Joe Miner Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Why are you even talking about DS? Do you know anything about...anything? He has trouble figuring out why his hand smells like **** after he takes a dump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Why are you even talking about DS? Do you know anything about...anything? It's like conner and Ed found a way to reproduce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Douche chills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 The shame for this administration continues: Benghazi and the Smearing of Chris Stevens Shifting blame to our dead ambassador is wrong on the facts. I know—I was there. by Gregory Hicks Last week the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The report concluded that the attack, which resulted in the murder of four Americans, was "preventable." Some have been suggesting that the blame for this tragedy lies at least partly with Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. This is untrue: The blame lies entirely with Washington. The report states that retired Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of the U.S. Africa Command (Africom) headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, twice offered to "sustain" the special forces security team in Tripoli and that Chris twice "declined." Since Chris cannot speak, I want to explain the reasons and timing for his responses to Gen. Ham. As the deputy chief of mission, I was kept informed by Chris or was present throughout the process. {snip} When I arrived in Tripoli on July 31, we had over 30 security personnel, from the State Department and the U.S. military, assigned to protect the diplomatic mission to Libya. All were under the ambassador's authority. On Sept. 11, we had only nine diplomatic security agents under Chris's authority to protect our diplomatic personnel in Tripoli and Benghazi. I was interviewed by the Select Committee and its staff, who were professional and thorough. I explained this sequence of events. For some reason, my explanation did not make it into the Senate report. To sum up: Chris Stevens was not responsible for the reduction in security personnel. His requests for additional security were denied or ignored. Officials at the State and Defense Departments in Washington made the decisions that resulted in reduced security. Sen. Lindsey Graham stated on the Senate floor last week that Chris "was in Benghazi because that is where he was supposed to be doing what America wanted him to do: Try to hold Libya together." He added, "Quit blaming the dead guy." Mr. Hicks served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli from July 31 to Dec. 7, 2012. http://online.wsj.co...Opinion_LEADTop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 The shame for this administration continues: http://online.wsj.co...Opinion_LEADTop The full article is a good read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 The shame for this administration continues: http://online.wsj.co...Opinion_LEADTop It's amazing to me that this administration continues to get a free ride after leaving those four Americans for dead. I really hope a time comes when someone will have the nutsack to hold this administration accountable for the utter lack of respect they have for people serving this country, and if that time comes, I hope the media will report on it because they all seem much more fixated on a traffic jam than they would ever want to report on the dead Benghazi four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 If you don't understand there has been a war going on between the WH and factions in the Military, Intelligency agencies, and State dept about where foreign policy is set then you're not going to understand a lot of things that are going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) If you don't understand there has been a war going on between the WH and factions in the Military, Intelligency agencies, and State dept about where foreign policy is set then you're not going to understand a lot of things that are going on. that's complete nonsense. the president is the f&%king commander-in-chief of the military, executive of all the 'intelligency' agencies, and the state department is part of the executive branch, again, directly under the president's control. there's no more a war going on between them than there is peace in Syria. it's people like you finding excuses for this administration's ineptitude that allow this kind of utter failure in washington to continue. if one of the murdered americans in benghazi had been a family member of yours, would you still be so cavalier about the issue? Edited January 23, 2014 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 if one of the murdered americans in benghazi had been a family member of yours, would you still be so cavalier about the issue? Can you imagine how batschittcrazy these progressives would be if a Republican were president when four Americans were left for dead by the WH and State Dept? They'd give Cindy SHeehan a shitloade of botox and float her body around like a Macy's parade float in front of every camera they could find. But it was a Democrat's utter disregard for American's serving overseas, and they're a dime a dozen to these dolts. Enough to make a fool like gatorman admit to finding it funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 that's complete nonsense. the president is the f&%king commander-in-chief of the military, executive of all the 'intelligency' agencies, and the state department is part of the executive branch, again, directly under the president's control. there's no more a war going on between them than there is peace in Syria. it's people like you finding excuses for this administration's ineptitude that allow this kind of utter failure in washington to continue. if one of the murdered americans in benghazi had been a family member of yours, would you still be so cavalier about the issue? You're one of many people who go through life not knowing what the !