[Saddam Hussein]

Of course. That's why people talk about Benghazi, and not bureaucratic failures.

What about Benghazi?  There are a whole bunch of conflicting theories on exactly how Obama/Clinton are culpable for that, and none of them seem to hold up to the facts:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp

[Lord Dave]

Of course. That's why people talk about Benghazi, and not bureaucratic failures.

What about Benghazi?  There are a whole bunch of conflicting theories on exactly how Obama/Clinton are culpable for that, and none of them seem to hold up to the facts:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp

It's largely irrelevant which theory is used, just that "A person I hate is at fault" is the core of it.

[Saddam Hussein]

And on the notion of Benghazi:

[Rushy]

I like how it's considered a funny joke that the State Department repeatedly denied additional security in Benghazi.

[Saddam Hussein]

That's certainly a fair criticism.  But it's one that was made and acknowledged years ago, as has been essentially everything of note about Benghazi.  Clinton's political opponents are free to revisit that issue all they want to, but from a public perspective, in terms of spending taxpayer money and Congress's time on investigating it, Benghazi is done and dusted.  There is nothing more to say about it, as Thursday's hearing demonstrated very clearly.  I'm sure they'll arrange for another special committee to investigate it next year, though, assuming that Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee.

[Lord Dave]

4 American diplomats in a dangerous country are killed and everyone goes ape shit about security.
X non-diplolat Americans die and no one gives a fuck. (Where x is a number from 1 to 100,000)


Seriously, what is the big deal?  Yes they died but this is no different than any other dangerous assignment where people die due to lack of something.




"Cop died due to lack of backup"
"Soldier died because airstrikes weren't authorized"
"Gang members gunned down from rival gang because they didn't have their guns with them."
"Teens die because they were drinking."


Sucks for their families but oh well.  If you can't accept the threat of death, don't go to a war zone full of people who hate you.

[Rushy]

4 American diplomats in a dangerous country are killed and everyone goes ape shit about security.
X non-diplolat Americans die and no one gives a fuck. (Where x is a number from 1 to 100,000)


Seriously, what is the big deal?  Yes they died but this is no different than any other dangerous assignment where people die due to lack of something.




"Cop died due to lack of backup"
"Soldier died because airstrikes weren't authorized"
"Gang members gunned down from rival gang because they didn't have their guns with them."
"Teens die because they were drinking."


Sucks for their families but oh well.  If you can't accept the threat of death, don't go to a war zone full of people who hate you.

That's a pretty nice strawman you've built. The classic "lol people die every day, why care about these four people?" These people were in an embassy that was repeatedly requesting more security. It disturbs me that you don't care to ask why they were denied. I don't know if Clinton had a strict hand in it, but I do care to know who did.

That's certainly a fair criticism.  But it's one that was made and acknowledged years ago, as has been essentially everything of note about Benghazi.  Clinton's political opponents are free to revisit that issue all they want to, but from a public perspective, in terms of spending taxpayer money and Congress's time on investigating it, Benghazi is done and dusted.  There is nothing more to say about it, as Thursday's hearing demonstrated very clearly.  I'm sure they'll arrange for another special committee to investigate it in November, though, assuming that Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee.

It's almost like our way of investigating people takes a long time. Do you think it would be better if we gave everyone an "express investigation"?

[Saddam Hussein]

It's almost like our way of investigating people takes a long time. Do you think it would be better if we gave everyone an "express investigation"?

This isn't one big investigation that happens to be taking a long time to complete.  They're multiple different investigations, every one of which has run its course and then concluded.  They're basically just repeat performances now.

It disturbs me that you don't care to ask why they were denied. I don't know if Clinton had a strict hand in it, but I do care to know who did.

"Who," as in a person?  There's no one specific person that we can conveniently put all the blame on for a governmental fuck-up like this.  There seldom is.  Bureaucratic decision-making involves many different people and is based on many different factors.  You can't really point to one specific guy or one specific moment and go "Aha!  Here was the critical error!"  Like I said, the State Department has acknowledged that they made mistakes that contributed to what happened, and Clinton has accepted responsibility for it.  We're not going to get anything more specific than that.

[Rushy]

You can't really point to one specific guy or one specific moment and go "Aha!  Here was the critical error!"

Yes, you can, in fact, it is always single person who decided it. Do you have any idea how government, or any, leadership roles actually work?

Addendum: How exactly do you think it works, anyway? Do you imagine the government as a swarm intelligence where no one person makes any decisions?

[Lord Dave]

4 American diplomats in a dangerous country are killed and everyone goes ape shit about security.
X non-diplolat Americans die and no one gives a fuck. (Where x is a number from 1 to 100,000)


Seriously, what is the big deal?  Yes they died but this is no different than any other dangerous assignment where people die due to lack of something.




"Cop died due to lack of backup"
"Soldier died because airstrikes weren't authorized"
"Gang members gunned down from rival gang because they didn't have their guns with them."
"Teens die because they were drinking."


Sucks for their families but oh well.  If you can't accept the threat of death, don't go to a war zone full of people who hate you.

