So will there be oversight and accountability of this decision by some elected body, like there is in a democracy?
Hopefully we’ve disrupted the threat, or at the very least we know more about it now than we did a week ago. But if an embassy is attacked after it reopened, you ought to be the last person asking why the 0bama Administration didn’t do something to prevent it.
I can’t even guess what this means.
If we keep the embassies permanently closed - think of all the intelligence we’ll get and all the lives we’ll save! Why didn’t we do this before? No excuse. None!
After people point out how absurd and poorly thought out your posts are, you’re supposed to come back with better points, not worse ones.
Or you could rationalize the embassy closings with something less silly than, “we’re getting intel!” and “We’re saving lives!”
It worked for torture of brown people, drone killings of civilians and entrapment of mentally ill so … :rolleyes:
That takes too long.
I repeat: if you’re wrong, people die. If I’m wrong, it doesn’t make a difference to anyone or anything.
Well if you can’t spare the time…
Either the embassies must remain closed forever or there can be no possible reason to close any of them for any reason. What don’t you understand about this? There is no middle ground!
I know. It was all over the news. Unfortunately, what’s actually reported in the news has no bearing here. Close the embassies or people will die!
What threat would that be? What embassy was threatened?
Well what exactly does a paid vacation day do to add to prevent an attack? Give the employees time to shop for an Ak-47? Do they get per diem for this?
It means the embassies were closed in anticipation of all the love and respect we get every time we bomb a Muslim country.
Hm, still waiting for the big bada-booms. You think our AQ brethren gave up on their plans because we announced we knew about it and closed the embassies for (a day - a week)? Maybe they didn’t want to show up with a truck bomb to an empty building? That’s still a win, actually, in my book - no attack, nobody died. (no snark or sarcasm there, I genuinely mean it)
Did we prevent it, or just delay it? Or was it ever really planned? I guess we’ll never know.
The embassy buildings aren’t empty. Closed means not rendering assistance to Americans overseas, which is their job, and not interacting with the host country, also their job.
The only bada-boom will be the one where some mentally challenged, brown-skinned, third-worldy loser gets attention of 300 undercover officers and clicks a button of what he thinks is a bomb with obligatory “public was never in danger” (b/c otherwise, there could be some question).
I think at least 60 people were killed in Iraq yesterday. Just yesterday. Good thing we closed our embassy there. It might have been an atom bomb in comparison! :eek:
Did we even close our Iraqi embassies & consulates? I don’t even know. But for fuck’s sake, 60 people were killed in terrorist bombings in Iraq in one day and that’s not enough?
Are you also “not doing your job” when your office is closed on snow days?
Isn’t the elected body, “the President”? I mean, it’s not just the unelected people at the State Department who are doing this by themselves. They have an elected official overseeing them, able to review and reverse their decisions.
And, theoretically, if Congress has a problem with the President’s actions, they could hold hearings. So that’s two elected bodies that have oversight.
I had no idea 60 people were killed in Iraq yesterday, because for some reason Iraq stopped being news sometime around 2009… hm.
69 dead in what appear to be Al Qaeda attacks. It would have been 70 dead but our awesome NSA spy technology was able to avert one.
Ha, ha. Just kidding. Our Al Qaeda intel didn’t stop a single attack. We were completely unaware of all of it, it appears. Or we knew and didn’t say anything because we were waiting for the “big one” someplace. Somewhere. Maybe. Nah.
We condemn the attacks though. Isn’t that nice?