SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (60434)12/19/2012 11:05:45 PM
From: greatplains_guy  Respond to of 71588
 
It is very interesting which things that are politically inconvenient the Administration chooses to classify and which classified things that would put our nation at risk to expose are declassified.

Benghazi where Obama showed how incompetent he and his team are is classified. Seal Team Six is put at risk by Obama to create propaganda that helps him.



To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (60434)12/25/2012 9:36:24 PM
From: greatplains_guy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 71588
 
Accountabiity and Questions on Benghazi
By New Hampshire Union Leader, New Hampshire Union Leader
December 22, 2012

The U.S. State Department knowingly left U.S. personnel in Libya with substandard security despite repeated requests for upgrades, an independent review has concluded. And again we return to the main questions, still unanswered.

"Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the 'Department') resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place," concluded the Accountability Review Board report, released this week.

"Overall, the number of Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) security staff in Benghazi on the day of the attack and in the months and weeks leading up to it was inadequate, despite repeated requests from Special Mission Benghazi and Embassy Tripoli for additional staffing," the review concluded. It noted that "the Special Mission was not a high priority for Washington when it came to security-related requests, especially those relating to staffing" and that the "security platform was at variance with the appropriate Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB) standards with respect to perimeter and interior security."

Why those requests went unanswered remains a mystery, as does the reason why the administration repeatedly mentioned protests against an offensive video when such protests never happened. The American people and the families of those who died still need answers to these questions. Three fall guys have resigned over the report. But the most important questions, including who is ultimately responsible, remain unanswered.

unionleader.com



To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (60434)12/29/2012 9:00:43 AM
From: greatplains_guy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 



To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (60434)1/24/2013 9:35:12 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
'What Difference Does It Make?'
Mrs. Clinton finds herself in a familiar, if ironic, role.
January 23, 2013

By JAMES TARANTO
Hillary Clinton is ending her tenure as secretary of state in fiery fashion. "You really get the sense that [Mrs.] Clinton barely managed to restrain herself from dropping an F-bomb there," remarks New York magazine's Dan Amira. He refers to an exchange between the secretary and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing this morning.

Johnson pressed her about the administration's conflicting explanations for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which killed the ambassador and three other Americans. "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans," said the secretary snappishly to the senator. "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

So it's "our job to figure out what happened" but it doesn't make a difference what happened? Huh? What would we do without rhetorical questions? We suppose we'd answer them, as Commentary's Jonathan Tobin does:

The answer to her question is clear. An administration that sought, for political purposes, to give the American people the idea that al-Qaeda had been "decimated" and was effectively out of commission had a clear motive during a presidential campaign to mislead the public about Benghazi. The fact that questions are still unanswered about this crime and that Clinton and President Obama seem more interested in burying this story along with the four Americans that died is an outrage that won't be forgotten.


Especially if she runs for president in 2016. As we watched this exchange, it occurred to us that Mrs. Clinton was back in a familiar role, and an ironic one for someone who is supposed to be a feminist icon. Once again, she was helping the most powerful man in the world dodge accountability for scandalous behavior.

Almost exactly 15 years ago, on Jan. 27, 1998, then-First Lady Clinton went on NBC's "Today" show amid rumors that her husband had carried on a sexual affair with a lowly subordinate in the Oval Office: "The great story here, for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it, is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

How vast was the right-wing conspiracy really? With all due respect, what difference does it make? Mr. Clinton had in fact carried on the affair in the Oval Office and lied under oath about it in a sexual harassment lawsuit; he subsequently lied in a criminal investigation as well. As a result, history remembers Mrs. Clinton and Eliza McCardle Johnson (no relation to Ron, as far as we know) as the only women ever married to impeached presidents.

Then again, it's not as if Mrs. Clinton hasn't had any successes at Foggy Bottom. Why just yesterday, according to a press release, the department "launched its first Empowering Women and Girls Through Sports Initiative program of the year. . . . The Empowering Women and Girls Through Sports Initiative builds on Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's vision of 'smart power,' which embraces the full range of diplomatic tools--in this case, sports--to empower women and girls and foster greater understanding."

And a State Department blog brings this exciting news from Ruth Bennett, deputy information officer at the U.S. Embassy in Berlin:

Many Germans spent their dinner hour [Monday] night watching or listening to President Obama deliver his second inaugural address. We don't yet have the numbers, but precedent would suggest it was a very large crowd. When then-Senator Obama delivered a speech in 2008 against the dramatic backdrop of Berlin's golden Victory Column, he was himself the golden candidate--more than 200,000 admiring fans turned out to see him, and, after election, his German approval ratings hovered around 93 percent. By the June 2012 Pew Research poll, that approval level had "plummeted" . . . to 87 percent.


Bennett gives an account from inside the embassy, where Ambassador Philip Murphy held an "informal gathering":

A few guests got into a lively discussion about what they liked about the Obama Administration--its policy focus on issues like women's rights and the environment. One guest, a talk-show host, noted that focus on social issues resonated well with Germans, whose policy orientation was similarly inclined. Small good-natured debates about these sentiments broke out among the attendees. But then, suddenly, the President began speaking, and a rapt, happy silence fell over the crowded room.


