Republicans, please explain the Behghazi outrage to me

[werepossum]

No, sweetie, I'm just challenging you to provide factual support for your BS claim:
If so, if we would truly have been "deluged" with the same tripe Fox fed its faithful followers about Benghazi, it should be trivially easy for you to find and post such examples. After all, they would be a "deluge" according to you. Your refusal to do so, in my opinion, is a perfect metaphor for the overall Benghazi "issue": empty partisan rage supported by nothing except a compulsion to attack Obama. There is no "there" there; it's all emotional raging, devoid of substance and reason. In short, you, Fox, and all the other screeching haters are all hat, no cattle.

Four Americans died in an unprovoked attack. Yes, as is always the case, mistakes were made and there are things we could have done better to reduce our exposure. It is an imperfect world, however, and resources are limited. So, we learn from those mistakes and try to do better. It certainly appears the Obama administration is doing exactly that. The bottom line remains that it wasn't Obama who killed those Americans, and the outrage directed at Obama is purely partisan in nature. Intelligent, reasoning Americans understand that rage should be directed instead at the terrorists who attacked us.

I think the issue here is that the Ambassador had NO protection, only a gang of Libyans who predictably hit the road when the shit hit the fan. Indigenous civilians aren't protection, they are a jobs program, and everyone knows this. I see it much like Mogadishu, where the people on the ground recognize the gravity of the situation and make specific, reasonable requests which are denied for political reasons with deadly consequences. (International politics, not domestic politics obviously.) In hind sight, the refusal to provide protection is grossly stupid and irresponsible, so I do understand why some consider it a scandal. Beirut is another example. Although there was little to no institutional experience in truck bombs or hardening buildings at the time, the Marines were kept static for political reasons when they knew they should be out aggressively patrolling and running checkpoints. As a consequence, instead of controlling the city the Marines became a static target, greatly simplifying the logistics of effectively attacking them.

I don't personally consider it to be a particular scandal as such because government (especially State) commonly makes such decisions and far too often chooses appeasement of foreign governments over practicality. And I doubt Obama was even in the loop; even when the Ambassador was under attack, from Panetta's statements he could only be bothered to have one phone conversation. If it's that unimportant to him, I highly doubt he made the decisions to keep the Ambassador in Benghazi or to deny protection. I also imagine that whoever did make those decisions had their reasons, although I doubt I'd agree with them.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You left out one key part:

But that aside, what point are you hoping to make? I believe we all understand there are countless allegations of bias ... on both sides. Allegations are not proof, however.

You and I both know that media bias is very hard to prove. However, I do believe there are legitimate concerns and that is my point.

 

[ivwshane]

I think the issue here is that the Ambassador had NO protection, only a gang of Libyans who predictably hit the road when the shit hit the fan. Indigenous civilians aren't protection, they are a jobs program, and everyone knows this. I see it much like Mogadishu, where the people on the ground recognize the gravity of the situation and make specific, reasonable requests which are denied for political reasons with deadly consequences. (International politics, not domestic politics obviously.) In hind sight, the refusal to provide protection is grossly stupid and irresponsible, so I do understand why some consider it a scandal. Beirut is another example. Although there was little to no institutional experience in truck bombs or hardening buildings at the time, the Marines were kept static for political reasons when they knew they should be out aggressively patrolling and running checkpoints. As a consequence, instead of controlling the city the Marines became a static target, greatly simplifying the logistics of effectively attacking them.

I don't personally consider it to be a particular scandal as such because government (especially State) commonly makes such decisions and far too often chooses appeasement of foreign governments over practicality. And I doubt Obama was even in the loop; even when the Ambassador was under attack, from Panetta's statements he could only be bothered to have one phone conversation. If it's that unimportant to him, I highly doubt he made the decisions to keep the Ambassador in Benghazi or to deny protection. I also imagine that whoever did make those decisions had their reasons, although I doubt I'd agree with them.

The problem is that it's always been the host nations responsibility to protect embassies. Would you like foreign forces in our country protecting their embassies?

You and I both know that media bias is very hard to prove. However, I do believe there are legitimate concerns and that is my point.

That may be true but it still does nothing to prove mono's case that there was an administration cover up around Benghazi.

 

[TerryMathews]

The problem is that it's always been the host nations responsibility to protect embassies. Would you like foreign forces in our country protecting their embassies?



That may be true but it still does nothing to prove mono's case that there was an administration cover up around Benghazi.

Explain this then. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Security_Guard#section_4

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That may be true but it still does nothing to prove mono's case that there was an administration cover up around Benghazi.

The Obama administration has been less than forthcoming regarding particulars of their actions before, during and after the Benghazi attack. In fact, they've been highly uncooperative. It seems to me that some would prefer to argue semantics rather than express any concern regarding this complete lack of transparency that some might call "cover up".

 

[werepossum]

The problem is that it's always been the host nations responsibility to protect embassies. Would you like foreign forces in our country protecting their embassies?

That may be true but it still does nothing to prove mono's case that there was an administration cover up around Benghazi.

No, American embassies have American security. It's a primary Marine function. Each nation has the larger responsibility to protect embassies - meaning to respond effectively to violence - but each nation also provides its own bodyguards as its first line of defense. Especially in the Middle East and Africa, indigenous protection is rarely more than a jobs program and a figurehead; the real protection are the Marines and, in especially dangerous areas, private paramilitary subcontractors who are almost exclusively American ex-military. But even insanely safe places like Singapore and Geneva have Marine detachments.

If you wish, you can browse the Marine Embassy Guard Association's web site (http://embassymarine.org/) or even its detachment page (http://www.msg-history.com/detachments.html). Most detachments have rosters as well, although it's worth noting that only Marines who have joined the Marine Embassy Guard Association and entered their service records who will show up.

