Self Inflicted Scandals

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

From your article:

Five consular employees -- four local staff members and a contract guard -- were also killed

How are these U.S. Diplomats?

I said "diplomatic personnel on diplomatic grounds".

You said;

Nekochan wrote:
Of course there were attacks on diplomats under Bush. But no deaths at a U.S. consulate or U.S. embassy

I know what I said and I was referring to attacks and deaths of diplomats inside consulates and embassies.
Non-American consulate employees are not diplomatic personnel.

Oh, I see ...

... the only victims who count are American citizens, ...

... killed on diplomatic grounds, ...

... and only after 09/11/2001.

You sure you're not boxing yourself in?

Maybe you should restrict the argument to 52 year old men from California.

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

From your article:

Five consular employees -- four local staff members and a contract guard -- were also killed

How are these U.S. Diplomats?

I said "diplomatic personnel on diplomatic grounds".

You said;

Nekochan wrote:
Of course there were attacks on diplomats under Bush. But no deaths at a U.S. consulate or U.S. embassy

I know what I said and I was referring to attacks and deaths of diplomats inside consulates and embassies.
Non-American consulate employees are not diplomatic personnel.

Oh, I see ...

... the only victims who count are American citizens, ...

... killed on diplomatic grounds, ...

... and only after 09/11/2001.

You sure you're not leaving a little too much latitude?

Maybe you should restrict the argument to 52 year old men from California whose names rhyme with Bristopher Peevens.

Nekochan wrote:

Nope, I am not boxing myself in. You're the one who made a claim that you cannot back up. The discussion, as you framed it, was about attacks under the George W Bush administration. With your line of posting about only American lives mattering, maybe you think that our president shouldn't have any special security or protection over any other U.S. citizen. Is that what you believe? Do you understand that our diplomats stationed overseas are targets of terrorism and of murdering nut cases, just like our president is? They need special protection. The sensitive and classified materials at our consulates and embassies need special security. In fact, the main job of Marine Guards is to guard sensitive documents. There were no Marine Guards at Benghazi to guard anything or anyone. Why? Don't you care or want to know why? Don't you want to know why a sensitive and violent prone area, especially if there were covert operations going on, as you say there were, did not have the same level of security that a relatively safe place, like the U.S. Tokyo Embassy, has? Why? Why wasn't the place more secure, after the Ambassador and others had expressed concern about the security?

As for what lives/information "matters" or "counts", I explained how there are levels of security (or should be) at consulates and embassies. In the attack you posted, above, the article says that it was the Visa entrance that was attacked. This is the area where foreigners go to get their Visas. It was probably the least secure part of the compound. The diplomats have separate office spaces that should be more secure. They have separate entrances which should be more secure. In this case, the terrorists got into the one Visa section but they were stopped there. They were not able to get to the diplomats and to the area where classified and sensitive material was kept. When I went to the Tokyo Embassy, I did not enter through the diplomatic entrance. Why? Because I was not authorized to do so. Well now, I am a U.S. citizen but I cannot just waltz into any part of the embassy that I please. It's because I am not a target in the same way that the U.S. Ambassador to Japan might be a target. I do not have access to areas where sensitive material is kept at the embassy because I have no right or business being there. In Benghazi, there were no Marine Guards. There was no special security for anything or anyone. Why? Oh, our former Sec of State says it doesn't matter, so you are satisfied with that.

I said from the very beginning that I do not necessarily blame Obama for the lack of security unless Obama personally demanded a stand down of security there-- which would be surprising to me. In fact, the Sec of State is directly responsible for the security of our consulates and embassies. She failed in her duties. But Obama is responsible for what has happened in the aftermath of the attack.

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Nope, I am not boxing myself in. You're the one who made a claim that you cannot back up. The discussion, as you framed it, was about attacks under the George W Bush administration. With your line of posting about only American lives mattering, maybe you think that our president shouldn't have any special security or protection over any other U.S. citizen. Is that what you believe? Do you understand that our diplomats stationed overseas are targets of terrorism and of murdering nut cases, just like our president is? They need special protection. The sensitive and classified materials at our consulates and embassies need special security. In fact, the main job of Marine Guards is to guard sensitive documents. There were no Marine Guards at Benghazi to guard anything or anyone. Why? Don't you care or want to know why? Don't you want to know why a sensitive and violent prone area, especially if there were covert operations going on, as you say there were, did not have the same level of security that a relatively safe place, like the U.S. Tokyo Embassy, has? Why? Why wasn't the place more secure, after the Ambassador and others had expressed concern about the security?

