and behavior are "indefensible."
There have also been important developments in the Benghazi investigation this week, according to lawmakers in both parties.
Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who led the State Department-ordered investigation into the attack for the Obama administration, gave emotional closed-door testimony on Tuesday in front of Issa's panel that stretched out over eight hours, sources said.
Pickering said that he was very close to U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stephens, who was killed in the Benghazi attacks. At the age of 81, Pickering said, he has no incentive to cover anything up, these sources said.
Democrats walked away from the testimony thinking they struck political gold, and if Issa allows Pickering to testify in public, the Benghazi issue will be put to bed. Republicans say Pickering repeatedly referred to the White House in his testimony, and there were many holes the GOP could exploit.
Issa said "no one should talk about content" of the private deposition but added that "Ambassador Pickering is a 42-year career diplomat with a spotless record. We have questions about the quality of the [Accountability Review Board] process, not him."
There are two coming clashes between Issa and the Obama administration.
On Friday, Issa's subpoena comes due to obtain more documents relating to the Benghazi talking points. And there are currently intense negotiations between the State Department and Issa's team to talk to 13 of the department's employees. State has offered some interviews but is restricting scheduling, according to sources involved.
Seedy is an unpaid liar of the Administration. Sucker...
Quote from: 11B4V on June 06, 2013, 02:01:32 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2013, 11:54:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 11:52:11 PM
You misunderstood me. I meant the absence of evidence of White House involvement doesn't make the scandal over the IRS's conduct go away.
The law governing 501c4's is ambiguous. It doesn't set out clear guidelines on what constitutes political activity vs. social whatever activity.
Ah, okay. Yes, I agree on both points. :)
That being said, I think the "scandal" seems to be a locality thing in Cincinnati rather than an IRS-wide concern. That makes me feel better about the situation. Doesn't excuse them, but does make me feel better.
Dont bet on that.
See, that's where this just gets irritating. There is no proof anywhere that shows it to be more wide-spread than the Cincinnati office. None. So that attitude is just stupid.
When something comes up that actually shows that the head of the IRS knew about this practice and did nothing to stop it, then I'll feel like it's a major issue. Until that happens, however, it's a problem that needs to be addressed, but not a MAJOR CONCERN FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLES!!
Quote from: merithyn on June 06, 2013, 09:59:51 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 06, 2013, 02:01:32 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2013, 11:54:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 11:52:11 PM
You misunderstood me. I meant the absence of evidence of White House involvement doesn't make the scandal over the IRS's conduct go away.
The law governing 501c4's is ambiguous. It doesn't set out clear guidelines on what constitutes political activity vs. social whatever activity.
Ah, okay. Yes, I agree on both points. :)
That being said, I think the "scandal" seems to be a locality thing in Cincinnati rather than an IRS-wide concern. That makes me feel better about the situation. Doesn't excuse them, but does make me feel better.
Dont bet on that.
See, that's where this just gets irritating. There is no proof anywhere that shows it to be more wide-spread than the Cincinnati office. None. So that attitude is just stupid.
When something comes up that actually shows that the head of the IRS knew about this practice and did nothing to stop it, then I'll feel like it's a major issue. Until that happens, however, it's a problem that needs to be addressed, but not a MAJOR CONCERN FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLES!!
What's stupid, is you are so dismissive.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 06, 2013, 10:27:27 AM
What's stupid, is you are so dismissive.
Right. It's stupid to be dismissive of something that no one knows or has proof has happened. Yes, that's the stupid option. :rolleyes:
You don't go to poliwar with the scandals you choose, only with the scandals you have.
So sometimes you have to kind of make shit up as you go along.
Beghazi/Gulf of Tonkin/whatever is needed.
Quote from: merithyn on June 06, 2013, 12:37:45 PM
Right. It's stupid to be dismissive of something that no one knows or has proof has happened. Yes, that's the stupid option. :rolleyes:
Actually I think it is stupid to be dismissive of something that has no proof yet. You're in effect asserting that the chances of White House involvement are zero.
What's not stupid at all, but rather quite smart, is to be dismissive of those who are ranting about White House involvement as a sure thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 12:55:34 PM
Actually I think it is stupid to be dismissive of something that has no proof yet.
That sounds a little totalitarian there, Yi.
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 01:04:51 PM
That sounds a little totalitarian there, Yi.
I don't follow.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 01:05:54 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 01:04:51 PM
That sounds a little totalitarian there, Yi.
I don't follow.
"There's no evidence, but it's stupid to believe they're innocent" sounds more Cultural Revolution than American Jurisprudence to me.
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 01:10:35 PM
"There's no evidence, but it's stupid to believe they're innocent" sounds more Cultural Revolution than American Jurisprudence to me.
Meri doesn't just "believe they're innocent." That's an even money bet. I would take Meri's side of that bet.
She dismisses the possibility they're guilty. That's a million to one bet. I would bet against Meri.
