|
|
On October 15 2012 06:45 blomsterjohn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:33 DoubleReed wrote:On October 15 2012 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On October 15 2012 06:23 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. Are you serious? You know what will turn out to be expensive in the future? The effects of global warming and other environmental hazards. But let's act like it's unimportant to give a non-noticable sum of money to the research in to what the effects will be and how to best prevent or counter them. Studying a poorly understood phenomenon is fine. Advocating policies that will cause serious global economic harm to combat a poorly understood phenomenon is not fine. Either way there's serious global economic harm. And I'm not sure what you mean by it's 'poorly understood'? We know how it works and the causes and effects and such...? Show nested quote +Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economybut hey, let's invade Iran
Yep, manmade global warming is clearly responsible for every hurricane and natural disaster.
|
On October 15 2012 06:30 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On October 15 2012 06:23 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. Are you serious? You know what will turn out to be expensive in the future? The effects of global warming and other environmental hazards. But let's act like it's unimportant to give a non-noticable sum of money to the research in to what the effects will be and how to best prevent or counter them. Studying a poorly understood phenomenon is fine. Advocating policies that will cause serious global economic harm to combat a poorly understood phenomenon is not fine. The phenomenon is sufficiently well understood to warrant doing much more than we currently are to fight global warming.
Then we are back to the "what to do"? As I can see it, there is the removal of coal power-plants as the only real obvious move. Moving cars away from gasoline will be a nobrainer at some point in the future when it gets too costly to use oil for it, but it is not a short-term gain. A short-term advantage is use of natural gas, but since it is mostly from oil-wells, it is not gonna be a permanent solution...
Don't get me wrong, it is very important to get people to realize that climate change is real and that temperature is only one of many parameters influenced by increased amounts of CO2 in the athmosphere, but advocating doing more is a hard sell since some of the things done so far has been very ineffective tending towards hurtful. So get those coal power plants out and let us see how the science looks in ~10 years. By then we are likely to be far more experienced in crib to cradle analysis and have a far better understanding of how certain technologies work and be a lot more local about how to deal with "new fuels".
|
On October 15 2012 06:41 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:22 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 05:08 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 04:06 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:27 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 00:20 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:07 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 23:32 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 22:51 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 21:22 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
Biden said: "We weren't told they wanted more security there."
The state department was told, as documented in the recent hearing.
But there's nothing to suggest Biden and Obama were told, or that it is normal procedure that they should be told. Why didn't he say "Our State Department officials were told, but it never reached us"? Why didn't he say "that kind of information doesn't reach the President or myself normally"? Simply saying "we didn't know" is the most dishonest and disgusting answer for a failed foreign policy. First of all, you don't even know if requests were made specifically about the Bengazi facility (it's very possible, but nobody so far in this thread seems to have posted evidence that this was the case). From the politifact article: "the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site". Second, Republicans are directly blaming Obama and Biden for decisions made by low-level Department of State employees who probably would be doing the exact same job if McCain and Sarah Palin were in office. I therefore find it perfectly normal for Biden to reply in the name of the White House, which the Republicans are blaming for the requests being denied. Finally, regarding what you call "a failed foreign policy", you have simply no idea what you're talking about. I call a foreign policy that involves covering up terrorist attacks by blaming it on an anti-islamic video a failed one Except that's not what we were talking about, since we were talking about Biden saying "we didn't know" with regards to the security requests. Also, in case you didn't follow the news, that terrorists are responsible for the death of the ambassador doesn't change the fact that there were plenty of protests (and violence during those protests) at the same time and in the days that followed against the US in several Arab countries, notably because of the video. And you still don't understand what "foreign policy" means. Actually what we are talking about is Joe Biden lying as a rebuttal to all the people crying "Lyin Ryan" as if the Obama administration is somehow about pure truth telling and "facts". I explained to you why he wasn't lying in the case we were discussing. You didn't explain anything, you are just ignoring the facts. I don't know if that's supposed to be a joke, but you're the one who repeatedly ignored the facts I was presenting you with in this discussion. Here are the facts again: 1. No-one in this thread has presented evidence that there were requests about the Benghazi facility. There very well may have been, but this has not been established here yet. 2. To quote the politifact article, ""the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site". 3. The security requests were addressed by the State Department (not by its highest members). They apparently did not reach the White House. 4. If Biden meant Obama, himself and the White House by "we", his statement was therefore perfectly accurate. 5. Republicans, including Ryan, have been pointing fingers at Obama and the White House for the negative response given to the security requests. I therefore find it perfectly normal that Biden would be using "we" as in "Obama, myself and the White House" in response to the criticism by Republicans, who are certainly not targeting the actual people who took the decision, namely the State Department officials.
