[Rushy]

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.

Actually, this is because of SJWs such as yourself lobbied to have excessive workplace ethics laws put in place. Of course, all of that happened long before the term "SJW" even existed.

It's why Alaska and the federal government spent a fortune on building a bridge that they never bothered to finish.

That was more about politics than anything else. A Democrat congress wanted Palin to look dumb (which really? why did they even bother?) so they cut the budget for it so they could hurr durr bridge to nowhere. It was meant to go to an island with very few people on it. No shit that the road wouldn't be used much.

You're demanding quick and easy answers from an organization for which a quick and easy anything is basically a foreign concept.

Actually, you've been the one demanding quick answers; in fact, you seem to have already decided there was no wrong doing in the first place. I'm perfectly fine with the extensive investigations.

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.

That might be because the hypothetical dumbass is herself.

[Lord Dave]

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.

And you know this, how?


While I agree that it is unlikely about the wind, I suspect that the people running said embassy are not security experts.  Administrators and diplomats, but not security.


And it's reasonable to think that they could get scared.  Maybe for a good reason, maybe not.  Maybe they just cried wolf too much?  Whatever their reason, it wasn't credible enough to get an increase in security.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

No, that was because the firefighters were privileged and needed to learn about systems of oppression. You wouldn't want them to perpetuate the neoconservative heteronormative retrograde polynomial transmisogynoir kyriarchy, would you?

[Rushy]

And you know this, how?

It's very hot there.

While I agree that it is unlikely about the wind, I suspect that the people running said embassy are not security experts.  Administrators and diplomats, but not security.

And it's reasonable to think that they could get scared.  Maybe for a good reason, maybe not.  Maybe they just cried wolf too much?  Whatever their reason, it wasn't credible enough to get an increase in security.

An embassy should never be denied such a request. If we couldn't afford to protect it, it shouldn't have been there in the first place. This goes back around to someone in the State department making some very stupid decisions resulting in placing an embassy in a country that mostly hates us and doesn't care about international politics.

[garygreen]

An embassy should never be denied such a request. If we couldn't afford to protect it, it shouldn't have been there in the first place. This goes back around to someone in the State department making some very stupid decisions resulting in placing an embassy in a country that mostly hates us and doesn't care about international politics.

[No one has] access to the information required to pass judgement on anyone in any government position.

Except for me, apparently.

[Rushy]

An embassy should never be denied such a request. If we couldn't afford to protect it, it shouldn't have been there in the first place. This goes back around to someone in the State department making some very stupid decisions resulting in placing an embassy in a country that mostly hates us and doesn't care about international politics.

[No one has] access to the information required to pass judgement on anyone in any government position.

Except for me, apparently.

Please tell me where I passed judgement on a specific person. You and Dave are so eager to "gotcha" you don't even bother thinking through your posts.

[Saddam Hussein]

Actually, this is because of SJWs such as yourself lobbied to have excessive workplace ethics laws put in place. Of course, all of that happened long before the term "SJW" even existed.

We're not discussing the merits of sexual harassment laws.  The point is that FEMA was treating firefighters who just wanted to lend some manpower in the aftermath of a huge disaster as though they had submitted an application to join the agency, even as people desperately needed their help.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it came to how thoroughly the government fucked up with its response to Katrina.

That was more about politics than anything else. A Democrat congress wanted Palin to look dumb (which really? why did they even bother?) so they cut the budget for it so they could hurr durr bridge to nowhere. It was meant to go to an island with very few people on it. No shit that the road wouldn't be used much.

All the more reason why the government is so shitty.  I could go on with this.  The LAPD standing around doing nothing while rioters destroyed a good chunk of the city, the rampant looting of post-war Iraq under the government's nose, the CBP randomly deciding to start seizing Kinder Surprises being brought into the country based on a literal interpretation of a very old law, the EPA requiring gas cans to be built with those shitty spouts that leak more than the old ones did, etc.  I didn't expect you of all people to disagree with this point.

Actually, you've been the one demanding quick answers; in fact, you seem to have already decided there was no wrong doing in the first place. I'm perfectly fine with the extensive investigations.

There have been eight investigations into this over the course of three years, none of which have found even the slightest evidence of there being any conspiracy or cover-up.  Suggesting that I've "already decided" anything or that my judgment amounts to "quick answers" is so far off-base that it's laughable.  You're the one who's blinded by zealotry, not me.

That might be because the hypothetical dumbass is herself.

Are you suggesting that an embassy's request for extra security is something that the Secretary of State personally handles?

[juner]

Is anyone else not okay with a Benghazi movie being made already?

[Rushy]

We're not discussing the merits of sexual harassment laws.  The point is that FEMA was treating firefighters who just wanted to lend some manpower in the aftermath of a huge disaster as though they had submitted an application to join the agency, even as people desperately needed their help.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it came to how thoroughly the government fucked up with its response to Katrina.