@#$ is going on don't worry your little head about it, btw Strahd is looking for you, There will sometime before the next Presidential campaign be a narrative that Stevens refused extra security and the reason for that refusal was that he was running weapons and fighters out of Libya to Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 The shame for this administration continues: http://online.wsj.co...Opinion_LEADTop Most people won't get this point but: why the hell would you blame a diplomat for not doing security properly? By definition, diplomats are the OPPOSITE of the military, in practically every way imaginable. The military/CIA DS people are responsible for security. Diplomats aren't the people you blame when security is the question. Diplomats are supposed to be on the side of "we need less security, since we've accomplished so much here, together with country X", etc. It's BS, but, that's what the State Department routinely espouses, and that's fine, because here's what we pay them for: non-violent solutions to everything. We pay the military, primarily, for "extremely violent, and therefore quick, solutions to everything". So why would you blame a diplomat for doing something that isn't his job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 You're one of many people who go through life not knowing what the !@#$ is going on don't worry your little head about it, btw Strahd is looking for you, There will sometime before the next Presidential campaign be a narrative that Stevens refused extra security and the reason for that refusal was that he was running weapons and fighters out of Libya to Syria. I apparently know more than you do, young man. you should study the structure of the federal government and how it operates. knowledge will set you free. and Strahd can suck it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 that's complete nonsense. the president is the f&%king commander-in-chief of the military, executive of all the 'intelligency' agencies, and the state department is part of the executive branch, again, directly under the president's control. there's no more a war going on between them than there is peace in Syria. it's people like you finding excuses for this administration's ineptitude that allow this kind of utter failure in washington to continue. No, he's right. State, the White House, and the Pentagon are not all on the same page. I don't know how or if that impacted Benghazi (probably very little), but administration foreign and military policy started out haphazard and has devolved into chaos at this point. It happened in Bush's first term, too, in the run-up to Iraq. No harm admitting that much. And if you're gatorman or Obama, you just call that "evolving" and somehow think that's a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 No, he's right. State, the White House, and the Pentagon are not all on the same page. I don't know how or if that impacted Benghazi (probably very little), but administration foreign and military policy started out haphazard and has devolved into chaos at this point. It happened in Bush's first term, too, in the run-up to Iraq. No harm admitting that much. And if you're gatorman or Obama, you just call that "evolving" and somehow think that's a good thing. but aren't each of these groups directly under Obama's control? I understand that there's infighting among various offices, but isn't the president the ultimate authority over each of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 but aren't each of these groups directly under Obama's control? I understand that there's infighting among various offices, but isn't the president the ultimate authority over each of them? Yes, BUT...how he exercises that authority is another thing completely. Bush, in his first term, had quite a few type-A people under him that he managed very loosely, which led to such stupidity as Rumsfeld making statements contradicting the State Department that were rightfully in the State Department's purview, or the beautiful idiocy of having someone from State tell a gathering that invading Iraq was an international matter and we needed UN involvement, while at the same time a White House spokesman was telling another group it was a national security issue and the UN wasn't necessary (I actually had the chance to discuss that with Ari Fleischer at the time. His response was - well, he seemed rather embarrassed about the incoherence). Bush's second-term foreign policy, he managed his team much more tightly, and whether you agree with his policy or not it's almost inarguable it was much more coherent than his first term. Plus - and this is the point that I think gatorman might be trying and EPICALLY failing to make - not every decision rises to the president's level. At the president's level, he should be setting overall policy direction, delegating details and implementation, and monitoring such to make sure both that they're not diverging from overall policy, and that overall policy is itself still valid and the situation in which it was formed hasn't changed. And for that, I refer you to the "What if Obama can't lead..." thread: he can't, because he lacks those basic executive skills. Yes, theoretically these groups are under Obama's control...but as a practical matter, he's not controlling a damn thing. He can't even control himself - the most recent example is the statements he just made contradicting his own Office of National Drug Control Policy (which, unlike a consulate in Libya, is under his DIRECT control), but the most egregious is either his mendacious waffling on Syrian chemical weapons or health care (take your pick, but I vote Syria - that particular policy looks like it's about to get even dumber in the next six weeks). So the short answer is: no, they're not under Obama's control. They're under his AUTHORITY. Control is authority exercised, something he not only isn't doing, but I don't think he's capable of doing it either, since at the highest policy level he's not even consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Yes, BUT...how he exercises that authority is another thing completely. Bush, in his first term, had quite a few type-A people under him that he managed very loosely, which led to such stupidity as Rumsfeld making statements contradicting the State Department that were rightfully in the State Department's purview, or the beautiful idiocy of having someone from State tell a gathering that invading Iraq was an international matter and we needed UN involvement, while at the same time a White House spokesman was telling another group it was a national security issue and the UN wasn't necessary (I actually had the chance to discuss that with Ari Fleischer at the time. His response was - well, he seemed rather embarrassed about the incoherence). Bush's second-term foreign policy, he managed his team much more tightly, and whether you agree with