If you are a manager and one of your employees fuck up, you still have to take responsibility for their actions. This applies here as well.
Where does this happen? I was under the impression that when you fuck up at your job of your own accord you just get reprimanded, fired or sued.
Arguing that the president is responsible for all of the actions of the state department is like arguing that all german people are responsible for the holocaust.
|
On October 15 2012 06:58 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:41 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:22 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 05:08 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 04:06 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:27 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 00:20 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:07 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 23:32 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 22:51 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
Why didn't he say "Our State Department officials were told, but it never reached us"? Why didn't he say "that kind of information doesn't reach the President or myself normally"? Simply saying "we didn't know" is the most dishonest and disgusting answer for a failed foreign policy. First of all, you don't even know if requests were made specifically about the Bengazi facility (it's very possible, but nobody so far in this thread seems to have posted evidence that this was the case). From the politifact article: "the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site". Second, Republicans are directly blaming Obama and Biden for decisions made by low-level Department of State employees who probably would be doing the exact same job if McCain and Sarah Palin were in office. I therefore find it perfectly normal for Biden to reply in the name of the White House, which the Republicans are blaming for the requests being denied. Finally, regarding what you call "a failed foreign policy", you have simply no idea what you're talking about. I call a foreign policy that involves covering up terrorist attacks by blaming it on an anti-islamic video a failed one Except that's not what we were talking about, since we were talking about Biden saying "we didn't know" with regards to the security requests. Also, in case you didn't follow the news, that terrorists are responsible for the death of the ambassador doesn't change the fact that there were plenty of protests (and violence during those protests) at the same time and in the days that followed against the US in several Arab countries, notably because of the video. And you still don't understand what "foreign policy" means. Actually what we are talking about is Joe Biden lying as a rebuttal to all the people crying "Lyin Ryan" as if the Obama administration is somehow about pure truth telling and "facts". I explained to you why he wasn't lying in the case we were discussing. You didn't explain anything, you are just ignoring the facts. I don't know if that's supposed to be a joke, but you're the one who repeatedly ignored the facts I was presenting you with in this discussion. Here are the facts again: 1. No-one in this thread has presented evidence that there were requests about the Benghazi facility. There very well may have been, but this has not been established here yet. 2. To quote the politifact article, ""the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site". 3. The security requests were addressed by the State Department (not by its highest members). They apparently did not reach the White House. 4. If Biden meant Obama, himself and the White House by "we", his statement was therefore perfectly accurate. 5. Republicans, including Ryan, have been pointing fingers at Obama and the White House for the negative response given to the security requests. I therefore find it perfectly normal that Biden would be using "we" as in "Obama, myself and the White House" in response to the criticism by Republicans, who are certainly not targeting the actual people who took the decision, namely the State Department officials.
If you are a manager and one of your employees fuck up, you still have to take responsibility for their actions. This applies here as well. Where does this happen? I was under the impression that when you fuck up at your job of your own accord you just get reprimanded, fired or sued. Arguing that the president is responsible for all of the actions of the state department is like arguing that all german people are responsible for the holocaust.
No no no. Don't make weird arguments. The entire State Department is not part of the Obama Administration. The high level is. The lower level would not be different based on administration. Therefore it would be strange to blame the administration for something that would not be different based on administration. That's all there is to it.
And the german people as a whole took complete responsibility for the holocaust, so that's a bad example. Do you know how much the German State has done for Jews and Israel over the last 60 or so years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany–Israel_relations
|
On October 15 2012 06:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:45 blomsterjohn wrote:On October 15 2012 06:33 DoubleReed wrote:On October 15 2012 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On October 15 2012 06:23 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. Are you serious? You know what will turn out to be expensive in the future? The effects of global warming and other environmental hazards. But let's act like it's unimportant to give a non-noticable sum of money to the research in to what the effects will be and how to best prevent or counter them. Studying a poorly understood phenomenon is fine. Advocating policies that will cause serious global economic harm to combat a poorly understood phenomenon is not fine. Either way there's serious global economic harm. And I'm not sure what you mean by it's 'poorly understood'? We know how it works and the causes and effects and such...? Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economybut hey, let's invade Iran Yep, manmade global warming is clearly responsible for every hurricane and natural disaster.