...It's still the result of too many laws regarding what and how response teams can actually respond to. We can't make laws that say "well, you don't really have to do this, but only if it is an emergency!" Government doesn't, and shouldn't, behave in that manner.

All the more reason why the government is so shitty.  I could go on with this.  The LAPD standing around doing nothing while rioters destroyed a good chunk of the city, the rampant looting of post-war Iraq under the government's nose, the CBP randomly deciding to start seizing Kinder Surprises being brought into the country based on a literal interpretation of a very old law, the EPA requiring gas cans to be built with those shitty spouts that leak more than the old ones did, etc.  I didn't expect you of all people to disagree with this point.

I don't see how any of this supports your point, though.

There have been eight investigations into this over the course of three years, none of which have found even the slightest evidence of there being any conspiracy or cover-up.  Suggesting that I've "already decided" anything or that my judgment amounts to "quick answers" is so far off-base that it's laughable.  You're the one who's blinded by zealotry, not me.

Now quick answers are fine for you? Make up your mind, please.

Are you suggesting that an embassy's request for extra security is something that the Secretary of State personally handles?

Do you think Volkswagen's CEO personally decided what kind of software went into its vehicles? This comes back to you not understanding what leadership means. A leader is responsible for what their people do, because they lead them ultimately in that direction. If a Secretary that cared way too much about the budget lead to this result, then I'd want her gone at best, in jail at worst.

[Saddam Hussein]

...It's still the result of too many laws regarding what and how response teams can actually respond to. We can't make laws that say "well, you don't really have to do this, but only if it is an emergency!" Government doesn't, and shouldn't, behave in that manner.

I don't see how any of this supports your point, though.

The point these examples support is that most of the failings of government agencies can be attributed to their over-regulation and disorganization on a general level.  You said earlier in the thread that there is "always" a single person who's directly responsible for these kinds of fuck-ups.  Is there one person we should be blaming for Katrina, shitty gas cans, or the LA riots?

Now quick answers are fine for you? Make up your mind, please.

No.  I didn't say that, and I really don't understand how anyone could interpret that from what I said.

Do you think Volkswagen's CEO personally decided what kind of software went into its vehicles? This comes back to you not understanding what leadership means. A leader is responsible for what their people do, because they lead them ultimately in that direction. If a Secretary that cared way too much about the budget lead to this result, then I'd want her gone at best, in jail at worst.

Now you're changing the subject.  We were talking about the one person who supposedly decided, all by themselves, that the embassy was fine and didn't need more security.  But seeing how now you just want to talk about the fact that Clinton was in charge, fine.  She's no longer Secretary, and hasn't been for years.  What more do you want?

And as for the part I bolded, no.  This isn't Italy.  We don't throw people in jail simply for being incompetent or bad at their jobs, nor should we.

[Rushy]

The point these examples support is that most of the failings of government agencies can be attributed to their over-regulation and disorganization on a general level.  You said earlier in the thread that there is "always" a single person who's directly responsible for these kinds of fuck-ups.  Is there one person we should be blaming for Katrina, shitty gas cans, or the LA riots?

This sounds like failures in legislation, though. I don't see how these trace back to the Executive branch at all.

No.  I didn't say that, and I really don't understand how anyone could interpret that from what I said

You said wanting quick answers was bad, I said I didn't want quick answers, then you said the speedy investigation process (a quick answer) is fine. I'm just pointing out how lolzy that was.

Now you're changing the subject.  We were talking about the one person who supposedly decided, all by themselves, that the embassy was fine and didn't need more security.  But seeing how now you just want to talk about the fact that Clinton was in charge, fine.  She's no longer Secretary, and hasn't been for years.  What more do you want?

Uhh, a bad leader being disbarred from being elected into the top leadership position on the planet?

And as for the part I bolded, no.  This isn't Italy.  We don't throw people in jail simply for being incompetent or bad at their jobs, nor should we.

...We literally do that. All the time. In fact people get mad when we don't. "hurr durr bankers should have gone to jail for 2008"

[Saddam Hussein]

This sounds like failures in legislation, though. I don't see how these trace back to the Executive branch at all.

Why is that such an important distinction?

You said wanting quick answers was bad, I said I didn't want quick answers, then you said the speedy investigation process (a quick answer) is fine. I'm just pointing out how lolzy that was.

I didn't say anything like that.  Again, there have been eight different investigations over three years.  I want to stress that point, because you seem to be trying to redefine this as a singular investigation that simply happens to be taking a while, which just isn't true.  These investigations were all separately commissioned, and they have all separately concluded.  They're not in any way intended to be continuations of each other; they're do-overs.  There's nothing speedy about that.

Uhh, a bad leader being disbarred from being elected into the top leadership position on the planet?

That's not a real legal consequence, and you know it.  Any natural-born citizen of the United States is eligible to run for President as long as they're at least thirty-five years old.  The voters will decide whether or not this incident should keep Clinton from the presidency.

...We literally do that. All the time. In fact people get mad when we don't. "hurr durr bankers should have gone to jail for 2008"

No, we don't.  People can be charged if their actions amount to criminal negligence or recklessness, but having poor judgment or making shitty decisions within the scope of a government position certainly doesn't qualify as either of those.  If it did, we'd probably have seen plenty of officials go to jail in the wake of disasters like 9/11 or Katrina.

[garygreen]

An embassy should never be denied such a request. If we couldn't afford to protect it, it shouldn't have been there in the first place. This goes back around to someone in the State department making some very stupid decisions resulting in placing an embassy in a country that mostly hates us and doesn't care about international politics.

[No one has] access to the information required to pass judgement on anyone in any government position.

Except for me, apparently.

Please tell me where I passed judgement on a specific person. You and Dave are so eager to "gotcha" you don't even bother thinking through your posts.

Well, you appear to me to be making judgements about the people responsible for security at the embassy.  You do it a lot in this thread.  I take you to be saying that denying additional security to the embassy over budget concerns was negligent/poor judgement/errant/bad/insert-your-own-word-or-phrase-for-normative-assessment.  Is that not accurate?  Is that not passing judgement about those decisions and the people who made them?

From the outside, it seems like you're just as bent on viewing this event as a failure in State Dept leadership as you claim Saddam is of viewing it as unavoidable.  At the very least it seems pretty clear that you've already decided that any lack of security at the embassy caused by budget restraints must be negligence and cannot merely be the unfortunate-but-inevitable consequence of managing limited resources.  If I'm wrong, just say so; but that's how it reads to me when you talk about how folks ought to go to jail.

[Pete Svarrior]

Why is that such an important distinction?

Yeah, guys, why would we ever care about the distinction between the legislative and executive branches? It makes things so complicated and I like it when things are simple.

I didn't say anything like that.  Again, there have been eight different investigations over three years.  I want to stress that point, because you seem to be trying to redefine this as a singular investigation that simply happens to be taking a while, which just isn't true.  These investigations were all separately commissioned, and they have all separately concluded.  They're not in any way intended to be continuations of each other; they're do-overs.  There's nothing speedy about that.

Wow, it's almost as if commencing similar investigations of similar subjects was a commonplace thing if not all questions were answered sufficiently well in the first place.

That's not a real legal consequence, and you know it.  Any natural-born citizen of the United States is eligible to run for President as long as they're at least thirty-five years old.  The voters will decide whether or not this incident should keep Clinton from the presidency.

Yes, and so it would be better if they could do so based on solid evidence, instead of Republicans choosing to hate her because of formally baseless suspicions and Democrats choosing to love her because "lol conspiracy theories! Nothing was proven after all!"

You're presenting very good reasons for why the investigations should continue. It''s just that then you somehow manage to abandon all reason and suggest that people should just rely on gut feeling instead and form their own feels-induced opinion about the scandal instead of relying on proper channels. What's next, pro-Benghazi and anti-Benghazi safe spaces during presidential debates?

[garygreen]

What is insufficient about the HPSCI report?

[Saddam Hussein]

Yeah, guys, why would we ever care about the distinction between the legislative and executive branches? It makes things so complicated and I like it when things are simple.

Yes, if you take it entirely out of context, it's easy to make it look like this was a silly question.  I'm asking how that's relevant to this specific discussion.  In any case, Rushy's assertion isn't even true.  FEMA, the EPA, and CBP all report to the executive branch.

Wow, it's almost as if commencing similar investigations of similar subjects was a commonplace thing if not all questions were answered sufficiently well in the first place.

Yes, and so it would be better if they could do so based on solid evidence, instead of Republicans choosing to hate her because of formally baseless suspicions and Democrats choosing to love her because "lol conspiracy theories! Nothing was proven after all!"

You're presenting very good reasons for why the investigations should continue. It''s just that then you somehow manage to abandon all reason and suggest that people should just rely on gut feeling instead and form their own feels-induced opinion about the scandal instead of relying on proper channels. What's next, pro-Benghazi and anti-Benghazi safe spaces during presidential debates?

What specifically was so insufficient or incomplete about the previous investigations?

[Lord Dave]

Wow, it's almost as if commencing similar investigations of similar subjects was a commonplace thing if not all questions were answered sufficiently well in the first place.

Yes, and so it would be better if they could do so based on solid evidence, instead of Republicans choosing to hate her because of formally baseless suspicions and Democrats choosing to love her because "lol conspiracy theories! Nothing was proven after all!"

You're presenting very good reasons for why the investigations should continue. It''s just that then you somehow manage to abandon all reason and suggest that people should just rely on gut feeling instead and form their own feels-induced opinion about the scandal instead of relying on proper channels. What's next, pro-Benghazi and anti-Benghazi safe spaces during presidential debates?

What specifically was so insufficient or incomplete about the previous investigations?

They can't blame Hillary Clinton?