She did nothing of the sort.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 01:14:45 PM
Meri doesn't just "believe they're innocent." That's an even money bet. I would take Meri's side of that bet.
She dismisses the possibility they're guilty. That's a million to one bet. I would bet against Meri.
She didn't dismiss the possibility that they were guilty. She just wanted proof that they were before the wailing and gnashing of teeth goes on.
QuoteWhen something comes up that actually shows that the head of the IRS knew about this practice and did nothing to stop it, then I'll feel like it's a major issue. Until that happens, however, it's a problem that needs to be addressed, but not a MAJOR CONCERN FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLES!!
QuoteRight. It's stupid to be dismissive of something that no one knows or has proof has happened. Yes, that's the stupid option. :rolleyes:
quote fight!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 12:55:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 06, 2013, 12:37:45 PM
Right. It's stupid to be dismissive of something that no one knows or has proof has happened. Yes, that's the stupid option. :rolleyes:
Actually I think it is stupid to be dismissive of something that has no proof yet. You're in effect asserting that the chances of White House involvement are zero.
What's not stupid at all, but rather quite smart, is to be dismissive of those who are ranting about White House involvement as a sure thing.
There's a difference in saying, "I have seen no proof, so I'm withholding my opinion," instead of "The chances of White House involvement are zero." Unfortunately, that distinction appears to be lost when politics are involved.
And I find it rather stupid to "assert" anything right now. No one knows enough about anything to say one way or another. Isn't it smarter to simply wait to see what is found rather than frothing over nothing?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 01:14:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 01:10:35 PM
"There's no evidence, but it's stupid to believe they're innocent" sounds more Cultural Revolution than American Jurisprudence to me.
Meri doesn't just "believe they're innocent." That's an even money bet. I would take Meri's side of that bet.
She dismisses the possibility they're guilty. That's a million to one bet. I would bet against Meri.
Say what?? When did I do that?? :blink:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 01:25:12 PM
QuoteRight. It's stupid to be dismissive of something that no one knows or has proof has happened. Yes, that's the stupid option. :rolleyes:
quote fight!
You're picking a fight where there isn't one. You misunderstood - willfully, I'd say - this post. I'm mocking your statement that it's stupid to disregard something that hasn't happened.
Seems pretty clear that you guys have a scandal in search of evidence, rather than any evidence of a scandal.
Quote from: merithyn on June 06, 2013, 01:27:48 PM
You're picking a fight where there isn't one. You misunderstood - willfully, I'd say - this post. I'm mocking your statement that it's stupid to disregard something that hasn't happened.
Before's, not mine.
I'm not willfully misunderstanding your post. I'm objecting to your word choice.
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 01:28:42 PM
Seems pretty clear that you guys have a scandal in search of evidence, rather than any evidence of a scandal.
We should name it something ending in "-gate" because Nixon invented political scandals :)
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 01:28:42 PM
Seems pretty clear that you guys have a scandal in search of evidence, rather than any evidence of a scandal.
You have a much narrower definition of scandal than it seems most American posters do. It seems that to you it can only be a scandal if there is involvement by an elected official. Yet we seem very comfortable calling, say, sexual assault by the military a scandal, or the fabricated story for that football player that won a posthumous Medal of Honor a scandal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 01:38:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 01:28:42 PM
Seems pretty clear that you guys have a scandal in search of evidence, rather than any evidence of a scandal.
You have a much narrower definition of scandal than it seems most American posters do. It seems that to you it can only be a scandal if there is involvement by an elected official. Yet we seem very comfortable calling, say, sexual assault by the military a scandal, or the fabricated story for that football player that won a posthumous Medal of Honor a scandal.
Please don't lump me in with that. I don't believe any of those are scandals unless there was a coverup that involved multiple people/entities. I don't think the things that you're talking about qualify.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 01:38:41 PMYou have a much narrower definition of scandal than it seems most American posters do. It seems that to you it can only be a scandal if there is involvement by an elected official. Yet we seem very comfortable calling, say, sexual assault by the military a scandal, or the fabricated story for that football player that won a posthumous Medal of Honor a scandal.
I guess if you can pin any of that on Obama, those things qualify as scandals too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2013, 12:55:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 06, 2013, 12:37:45 PM
Right. It's stupid to be dismissive of something that no one knows or has proof has happened. Yes, that's the stupid option. :rolleyes:
Actually I think it is stupid to be dismissive of something that has no proof yet. You're in effect asserting that the chances of White House involvement are zero.
What's not stupid at all, but rather quite smart, is to be dismissive of those who are ranting about White House involvement as a sure thing.
Well, it seems to be a bit of a he says/she says right now, doesn't it? So the question you have to ask yourself is who do you trust more? The Obama Administration and the IRS or Congressional Republicans and Tea Party detaxers?
Quote from: Maximus on June 06, 2013, 01:36:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 01:28:42 PM
Seems pretty clear that you guys have a scandal in search of evidence, rather than any evidence of a scandal.