his policy or not it's almost inarguable it was much more coherent than his first term. Plus - and this is the point that I think gatorman might be trying and EPICALLY failing to make - not every decision rises to the president's level. At the president's level, he should be setting overall policy direction, delegating details and implementation, and monitoring such to make sure both that they're not diverging from overall policy, and that overall policy is itself still valid and the situation in which it was formed hasn't changed. And for that, I refer you to the "What if Obama can't lead..." thread: he can't, because he lacks those basic executive skills. Yes, theoretically these groups are under Obama's control...but as a practical matter, he's not controlling a damn thing. He can't even control himself - the most recent example is the statements he just made contradicting his own Office of National Drug Control Policy (which, unlike a consulate in Libya, is under his DIRECT control), but the most egregious is either his mendacious waffling on Syrian chemical weapons or health care (take your pick, but I vote Syria - that particular policy looks like it's about to get even dumber in the next six weeks). So the short answer is: no, they're not under Obama's control. They're under his AUTHORITY. Control is authority exercised, something he not only isn't doing, but I don't think he's capable of doing it either, since at the highest policy level he's not even consistent. okay, that makes sense. when rebutting ...lybob I should have used the word 'authority' instead of 'control'. still, is it an accurate characterization to say (as he did) that 'there has been a war going on between the WH and factions in the Military, Intelligency agencies, and State dept about where foreign policy is set'? I pay rather close attention, or at least I consider myself as doing so, and aside from some minor differences in their approach to foreign policy, most entities under the authority of the president seem to me to be in relative harmony. on the surface, there doesn't seem to me to be much contention between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Of course most people don't vote on a single issue. No, most people vote for the letters "D" or "R". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Yes, BUT...how he exercises that authority is another thing completely. Bush, in his first term, had quite a few type-A people under him that he managed very loosely, which led to such stupidity as Rumsfeld making statements contradicting the State Department that were rightfully in the State Department's purview, or the beautiful idiocy of having someone from State tell a gathering that invading Iraq was an international matter and we needed UN involvement, while at the same time a White House spokesman was telling another group it was a national security issue and the UN wasn't necessary (I actually had the chance to discuss that with Ari Fleischer at the time. His response was - well, he seemed rather embarrassed about the incoherence). Bush's second-term foreign policy, he managed his team much more tightly, and whether you agree with his policy or not it's almost inarguable it was much more coherent than his first term. Plus - and this is the point that I think gatorman might be trying and EPICALLY failing to make - not every decision rises to the president's level. At the president's level, he should be setting overall policy direction, delegating details and implementation, and monitoring such to make sure both that they're not diverging from overall policy, and that overall policy is itself still valid and the situation in which it was formed hasn't changed. And for that, I refer you to the "What if Obama can't lead..." thread: he can't, because he lacks those basic executive skills. Yes, theoretically these groups are under Obama's control...but as a practical matter, he's not controlling a damn thing. He can't even control himself - the most recent example is the statements he just made contradicting his own Office of National Drug Control Policy (which, unlike a consulate in Libya, is under his DIRECT control), but the most egregious is either his mendacious waffling on Syrian chemical weapons or health care (take your pick, but I vote Syria - that particular policy looks like it's about to get even dumber in the next six weeks). So the short answer is: no, they're not under Obama's control. They're under his AUTHORITY. Control is authority exercised, something he not only isn't doing, but I don't think he's capable of doing it either, since at the highest policy level he's not even consistent. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Ye second-term foreign policy, he managed his team much more tightly, and whether you agree with his policy or not it's almost inarguable it was much more coherent than his first term. Plus - and this is the point that I think gatorman might be matter, he's not controlling a damn thing. He can't even control himself - the most recent example is the statements he just made contradicting his own Office of National Drug Control Policy (which, unlike a consulate in Libya, is under his DIRECT control), but the most egregious is either his mendacious waffling on Syrian chemical weapons or health care (take your pick, but I vote Syria - that particular policy looks like it's about to get AUTHORITY. Control is authority exercised, something he not only isn't doing, but I don't think he's capable of doing it either, since at the highest policy level he's not even consistent. Ummmm....What to say about this monstrosity? Yes, Bush's f'd up second term fp wasn't as bad as a disaster as the first term. Wonderful! Still, Obama, Hillary or any President or sec state can't micro manage everything. See Christie and his bridge. Lincoln couldn't get McClellan to attack Lee after Antietam or Meade to attack after Gettysburg. Presidents can only do so much, I'm sure Ari would agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Brit Hume ✔ @brithume Follow In @oreillyfactor interview, Obama perpetuates nonsense that he labeled Benghazi a terrorist attack the day after. http://www.foxnews.c...obama/ … 10:55 AM - 3 Feb 2014 martha maccallum ✔ @marthamaccallum Follow The Pres promised to bring the killers in Benghazi to justice - the victims families r still waiting. But the Pres says it's a Fox thing. 10:21 AM - 3 Feb 2014 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts