The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Saddam Hussein on July 27, 2015, 02:00:50 PM
-
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
-
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.
-
And on the notion of Benghazi:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SefVTIHjtFQ
-
I like how it's considered a funny joke that the State Department repeatedly denied additional security in Benghazi.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina) 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?
-
Is anyone else not okay with a Benghazi movie being made already?
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina) 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.
-
...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.
-
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"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
What is insufficient about the HPSCI report?
-
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?
-
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?