That's a pretty nice strawman you've built. The classic "lol people die every day, why care about these four people?" These people were in an embassy that was repeatedly requesting more security. It disturbs me that you don't care to ask why they were denied. I don't know if Clinton had a strict hand in it, but I do care to know who did.

As you said, they repeatedly asked for more security.  The US army is both finite and has a lot of mercenaries.  At what point does someone say "Ok, that's enough."?


Was it enough?  Depends on your point of view.  How credible was the threat?  How large was the threat?  Was there a specific threat or just a general " People hate us" feeling?  If you look at every time a stronghold or fortified location is attacked with casualties or damage, security wasn't enough.  Or do we say "acceptable losses"?  To me, 4 people dying from an attack of over 100 coordinated and armed attackers is pretty damn good.  And if it was a high value target, I'd say otherwise, but it was an embassy.  Even if everyone inside died, military operations would not be significantly compromised.


So tell me, in your opinion and with hindsight, how much security would have been required for this to have been non-political?  For you to not question the judgement of whoever is in charge of security?

[Rushy]

So tell me, in your opinion and with hindsight, how much security would have been required for this to have been non-political?  For you to not question the judgement of whoever is in charge of security?

That's for the investigators to decide, not me. Neither of us actually have access to the information required to pass judgement on anyone in any government position.

[Lord Dave]

So tell me, in your opinion and with hindsight, how much security would have been required for this to have been non-political?  For you to not question the judgement of whoever is in charge of security?

That's for the investigators to decide, not me. Neither of us actually have access to the information required to pass judgement on anyone in any government position.

And hasn't the investigations shown no wrong doing?
So then, if neither of us has the info to pass judgement and the people who do have said nothing wrong occurred, then why do you care about denied them?  They must have had a valid reason if no wrong doings were discovered.

[Rushy]

And hasn't the investigations shown no wrong doing?

The investigation has shown someone was denying security to an area known to be on the verge of violence. The embassy should have been evacuated if security wasn't available.

So then, if neither of us has the info to pass judgement and the people who do have said nothing wrong occurred, then why do you care about denied them?  They must have had a valid reason if no wrong doings were discovered.

They thought they had a valid reason, yes. However, 'budget concerns' is not a valid reason leading to death.

[Lord Dave]

And hasn't the investigations shown no wrong doing?

The investigation has shown someone was denying security to an area known to be on the verge of violence. The embassy should have been evacuated if security wasn't available.

Says the person who doesn't have the information to pass judgement on anyone in a government position.

So then, if neither of us has the info to pass judgement and the people who do have said nothing wrong occurred, then why do you care about denied them?  They must have had a valid reason if no wrong doings were discovered.

They thought they had a valid reason, yes. However, 'budget concerns' is not a valid reason leading to death.

It's enough of a reason to go to war.  And since money is finite, it can be a valid reason if it would otherwise compromise other, higher value assets and more lives.

[Rushy]

Says the person who doesn't have the information to pass judgement on anyone in a government position.

Do you not know what it means to pass judgement? I have a strong feeling you're not actually interested in a discussion.

[Lord Dave]

Says the person who doesn't have the information to pass judgement on anyone in a government position.

Do you not know what it means to pass judgement? I have a strong feeling you're not actually interested in a discussion.

I am.
To me, passing judgement means that you can say if a decision was good/correct/the best that could be given with the information provided.


If you'd like to put forth your definition, then we can end this debate.

[Rushy]

I am.
To me, passing judgement means that you can say if a decision was good/correct/the best that could be given with the information provided.

I don't pass judgement on people. Which is why I specifically mentioned "anyone" in my original statement. The decision was faulty, the person making it might not necessarily have been likewise.

[Lord Dave]

I am.
To me, passing judgement means that you can say if a decision was good/correct/the best that could be given with the information provided.

I don't pass judgement on people. Which is why I specifically mentioned "anyone" in my original statement. The decision was faulty, the person making it might not necessarily have been likewise.

But why do you think the decision was faulty?  Because the embassy was attacked by an overwhelming force?

[Rushy]

But why do you think the decision was faulty?  Because the embassy was attacked by an overwhelming force?

An Embassy doesn't request additional security because the wind blew the wrong direction and the Ambassador got a chill.

[Saddam Hussein]

Yes, you can, in fact, it is always single person who decided it. Do you have any idea how government, or any, leadership roles actually work?

Yes, I do, and the answer is badly.  Bureaucracies are not efficient, effective organizations.  For the most part, they're disorganized messes that take the longest amount of time and the largest amount of money to accomplish even the simplest of tasks.  It's why firefighters trying to help out in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina were forced to sit through lessons on sexual harassment and the history of FEMA first.  It's why Alaska and the federal government spent a fortune on building a bridge that they never bothered to finish.  You're demanding quick and easy answers from an organization for which a quick and easy anything is basically a foreign concept.  The most likely reason for why the embassy's request was denied was probably something stupid about the budget not being able to cover it, or not having the authority to hire and train new security personnel.  It's dumb, but government agencies tend to be dumb like that all the time.  It's not something you can lay at one particular person's door.  And if they could, don't you think they would have done it by now?  I don't see Clinton being so noble that she would risk her political career on protecting the hypothetical dumbass who was responsible for Benghazi.