As for what lives/information "matters" or "counts", I explained how there are levels of security (or should be) at consulates and embassies. In the attack you posted, above, the article says that it was the Visa entrance that was attacked. This is the area where foreigners go to get their Visas. It was probably the least secure part of the compound. The diplomats have separate office spaces that should be more secure. They have separate entrances which should be more secure. In this case, the terrorists got into the one Visa section but they were stopped there. They were not able to get to the diplomats and to the area where classified and sensitive material was kept. When I went to the Tokyo Embassy, I did not enter through the diplomatic entrance. Why? Because I was not authorized to do so. Well now, I am a U.S. citizen but I cannot just waltz into any part of the embassy that I please. It's because I am not a target in the same way that the U.S. Ambassador to Japan might be a target. I do not have access to areas where sensitive material is kept at the embassy because I have no right or business being there. In Benghazi, there were no Marine Guards. There was no special security for anything or anyone. Why? Oh, our former Sec of State says it doesn't matter, so you are satisfied with that.

I said from the very beginning that I do not necessarily blame Obama for the lack of security unless Obama personally demanded a stand down of security there-- which would be surprising to me. In fact, the Sec of State is directly responsible for the security of our consulates and embassies. She failed in her duties. But Obama is responsible for what has happened in the aftermath of the attack.

Jebus ...

... settle down, woman.

This reason there wasn't as much security in Benghazi as there is at embassies is because it wasn't an embassy.

It wasn't even a consulate.

It was a "diplomatic mission".

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Nope, I am not boxing myself in. You're the one who made a claim that you cannot back up. The discussion, as you framed it, was about attacks under the George W Bush administration. With your line of posting about only American lives mattering, maybe you think that our president shouldn't have any special security or protection over any other U.S. citizen. Is that what you believe? Do you understand that our diplomats stationed overseas are targets of terrorism and of murdering nut cases, just like our president is? They need special protection. The sensitive and classified materials at our consulates and embassies need special security. In fact, the main job of Marine Guards is to guard sensitive documents. There were no Marine Guards at Benghazi to guard anything or anyone. Why? Don't you care or want to know why? Don't you want to know why a sensitive and violent prone area, especially if there were covert operations going on, as you say there were, did not have the same level of security that a relatively safe place, like the U.S. Tokyo Embassy, has? Why? Why wasn't the place more secure, after the Ambassador and others had expressed concern about the security?

As for what lives/information "matters" or "counts", I explained how there are levels of security (or should be) at consulates and embassies. In the attack you posted, above, the article says that it was the Visa entrance that was attacked. This is the area where foreigners go to get their Visas. It was probably the least secure part of the compound. The diplomats have separate office spaces that should be more secure. They have separate entrances which should be more secure. In this case, the terrorists got into the one Visa section but they were stopped there. They were not able to get to the diplomats and to the area where classified and sensitive material was kept. When I went to the Tokyo Embassy, I did not enter through the diplomatic entrance. Why? Because I was not authorized to do so. Well now, I am a U.S. citizen but I cannot just waltz into any part of the embassy that I please. It's because I am not a target in the same way that the U.S. Ambassador to Japan might be a target. I do not have access to areas where sensitive material is kept at the embassy because I have no right or business being there. In Benghazi, there were no Marine Guards. There was no special security for anything or anyone. Why? Oh, our former Sec of State says it doesn't matter, so you are satisfied with that.

I said from the very beginning that I do not necessarily blame Obama for the lack of security unless Obama personally demanded a stand down of security there-- which would be surprising to me. In fact, the Sec of State is directly responsible for the security of our consulates and embassies. She failed in her duties. But Obama is responsible for what has happened in the aftermath of the attack.

Jebus ...

