You didn’t see him playing opposite Patrick Swayze inRoadhouse? That was one bad, bad man.
What does this rate to you? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being choking on a pretzel and 10 being using Presidential immunity to murder a bus full of penguins, where does Clinton’s “negligent oversight” rate?
That’s what I don’t understand. I am concerned that the attack happened, and that the administration was spreading some misinformation immediately afterward (apparently to cover political ass), but in the grand scheme of things, it just doesn’t ping my radar. Killing US citizens without due process, continuing Guantanamo, and continuing if not expanding claimed Presidential authority are all much, much bigger things than Benghazi-gate.
Agreed, except I don’t think it rates a “-gate” suffix. Maybe “Benghazi-peep-hole”, but not “-gate”.
Fill your boots. I’ll wait.
Only those who completely ignore the polls, and make up magic rationalizations for why their candidate (polling behind) will pull out a victory, because math is somehow biased.
It is hard to ascertain how much, if any, of the hard work of critical analysis is occurring. Of course any such review will necessarily delve into classified information. I do not believe all aspects of such a review need be made public. But it would be wise to have sufficient public information so that a reasonable assessment would indicate that any review is not a mere formality.
I do believe it is the responsibility of the Obama administration to demand this sort of critical analysis is carried out and the responsibility of the Secretary of State (now John Kerry) to ensure full State Department cooperation in such a review.
If that is not done then it should be, IMHO, a huge red flag and major political liability against any future political aspirations of the involved responsible parties. If instead of doing the right and hard work that is needed those parties continue in political smokescreens and obfuscation I would view such action as political suicide - showing an absolute inability to handle the responsibilities of the leadership roles to which those persons had been entrusted.
But now that the State Department mantle has been passed to John Kerry, I view the responsibility of Hillary Clinton going forward as mostly providing full and forthright cooperation in evaluation of the whole incident.
On the other hand, if a proper analysis is done, as thoroughly and impartially as practicably possible, to learn from the hard lessons paid for with the blood of American diplomats then it should be a mark of the sort of leadership we should all hope for from our political leadership. I would view it as turning a slight negative into a modest positive.
And BTW, which is worse, choking on a pretzel or offing penguins?
You doubt Habakkuk3’s scholarship?
I doubt Habakkuk3’s sanity.
They’re not.
But you won’t, because repeatedly implying that they did just as poorly in their endeavors is a lot easier than doing any actual research. “I never said they did poorly-I just wondered if they did poorly!”
Better answer: they’re bored. Anybody can talk about anything on TV; that doesn’t mean it’s likely to happen. Perhaps you remember the “the 2012 presidential election is a tossup?” People talk about Clinton and Biden possibly running, but that doesn’t mean they’re running. (And typin’ like that ain’ no accent, Habakkuk3. It’s an affectation. Having an accent when you speak doesn’t mean you have an accent when you type.)
My gawd a reasoned and intelligent counter-point. :eek:I still disagree on much, but you make reasonable points on this issue, in stark contrast to the gibberish spouted by so many.
You didn’t answer my question. How big a deal is this to you? Because, once again, I’m not seeing any reason to be having these hearings, or, if you are, to having them covered by the more … conservative … media as they are.
This ain’t that. What is occuring in the hearings isn’t anything like what you are concerned about. What is occurring in the hearings is a political witch hunt supported by a rabid conservative media bent on creating a crises where there isn’t one. I can’t help but wonder why, in the 13 other attacks on embassies where Americans were killed, there weren’t any such hearings or any such media coverage, yet now there is. If these people were serious about conducting the analysis you want, they might actually gain my support, but for now, and from all indications in the future, they have absolutely no interest in measured analysis, preferring instead to feed the fires of political gain.
Neither is worse than choking a penguin.
…without a “safe word” and prior verbal consent from the penguin.
I dunno, I ‘choke the penguin” a couple times a week….
I can’t put a number on my concerns on your scale if I can’t figure out which end of your scale is worse.
On a scale where 1 is of minimal concern and 10 the greatest concern I would put Hillary Clinton’s involvement to date as a 7. That is based upon failure to provide adequate oversight of available resources to address security concerns which were raised prior to the attack, and then further on showing a willingness to allow the State Department to politicize the intelligence summary provided after the attack.
Clinton is not, and CANNOT reasonably, be held responsible for Congress failing to fully fund budgetary requests which the administration submitted. She can, and should be judged for what she did with what she was given. She should prioritize funding to address the areas of highest risk even knowing that may be inadequate to prevent an unexpected security incident at an unexpected location.
Politicians do have to make decisions based upon available information provided by intelligence services. If a politician makes a decision that was arguably reasonable based upon the best available information and then everything goes bust because that information turned out to be faulty then the appropriate course of action is to address the intelligence failure and not to start a blame game to provide political cover.
If a politician makes a decision that was arguably reasonable based upon the best available information and then that decision proves to be right (e.g. Abbottabad raid) then that politician should thank the dedicated men and women who all work so hard together to make such successes possible… all while smiling a bit for the cameras because the politician knows this will play well in the press and demonstrate leadership abilities of the politician.
If a politician a makes a decision that was clearly and plainly unreasonable in light of the best available information then that politician must accept the consequences for that decision, whether positive or negative.
Dammit, that was one of the best chapters of the Old Testament. Now, I’m going to have to switch over to Bhengazi 3:16*.
*“Cleanliness is next to partisanliness”.
How much of the hearing so far has delved into Clinton’s alleged failure to do enough with her Congressionally limited resources, and how much has been about trying to find a scandal to make political hay out of? And shall we expect Congressional hearings into every budgetary decision made by the Secretary of State or into every international event that occurs? And, again, where were these hearings into the prior administration?
You raise good points, points that I’m not sure anybody contests. But, as I said before, this ain’t that. What is occurring in these hearings isn’t about the functioning of the State Department within budgetary constraints or responses to requests for additional security. It’s about trying to manufacture a scandal.
Suppose conservatives actually think there is something going on and want to get to the bottom of it, instead of knowing there’s nothing going on and trying to make a scandal of it. If they really wanted to do that, then the best way is to not have any hearings and let the State Department do its investigation away from the rabid torches and pitchforks of media scrutiny. That’s if they want to find out the “truth”.
In reality of course, there was no coverup, no scandal, and the attack was simply carried out by random violent people. We can’t prevent every attack and unfortunately some Americans died
(underline added)
It’s certainly getting easier to follow the actual timeline of events as more information is becoming public. It’s now known that the initial reports were repeatedly altered by Whitehouse appointees.
*ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
…UPDATE: A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.
In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the investigation?”*