Look, you know it's a perfectly bad argument. Either way, there's going to be serious economic harm.
We're both human, so we both need to watch out for Motivated Skepticism.
|
On October 15 2012 07:03 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:58 Jormundr wrote:On October 15 2012 06:41 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:22 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 05:08 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 04:06 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:27 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 00:20 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:07 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 23:32 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
First of all, you don't even know if requests were made specifically about the Bengazi facility (it's very possible, but nobody so far in this thread seems to have posted evidence that this was the case). From the politifact article: "the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site".
Second, Republicans are directly blaming Obama and Biden for decisions made by low-level Department of State employees who probably would be doing the exact same job if McCain and Sarah Palin were in office. I therefore find it perfectly normal for Biden to reply in the name of the White House, which the Republicans are blaming for the requests being denied.
Finally, regarding what you call "a failed foreign policy", you have simply no idea what you're talking about. I call a foreign policy that involves covering up terrorist attacks by blaming it on an anti-islamic video a failed one Except that's not what we were talking about, since we were talking about Biden saying "we didn't know" with regards to the security requests. Also, in case you didn't follow the news, that terrorists are responsible for the death of the ambassador doesn't change the fact that there were plenty of protests (and violence during those protests) at the same time and in the days that followed against the US in several Arab countries, notably because of the video. And you still don't understand what "foreign policy" means. Actually what we are talking about is Joe Biden lying as a rebuttal to all the people crying "Lyin Ryan" as if the Obama administration is somehow about pure truth telling and "facts". I explained to you why he wasn't lying in the case we were discussing. You didn't explain anything, you are just ignoring the facts. I don't know if that's supposed to be a joke, but you're the one who repeatedly ignored the facts I was presenting you with in this discussion. Here are the facts again: 1. No-one in this thread has presented evidence that there were requests about the Benghazi facility. There very well may have been, but this has not been established here yet. 2. To quote the politifact article, ""the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site". 3. The security requests were addressed by the State Department (not by its highest members). They apparently did not reach the White House. 4. If Biden meant Obama, himself and the White House by "we", his statement was therefore perfectly accurate. 5. Republicans, including Ryan, have been pointing fingers at Obama and the White House for the negative response given to the security requests. I therefore find it perfectly normal that Biden would be using "we" as in "Obama, myself and the White House" in response to the criticism by Republicans, who are certainly not targeting the actual people who took the decision, namely the State Department officials.
If you are a manager and one of your employees fuck up, you still have to take responsibility for their actions. This applies here as well. Where does this happen? I was under the impression that when you fuck up at your job of your own accord you just get reprimanded, fired or sued. Arguing that the president is responsible for all of the actions of the state department is like arguing that all german people are responsible for the holocaust. No no no. Don't make weird arguments. The entire State Department is not part of the Obama Administration. The high level is. The lower level would not be different based on administration. Therefore it would be strange to blame the administration for something that would not be different based on administration. That's all there is to it. And the german people as a whole took complete responsibility for the holocaust, so that's a bad example. Do you know how much the German State has done for Jews and Israel over the last 60 or so years? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany–Israel_relations
Maybe my manager example wasn't the best one either, but it certainly is a better comparison than "all german people" lol wtf.. Ok maybe a better example would be someone lower ranking in the military screws up, yes they have to take personal responsibility for their actions, but the people in the middle that are just above them will get briefed on how to properly train their men better. The POTUS is the highest rank in the chain of command, but he has to answer to the people of the United States when he fails. Obviously he can't be held accountable for every failed action, but some of the responsibility ultimately will always fall on him...just like Bush got blamed for the bad intel he got on the WMD's.
|
I'm not sure that I am ready to blame the Obama administration for purposefully understaffing security at Benghazi, but I do blame them for lying about what happened there for weeks after the fact. Their attempted coverup strongly suggests to me that they did something wrong. I find it hard to believe that the administration is stupid enough to try what they tried unless there really is something that they don't want people to know about. I'm not even sure that understaffing an ambassador's security detail is reason enough.