... settle down, woman.

This reason there wasn't as much security in Benghazi as there is at embassies is because it wasn't an embassy.

It wasn't even a consulate.

It was a "diplomatic mission".

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Nope, I am not boxing myself in. You're the one who made a claim that you cannot back up. The discussion, as you framed it, was about attacks under the George W Bush administration. With your line of posting about only American lives mattering, maybe you think that our president shouldn't have any special security or protection over any other U.S. citizen. Is that what you believe? Do you understand that our diplomats stationed overseas are targets of terrorism and of murdering nut cases, just like our president is? They need special protection. The sensitive and classified materials at our consulates and embassies need special security. In fact, the main job of Marine Guards is to guard sensitive documents. There were no Marine Guards at Benghazi to guard anything or anyone. Why? Don't you care or want to know why? Don't you want to know why a sensitive and violent prone area, especially if there were covert operations going on, as you say there were, did not have the same level of security that a relatively safe place, like the U.S. Tokyo Embassy, has? Why? Why wasn't the place more secure, after the Ambassador and others had expressed concern about the security?

As for what lives/information "matters" or "counts", I explained how there are levels of security (or should be) at consulates and embassies. In the attack you posted, above, the article says that it was the Visa entrance that was attacked. This is the area where foreigners go to get their Visas. It was probably the least secure part of the compound. The diplomats have separate office spaces that should be more secure. They have separate entrances which should be more secure. In this case, the terrorists got into the one Visa section but they were stopped there. They were not able to get to the diplomats and to the area where classified and sensitive material was kept. When I went to the Tokyo Embassy, I did not enter through the diplomatic entrance. Why? Because I was not authorized to do so. Well now, I am a U.S. citizen but I cannot just waltz into any part of the embassy that I please. It's because I am not a target in the same way that the U.S. Ambassador to Japan might be a target. I do not have access to areas where sensitive material is kept at the embassy because I have no right or business being there. In Benghazi, there were no Marine Guards. There was no special security for anything or anyone. Why? Oh, our former Sec of State says it doesn't matter, so you are satisfied with that.

I said from the very beginning that I do not necessarily blame Obama for the lack of security unless Obama personally demanded a stand down of security there-- which would be surprising to me. In fact, the Sec of State is directly responsible for the security of our consulates and embassies. She failed in her duties. But Obama is responsible for what has happened in the aftermath of the attack.

Jebus ...

... settle down, woman.

This reason there wasn't as much security in Benghazi as there is at embassies is because it wasn't an embassy.

It wasn't even a consulate.

It was a "diplomatic mission".

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Nope, I am not boxing myself in. You're the one who made a claim that you cannot back up. The discussion, as you framed it, was about attacks under the George W Bush administration. With your line of posting about only American lives mattering, maybe you think that our president shouldn't have any special security or protection over any other U.S. citizen. Is that what you believe? Do you understand that our diplomats stationed overseas are targets of terrorism and of murdering nut cases, just like our president is? They need special protection. The sensitive and classified materials at our consulates and embassies need special security. In fact, the main job of Marine Guards is to guard sensitive documents. There were no Marine Guards at Benghazi to guard anything or anyone. Why? Don't you care or want to know why? Don't you want to know why a sensitive and violent prone area, especially if there were covert operations going on, as you say there were, did not have the same level of security that a relatively safe place, like the U.S. Tokyo Embassy, has? Why? Why wasn't the place more secure, after the Ambassador and others had expressed concern about the security?

As for what lives/information "matters" or "counts", I explained how there are levels of security (or should be) at consulates and embassies. In the attack you posted, above, the article says that it was the Visa entrance that was attacked. This is the area where foreigners go to get their Visas. It was probably the least secure part of the compound. The diplomats have separate office spaces that should be more secure. They have separate entrances which should be more secure. In this case, the terrorists got into the one Visa section but they were stopped there. They were not able to get to the diplomats and to the area where classified and sensitive material was kept. When I went to the Tokyo Embassy, I did not enter through the diplomatic entrance. Why? Because I was not authorized to do so. Well now, I am a U.S. citizen but I cannot just waltz into any part of the embassy that I please. It's because I am not a target in the same way that the U.S. Ambassador to Japan might be a target. I do not have access to areas where sensitive material is kept at the embassy because I have no right or business being there. In Benghazi, there were no Marine Guards. There was no special security for anything or anyone. Why? Oh, our former Sec of State says it doesn't matter, so you are satisfied with that.