We should name it something ending in "-gate" because Nixon invented political scandals :)
That is one of my biggest pet peeves, making every semi-controversial thing into XXX-gate. :bleeding:
Quote from: sbr on June 06, 2013, 02:14:55 PMThat is one of my biggest pet peeves, making every semi-controversial thing into XXX-gate. :bleeding:
I'm hoping that one day there'll be a scandal involving a gate, or maybe Bill Gates. Then we can have a Gategate (or Gatesgate).
:D
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 03:21:57 PM
Quote from: sbr on June 06, 2013, 02:14:55 PMThat is one of my biggest pet peeves, making every semi-controversial thing into XXX-gate. :bleeding:
I'm hoping that one day there'll be a scandal involving a gate, or maybe Bill Gates. Then we can have a Gategate (or Gatesgate).
Oooh! Oh Bill Gates' gate... then it will be Gatesgategate!
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 03:21:57 PM
Quote from: sbr on June 06, 2013, 02:14:55 PMThat is one of my biggest pet peeves, making every semi-controversial thing into XXX-gate. :bleeding:
I'm hoping that one day there'll be a scandal involving a gate, or maybe Bill Gates. Then we can have a Gategate (or Gatesgate).
We had a mini-scandal about what the Chief Whip said to the police at the gates to Downing Street. It was called gategate :lol:
Seems like they've found the culprit... and he's a Republican.
QuoteWASHINGTON, June 9 (Reuters) - A U.S. Internal Revenue Service manager, who described himself as a conservative Republican, told congressional investigators that he and a local colleague decided to give conservative groups the extra scrutiny that has prompted weeks of political controversy.
In an official interview transcript released on Sunday by Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings, the manager said he and an underling set aside "Tea Party" and "patriot" groups that had applied for tax-exempt status because the organizations appeared to pose a new precedent that could affect future IRS filings.
Cummings, top Democrat on the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee conducting the probe, told CNN's "State of the Union" program that the manager's comments provided evidence that politics was not behind IRS actions that have fueled a month-long furor in Washington.
"He is a conservative Republican working for the IRS. I think this interview and these statements go a long way toward showing that the White House was not involved in this," Cummings told CNN's "State of the Union" program.
"Based upon everything I've seen, the case is solved. And if it were me, I would wrap this case up and move on," he added.
Cummings, a Maryland Democrat, said he would release a full transcript of the committee's interviews with IRS officials by the end of this week, if the panel's Republican chairman, Representative Darrell Issa, does not.
Issa has released his own excerpts of interviews with IRS employees the committee is conducting jointly, which the Republican says suggests the added attention given to Tea Party groups originated from Washington, D.C. and had political motivations.
Issa vowed to press ahead with the investigation and said the IRS manager's comments "did not provide anything enlightening or contradict other witness accounts."
"I strongly disagree with ... Cummings' assertion that we know everything we need to know about inappropriate targeting of Tea Party groups by the IRS," the California Republican said in a statement released by his office.
Revelations that the tax agency set aside conservative groups for scrutiny has raised a political furor over the past month, leading President Barack Obama to fire the IRS commissioner. The House oversight panel, several other congressional committees and the FBI have launched investigations.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration issued a report on the matter last month finding no evidence of involvement beyond IRS officials.
Still, Republicans have raised questions about whether the scrutiny was directed politically at Obama's opponents and have sought evidence of any White House involvement.
The House oversight committee has now completed five lengthy interviews with IRS employees, including four based in the Cincinnati office where applications for tax exempt status are handled.
Cummings said congressional investigators now know what happened based on these interviews. CINCINNATI SOUGHT ADVICE FROM WASHINGTON
The excerpts of interviews with IRS workers released by Cummings indicate that the IRS manager and an underling first decided to contact Washington, D.C. IRS officials for guidance on the cases from groups aligned with the anti-tax Tea Party movement.
They did so to consolidate them, as they might be precedent-setting for future cases, the manager said, according to the interview transcripts.
It was an unidentified Cincinnati IRS worker who reported to the manager, identified as John Shafer by committee aides, who identified the first Tea Party case. That individual has not been interviewed by the committee yet.
Investigators asked Shafer if he believed the decision to centralize the screening of Tea Party applications was intended to target "the president's political enemies."
"I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do, other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development," the manager answered, according to a transcript released by Cummings.
Asked if he believed the White House was involved, the manager replied: "I have no reason to believe that."
John Shafer could not be reached for comment.
"They wanted to make sure that it was handled in a way whereby when other cases came behind it that were similar, that they would be treated in a consistent way," the lawmaker said.
Another Cincinnati screener who worked for Shafer, Gary Muthert, indicated in committee interviews released in part by Issa last week, that "Washington wanted some cases," to review.
Democratic committee staff said Muthert's involvement came later, after the initial screener and Shafer first sought advice from Washington about the legal aspects of the newly-emerging cases.
I guess this is proof that there are still Republicans of integrity dedicated to do their jobs out there; not sure if any of them are in Congress, though.