|
On October 15 2012 07:35 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 07:03 DoubleReed wrote:On October 15 2012 06:58 Jormundr wrote:On October 15 2012 06:41 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:22 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 05:08 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 04:06 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:27 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 00:20 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:07 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
I call a foreign policy that involves covering up terrorist attacks by blaming it on an anti-islamic video a failed one Except that's not what we were talking about, since we were talking about Biden saying "we didn't know" with regards to the security requests. Also, in case you didn't follow the news, that terrorists are responsible for the death of the ambassador doesn't change the fact that there were plenty of protests (and violence during those protests) at the same time and in the days that followed against the US in several Arab countries, notably because of the video. And you still don't understand what "foreign policy" means. Actually what we are talking about is Joe Biden lying as a rebuttal to all the people crying "Lyin Ryan" as if the Obama administration is somehow about pure truth telling and "facts". I explained to you why he wasn't lying in the case we were discussing. You didn't explain anything, you are just ignoring the facts. I don't know if that's supposed to be a joke, but you're the one who repeatedly ignored the facts I was presenting you with in this discussion. Here are the facts again: 1. No-one in this thread has presented evidence that there were requests about the Benghazi facility. There very well may have been, but this has not been established here yet. 2. To quote the politifact article, ""the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site". 3. The security requests were addressed by the State Department (not by its highest members). They apparently did not reach the White House. 4. If Biden meant Obama, himself and the White House by "we", his statement was therefore perfectly accurate. 5. Republicans, including Ryan, have been pointing fingers at Obama and the White House for the negative response given to the security requests. I therefore find it perfectly normal that Biden would be using "we" as in "Obama, myself and the White House" in response to the criticism by Republicans, who are certainly not targeting the actual people who took the decision, namely the State Department officials.
If you are a manager and one of your employees fuck up, you still have to take responsibility for their actions. This applies here as well. Where does this happen? I was under the impression that when you fuck up at your job of your own accord you just get reprimanded, fired or sued. Arguing that the president is responsible for all of the actions of the state department is like arguing that all german people are responsible for the holocaust. No no no. Don't make weird arguments. The entire State Department is not part of the Obama Administration. The high level is. The lower level would not be different based on administration. Therefore it would be strange to blame the administration for something that would not be different based on administration. That's all there is to it. And the german people as a whole took complete responsibility for the holocaust, so that's a bad example. Do you know how much the German State has done for Jews and Israel over the last 60 or so years? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany–Israel_relations Maybe my manager example wasn't the best one either, but it certainly is a better comparison than "all german people" lol wtf.. Ok maybe a better example would be someone lower ranking in the military screws up, yes they have to take personal responsibility for their actions, but the people in the middle that are just above them will get briefed on how to properly train their men better. The POTUS is the highest rank in the chain of command, but he has to answer to the people of the United States when he fails. Obviously he can't be held accountable for every failed action, but some of the responsibility ultimately will always fall on him...just like Bush got blamed for the bad intel he got on the WMD's.
The Bush example does not compare in my opinion. His 'bad intel' started the war in Iraq. The consequences were 100000x worse than anything in the Libya/Obama situation.
|
On October 15 2012 06:41 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:22 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 05:08 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 04:06 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:27 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 00:20 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:07 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 23:32 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 22:51 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 21:22 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
Biden said: "We weren't told they wanted more security there."
The state department was told, as documented in the recent hearing.