I said from the very beginning that I do not necessarily blame Obama for the lack of security unless Obama personally demanded a stand down of security there-- which would be surprising to me. In fact, the Sec of State is directly responsible for the security of our consulates and embassies. She failed in her duties. But Obama is responsible for what has happened in the aftermath of the attack.

Jebus ...

... settle down, woman.

This reason there wasn't as much security in Benghazi as there is at embassies is because it wasn't an embassy.

It wasn't even a consulate.

It was a "diplomatic mission".

It doesn't matter what it was called, what matters is what security was needed. Anyway, the DOD calls it a consulate:

U.S. Department of Defense

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=118500

The military’s initial response began within minutes of the first incident in Benghazi, the official said: the attack on the U.S. consulate began at 3:42 p.m. EDT [9:42 p.m. Benghazi time], and by 5:10 EDT an unarmed surveillance aircraft was on station over the Benghazi compound.
By 5:30 p.m., all surviving Americans had left the consulate, the official noted, adding that defense officials didn’t have that information until later.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Nope, I am not boxing myself in. You're the one who made a claim that you cannot back up. The discussion, as you framed it, was about attacks under the George W Bush administration. With your line of posting about only American lives mattering, maybe you think that our president shouldn't have any special security or protection over any other U.S. citizen. Is that what you believe? Do you understand that our diplomats stationed overseas are targets of terrorism and of murdering nut cases, just like our president is? They need special protection. The sensitive and classified materials at our consulates and embassies need special security. In fact, the main job of Marine Guards is to guard sensitive documents. There were no Marine Guards at Benghazi to guard anything or anyone. Why? Don't you care or want to know why? Don't you want to know why a sensitive and violent prone area, especially if there were covert operations going on, as you say there were, did not have the same level of security that a relatively safe place, like the U.S. Tokyo Embassy, has? Why? Why wasn't the place more secure, after the Ambassador and others had expressed concern about the security?

As for what lives/information "matters" or "counts", I explained how there are levels of security (or should be) at consulates and embassies. In the attack you posted, above, the article says that it was the Visa entrance that was attacked. This is the area where foreigners go to get their Visas. It was probably the least secure part of the compound. The diplomats have separate office spaces that should be more secure. They have separate entrances which should be more secure. In this case, the terrorists got into the one Visa section but they were stopped there. They were not able to get to the diplomats and to the area where classified and sensitive material was kept. When I went to the Tokyo Embassy, I did not enter through the diplomatic entrance. Why? Because I was not authorized to do so. Well now, I am a U.S. citizen but I cannot just waltz into any part of the embassy that I please. It's because I am not a target in the same way that the U.S. Ambassador to Japan might be a target. I do not have access to areas where sensitive material is kept at the embassy because I have no right or business being there. In Benghazi, there were no Marine Guards. There was no special security for anything or anyone. Why? Oh, our former Sec of State says it doesn't matter, so you are satisfied with that.

I said from the very beginning that I do not necessarily blame Obama for the lack of security unless Obama personally demanded a stand down of security there-- which would be surprising to me. In fact, the Sec of State is directly responsible for the security of our consulates and embassies. She failed in her duties. But Obama is responsible for what has happened in the aftermath of the attack.

Jebus ...

... settle down, woman.

This reason there wasn't as much security in Benghazi as there is at embassies is because it wasn't an embassy.

It wasn't even a consulate.

It was a "diplomatic mission".

It doesn't matter what it was called, what matters is what security was needed. Anyway, the DOD calls it a consulate:

U.S. Department of Defense

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=118500

The military’s initial response began within minutes of the first incident in Benghazi, the official said: the attack on the U.S. consulate began at 3:42 p.m. EDT [9:42 p.m. Benghazi time], and by 5:10 EDT an unarmed surveillance aircraft was on station over the Benghazi compound.
By 5:30 p.m., all surviving Americans had left the consulate, the official noted, adding that defense officials didn’t have that information until later.