We didn't see Obama's speech--it was on a lot earlier in the day where we live than in Berlin--but we wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be better in the original German.

online.wsj.com



To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (60434)1/25/2013 10:52:00 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
3 Incredibly Outrageous Evasions by Hillary Clinton About Benghazi
Nick Gillespie
Jan. 24, 2013 9:19 am

During a long day of testifying before House and Senate panels, outgoing Secretary of State - and presumptive Democratic Party candidate for the presidency in 2016 - Hillary Clinton batted away contentious questions from Republicans like Ted Williams at a Little League game. She also soaked up extreme adulation from Democrats (including a a not-so-coded call to run for president by Sen. Barbara Boxer, who said, "You will be missed, but I for one hope for not too long").

The scene reminded me of nothing so much as Oliver North's appearance before a joint Congressional committee investigating Iran-Contra back in the 1980s. Not because of anything Clinton said but the way that she carried herself and the ease with which she wrapped herself in the flag and tragedy to obscure the simple fact that she wasn't going to answer anything. North famously showed up to testify in a military uniform that had nothing to do with his day job of subverting the U.S. Constitution from the basement of the Reagan White House. Clinton couldn't repeat that fashion statement but she was able to pound the table and choke up at all the right moments to evade serious discussion not simply of major screw-ups, but major screw-ups that will go unaccounted for.

Three major evasions from her appearances yesterday include:

1. "I take responsiblity."

From a fair and balanced Fox News report of the Senate hearing:

During the opening of the hearing, Clinton said she has "no higher priority" than the security of her department's staff, and that she is committed to making the department "safer, stronger and more secure."

"As I have said many times, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right," Clinton said, later choking up when describing how she greeted the families of the victims when the caskets were returned.


Taking responsibility is the classic dodge in Washington, where pols assume the mantle of leadership and them promptly do nothing to address the situation for which they are in hot water. What does it mean to take responsiblity for the absolute breakdown of security at a consulate where your ambassador gets murdered (along with three others)? Judging from Clinton's subsequent actions, nothing other than showing up when the dead are brought home. Worse still is Clinton's misting up over the tragedy. That makes her a little too much like the kid who kills his parents and then asks the court to take mercy on him because he's now an orphan.

2. "1.43 million cables come to my office."

Democrat ally ABC News reporting from the House hearings:

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, asked Clinton this afternoon why her office had not responded to a notification from Stevens about potential dangers in Libya.

"Congressman, that cable did not come to my attention," Clinton calmly told the House Foreign Affairs Committee hours after her Senate testimony this morning. "I'm not aware of anyone within my office, within the secretary's office having seen that cable."

She added that "1.43 million cables come to my office. They're all addressed to me."


Come on, already. The question is plainly not whether Clinton is reading every goddamned communication addressed to her but whether she's got the right people in charge of assessing risk and making sure resources are apportioned accordingly. Tragically, the answer was no, especially given the fact that State had cut security in Benghazi despite attacks prior to the deadly 9/11 one! This just ain't no way to run things.

3. "What difference at this point does it make?"

From a CBS News account of a confrontation between Secretary Clinton and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.):

“We were misled that there were supposedly protests and an assault spraying out of that and it was easily obtained that it was not the fact the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said.

“The fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” Clinton responded.


Clinton's statement may set a new standard for politically motivated evasions of basic truth and decency. Seriously: What difference does it make? Just for low-stakes starters, there's a guy in California who was put in jail basically because the Obama administration said his stupid, irrelevant video trailer for "The Innocence of Muslims" was to blame for anti-Americanism in Libya and beyond. President Obama went to the United Nations and bitch-slapped free expression in front of a global audience on the premise that "Innocence" was the cause of the attack on Benghazi. Our own U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, took to the talk shows to peddle a line that was either wilfully misleading or simply totally wrong (Rice was the admin's point person in early appearances about Benghazi partly because, as Clinton explained yesterday, she doesn't like doing Sunday morning shows!).

Contra Clinton, it makes a great deal of difference because understanding how this all happened is the first step to making sure it doesn't happen over and over and over again.

Congressional grillings of outgoing cabinet members are not the best forum to seek truth and justice and too many of the GOP inquisitors seem determined merely to score partisan points. Then again, the Obama adminstration, at least when it comes to Benghazi, hasn't done much to be the transparent change it says it wants in all areas of government. After a blistering Senate report on the situation found "systematic failures," essentially nothing happened (at least that we know about). Two minor staffers have been booted as a result of Clinton's taking of "responsibility."

Worse still: As Hillary Clinton leaves the high-stakes world of international intrigue, she's set to be replaced by John Kerry, who somehow manages to be an interventionist and supposedly informed by the nation's experience in Vietnam at the same time.

So things can - and likely will - only get worse.

reason.com