But there's nothing to suggest Biden and Obama were told, or that it is normal procedure that they should be told. Why didn't he say "Our State Department officials were told, but it never reached us"? Why didn't he say "that kind of information doesn't reach the President or myself normally"? Simply saying "we didn't know" is the most dishonest and disgusting answer for a failed foreign policy. First of all, you don't even know if requests were made specifically about the Bengazi facility (it's very possible, but nobody so far in this thread seems to have posted evidence that this was the case). From the politifact article: "the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site". Second, Republicans are directly blaming Obama and Biden for decisions made by low-level Department of State employees who probably would be doing the exact same job if McCain and Sarah Palin were in office. I therefore find it perfectly normal for Biden to reply in the name of the White House, which the Republicans are blaming for the requests being denied. Finally, regarding what you call "a failed foreign policy", you have simply no idea what you're talking about. I call a foreign policy that involves covering up terrorist attacks by blaming it on an anti-islamic video a failed one Except that's not what we were talking about, since we were talking about Biden saying "we didn't know" with regards to the security requests. Also, in case you didn't follow the news, that terrorists are responsible for the death of the ambassador doesn't change the fact that there were plenty of protests (and violence during those protests) at the same time and in the days that followed against the US in several Arab countries, notably because of the video. And you still don't understand what "foreign policy" means. Actually what we are talking about is Joe Biden lying as a rebuttal to all the people crying "Lyin Ryan" as if the Obama administration is somehow about pure truth telling and "facts". I explained to you why he wasn't lying in the case we were discussing. You didn't explain anything, you are just ignoring the facts. I don't know if that's supposed to be a joke, but you're the one who repeatedly ignored the facts I was presenting you with in this discussion. Here are the facts again: 1. No-one in this thread has presented evidence that there were requests about the Benghazi facility. There very well may have been, but this has not been established here yet. 2. To quote the politifact article, ""the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site". 3. The security requests were addressed by the State Department (not by its highest members). They apparently did not reach the White House. 4. If Biden meant Obama, himself and the White House by "we", his statement was therefore perfectly accurate. 5. Republicans, including Ryan, have been pointing fingers at Obama and the White House for the negative response given to the security requests. I therefore find it perfectly normal that Biden would be using "we" as in "Obama, myself and the White House" in response to the criticism by Republicans, who are certainly not targeting the actual people who took the decision, namely the State Department officials. 1. Wrong. You actually contradict this in number 3 2. Nordstrom stated that he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and July 2012 requesting additional Diplomatic Security Agents for Benghazi, but that he received no responses. 3. The State department is part of the Obama administration 4. Irrelevant, the State department knew 5. As they should. If you are a manager and one of your employees fuck up, you still have to take responsibility for their actions. This applies here as well.
1. No I don't. So far all that had been posted here was about security requests for Libya in general, not specifically Benghazi. I went and looked for the actual requests and I discuss them in 2.
2. In the two cables, there is a total of two paragraphs which mention Benghazi. The first one, from the March cable, says "Post requests continued support for 5 TDY DS agents in Benghazi on 45-60 day rotations [in addition to the two long-term USDH TDY'ers already there]. [...] Once these positions [this refers to other positions, "four LES drivers and an RSO LES SPSS" in the process of being recruiting by the embassy in Tripoli] are filled, Post anticipates requiring fewer TDY DS agents to support Benghazi." The second cable, sent in July, only mentions Benghazi in the following sentence: "Post anticipates supporting operations in Benghazi with at least one permanently assigned RSO employee from Tripoli, however, would request continued TDY support to fill a minimum of 3 security positions in Benghazi".
I would need someone more knowledgeable than me about the security in the Benghazi facility to confirm this, but from what I understand the March cable asked for support for a total of seven TDY agents in Benghazi with that number expected to go down, and the July cable asked for support for at least 3 security positions in Benghazi (I don't know if that's in addition to other security positions, so if anyone knows and/or understands the cable better than I do, feel free to correct me). At the moment of the attack, there were five security agents at the Benghazi facility (three who were already there and two who came with the ambassador). It therefore seems to me that the politifact quote was rather accurate.
3. Who said the contrary? Let me repeat: "The security requests were addressed by the State Department (not by its highest members). They apparently did not reach the White House".
4. Not irrelevant, since you're calling Biden a liar. If by "we" he meant Obama, himself and the White House, he was not lying. This is acknowledged in the politifact article you cited yourself.
5. That's your opinion, not a fact. I personally think blaming Obama and the White House for something they could not possibly make a decision on because of how the executive branch is constructed is ludicrous, especially since we know it was a deputy assistant secretary in one of the several bureaus of the Department of State who made the call.
Please, spare us your ridiculously simplistic assertions on responsibility. The bottomline is that if Biden was using "we" to mean "Obama, myself and the White House", who are being targeted by the Republicans, he wasn't lying.
|
On October 15 2012 07:39 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not sure that I am ready to blame the Obama administration for purposefully understaffing security at Benghazi, but I do blame them for lying about what happened there for weeks after the fact. Their attempted coverup strongly suggests to me that they did something wrong. I find it hard to believe that the administration is stupid enough to try what they tried unless there really is something that they don't want people to know about. I'm not even sure that understaffing an ambassador's security detail is reason enough.