For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had allegedly expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens. Chaffetz and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, claim those concerns were ignored.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:The Insiders: Enough Benghazi already

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/05/10/the-insiders-enough-benghazi-already/

".....Republicans should certainly give the Benghazi attack the attention it deserves. But we also need to recognize that we aren’t impressing anyone — except maybe a small subset of our base — when we see things that no one else sees and declare any fact that is inconsistent with the narrative we want to be wrong, manufactured or somehow previously unknown and explosive. GOP leaders need to step up, make a couple of Benghazi-related assignments and tell everyone else to move on. If there’s more truth and more news, it will come out. But we have more important things to do...."

Are you listening, Markle, Pace Dog, Newswatcher, Vectorman, No Chain, and perhaps a handful of others?

Nekochan wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Nope, I am not boxing myself in. You're the one who made a claim that you cannot back up. The discussion, as you framed it, was about attacks under the George W Bush administration. With your line of posting about only American lives mattering, maybe you think that our president shouldn't have any special security or protection over any other U.S. citizen. Is that what you believe? Do you understand that our diplomats stationed overseas are targets of terrorism and of murdering nut cases, just like our president is? They need special protection. The sensitive and classified materials at our consulates and embassies need special security. In fact, the main job of Marine Guards is to guard sensitive documents. There were no Marine Guards at Benghazi to guard anything or anyone. Why? Don't you care or want to know why? Don't you want to know why a sensitive and violent prone area, especially if there were covert operations going on, as you say there were, did not have the same level of security that a relatively safe place, like the U.S. Tokyo Embassy, has? Why? Why wasn't the place more secure, after the Ambassador and others had expressed concern about the security?

As for what lives/information "matters" or "counts", I explained how there are levels of security (or should be) at consulates and embassies. In the attack you posted, above, the article says that it was the Visa entrance that was attacked. This is the area where foreigners go to get their Visas. It was probably the least secure part of the compound. The diplomats have separate office spaces that should be more secure. They have separate entrances which should be more secure. In this case, the terrorists got into the one Visa section but they were stopped there. They were not able to get to the diplomats and to the area where classified and sensitive material was kept. When I went to the Tokyo Embassy, I did not enter through the diplomatic entrance. Why? Because I was not authorized to do so. Well now, I am a U.S. citizen but I cannot just waltz into any part of the embassy that I please. It's because I am not a target in the same way that the U.S. Ambassador to Japan might be a target. I do not have access to areas where sensitive material is kept at the embassy because I have no right or business being there. In Benghazi, there were no Marine Guards. There was no special security for anything or anyone. Why? Oh, our former Sec of State says it doesn't matter, so you are satisfied with that.

I said from the very beginning that I do not necessarily blame Obama for the lack of security unless Obama personally demanded a stand down of security there-- which would be surprising to me. In fact, the Sec of State is directly responsible for the security of our consulates and embassies. She failed in her duties. But Obama is responsible for what has happened in the aftermath of the attack.

Jebus ...

... settle down, woman.

This reason there wasn't as much security in Benghazi as there is at embassies is because it wasn't an embassy.

It wasn't even a consulate.

It was a "diplomatic mission".

It doesn't matter what it was called, what matters is what security was needed. Anyway, the DOD calls it a consulate:

U.S. Department of Defense

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=118500

The military’s initial response began within minutes of the first incident in Benghazi, the official said: the attack on the U.S. consulate began at 3:42 p.m. EDT [9:42 p.m. Benghazi time], and by 5:10 EDT an unarmed surveillance aircraft was on station over the Benghazi compound.
By 5:30 p.m., all surviving Americans had left the consulate, the official noted, adding that defense officials didn’t have that information until later.

For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had allegedly expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens. Chaffetz and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, claim those concerns were ignored.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

The State Dept is flush with money. Unbelievably so.

The Sec of State is directly responsible for security at embassies and consulates. Did Clinton say that she requested additional security at Benghazi but did not receive it because of lack of funding?