I don't fault the administration/state department for understaffing the consulate ... only because the US has hundreds of consulates, and they make requests for better security every year. There were 11 significant attacks or attempts to breech consulates and embassies during the Bush administration.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130950/-If-diplomatic-attacks-are-a-sign-of-weakness-Bush-was-the-weakest-of-all
Of course, it's still an unfortunate oversight, that they should fix and assume responsibility for.
But I agree the administration bungled the investigation and communication of the situation to the public. I'm not cynical enough to think that there is an active conspiracy, but I am cynical enough to thing that the administration was receiving incomplete or inconclusive information, or the State department wasn't communicating quickly or effectively enough, or the campaign got swept up in the spin of the global news cycle, during a week where protests were exploding across the Middle East and Bibi is showing drawings of cartoon bombs to people.
|
|
|
The Fox News organization obviously has a right-wing agenda and wants Obama out of office, but they have never been particularly fond of Romney or his campaign.
There's a fascinating article about Rupert Murdoch, basically explaining how he hates phonies like Romney and doesn't respect his accomplishments. I'll try to dig it up when I'm less busy.
|
|
|
The amount of ridiculous hoops all these guys are going through must be fucking numbing.
You know as Ryan is fake-washing those clean dishes any scrap of human dignity, intelligence or self-respect is just crumbling away ...
|
On October 15 2012 14:08 Defacer wrote:The amount of ridiculous hoops all these guys are going through must be fucking numbing. You know as Ryan is fake-washing those clean dishes any scrap of human dignity, intelligence or self-respect is just crumbling away ...
He's thinking "if only I had a tax cut so I could afford to donate a dish washing machine..."
|
On October 15 2012 14:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 14:08 Defacer wrote:The amount of ridiculous hoops all these guys are going through must be fucking numbing. You know as Ryan is fake-washing those clean dishes any scrap of human dignity, intelligence or self-respect is just crumbling away ... He's thinking "if only I had a tax cut so I could afford to donate a dish washing machine..."
LOL. Or ... "Shouldn't I be doing something useful right now? Why did you nominate me for VP again?"
|
Well, I'm not an American, but I sincerely hope Americans vote Obama. He may be a weak leader, unable to push his promises through the congress, but Mitt Romney is an outright liar and jerk. I'd choose the the lesser of two evils.
|
On October 15 2012 05:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 05:31 Infundibulum wrote:
If you think Mitt "Russia is America's number one geopolitical foe" Romney will be good for American foreign policy you have another thing coming (and that thing is probably yet another war). So who is our number one geopolitical foe? It isn't China (yet). You can't count Al Qaeda or terrorists because they're not a nation. That doesn't leave much left.
Iran? North Korea? Syria? Etc etc etc etc.
Putin sucks but he is everything but a threat to America and there are much more harmful countries in economical ang geopolitical terms, such as China, much more threatening in terms of geopolitical agenda, such as Iran, much worse in terms if human rights or whatever principles, such as North Korea.
But well, Mitt believes everything was better before, so i guess the kremelin is a good target for cold war nostalgics.
|
On October 15 2012 17:11 Alex1Sun wrote:
Well, I'm not an American, but I sincerely hope Americans vote Obama. He may be a weak leader, unable to push his promises through the congress, but Mitt Romney is an outright liar and jerk. I'd choose the the lesser of two evils.
Someone who has done soooo much on every level despite having the senate dominated by people who would prefer to see america sink rather than voting something that could not be a pain in the ass for him is certainly not a weak leader.
|
On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first.
Yeah, let's worry later about the planet we live on. You know, when it's not inhabitable anymore.
People who really don't believe in global warming make me think of people who don't believe in evolution. Screw science, after all. Our medieval beliefs / economic interests are more important. Even if that means destroying our habitat. With a bit of luck, it's only our grand children who will inherit an utterly broken world. So, who cares?
"Those people are not interested in reality. I don't like people who are not interested in reality". That was Pasternak about bolsheviks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