 

[werepossum]

Here is another nail in the sham argument that embassies, consulates and legations are defended only by the host nation.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/24/marines-embassy-security/1789739/

The Marine Corps could face significant challenges fulfilling a congressional mandate to nearly double its number of embassy security guards at a time when the service is drawing down its active-duty force.

In response to the deadly attack in September on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Congress has called for 1,000 new Marine security guards to provide additional protection for U.S. diplomatic facilities around the world. About 1,200 Marine security guards now are assigned to more than 130 countries.

The additional guards would be assigned to the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group, based in Quantico, Va., and to regional commands and detachments at embassies, consulates and diplomatic facilities worldwide. The extra personnel would be authorized beginning fiscal year 2014 and would be available for three years.

The service anticipates it will be able to assess and train the enough Marines to fulfill the new requirement, said a Marine Corps spokesman at the Pentagon, Capt. Gregory Wolf.

But filling manpower quotas has been a challenge even when the State Department capped the number of Marine security guards at much lower levels, said Andrew Bufalo, a retired Marine master sergeant who served as a detachment commander at American embassies in the Republic of Congo and Australia. He's the author of Ambassadors in Blue, a book about the Embassy Security Group.

Nearly doubling its size won't come easy, Bufalo said.

"When you look at the quality of troops you need out at the (Embassy Security Group), usually they're the better Marines, so commanders don't want to let them go to that duty," he said. "Then you get to the school and you have a high attrition rate because the standards are high."

Those high standards historically result in a 25% washout rate at Quantico's Marine Security Guard School, Wolf said. That means for every 200 students, sergents and below, who start the seven-week training program, about 150 go on to become Marine security guards.

In comparison, the washout rate has averaged less than 3% in the past two years at Marine Corps Security Force Regiment, which trains Fleet Antiterrorism Security Teams in Norfolk, Va., a Marine official there said. Those platoons can be dispatched to shore up security at diplomatic facilities when trouble arises, as they were in wake of the Benghazi attack and other violent incidents abroad during the fall.

A report released Tuesday by the State Department summarizes an independent review board's findings on the Sept. 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi. It cites several internal failures that led to inadequate security for preventing and responding to the incident, which left U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead.

SNIP

EDIT
I will add that although there was definitely an administration cover-up in the days after the attack, in my view it was not to cover up malfeasance. It was just to prevent the bad decisions that caused those deaths from being used politically by the Romney team. A lot of the silly arguments made today on political blogs are in my opinion based on arguments that were never intended to stand, merely to give a semblance of cover to the administration's proxies in attacking the attackers. Doesn't matter what the dumb masses eventually know or believe as long as it didn't affect the election - which is also why a military/CIA finding of terrorism (which leads to an investigation which leads to the many mistakes that allowed this to happen) morphed into the more politically palatable talking points of a spontaneous uprising based on an obscure Internet video - which obviously couldn't be predicted. This is why one picks a politician/political operative to run the CIA and Homeland Security, so that he will officially tell you what you need to officially hear.

 

[First]

This thread is truly revealing of the conservative psychosis currently destroying the party and movement. This fact will be noted in the history books no doubt as the loons running the asylum, who may never realize it.

 

[werepossum]

This thread is truly revealing of the conservative psychosis currently destroying the party and movement. This fact will be noted in the history books no doubt as the loons running the asylum, who may never realize it.

Perhaps you could help us out by pointing out which parts of this are our hallucinations, the Marines guarding other ambassadors or the dead Americans.

 

[TerryMathews]

Perhaps you could help us out by pointing out which parts of this are our hallucinations, the Marines guarding other ambassadors or the dead Americans.

Look, who is the expert here, ivwshane or the DoD?

 

[Gintaras]

People died, Obama lied, and that's way worse than the other way around.

People dies, BUT...IF BUSH DIDN"T LIE....How the hell WTC 7 fell down? No aircraft with so called terrorists hit the building...

 

[rudder]

People dies, BUT...IF BUSH DIDN"T LIE....How the hell WTC 7 fell down? No aircraft with so called terrorists hit the building...

Well actually... Debris froma building that was hit by an airplane cause the wtc7 to collapse...but not really sure what this has to do with Libya.

There are allegations that the current nominee for the top CiA job pissed off the militants by use of CIA goon squads which was the real reason behind the attacks. So we will see.

 

[ivwshane]

Explain this then. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Security_Guard#section_4

Lol

How about I quote from the marines own PDF file:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/138440.pdf

The primary mission of MSGs is to provide internal security services at U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities abroad, to prevent the compromise of classified U.S. Government information and equipment under a range of circumstances, up to and including hostile assaults. Their secondary mission is to provide protection for U.S. citizens and property located within those official U.S. facilities during situations that require urgent action. They react immediately to crises large and small, including demonstrations, bomb threats, fires, nuclear/biological/chemical threats, and facility intrusion attempts. As such, MSGs stand as a solid line of defense for American diplomacy.

Their primary duty is essentially the destruction of classified information.

At our highest threat posts, RSOs may often require further security assistance. In those instances, DS dispatches Mobile Security Teams from Washington to conduct training for embassy personnel, their dependents, and local guards in protective tactics such as attack recognition, self-defense, hostage survival, and defensive driving. These teams also provide emergency security support to overseas posts, including protective security for COMs, surveillance detection operations, and assistance with post evacuations. In cases where the host country is either unable or unwilling to provide necessary security for the conduct of American diplomacy, specially trained DS special agents lead contractor-provided personal protection teams and guard services in areas of ongoing conflict.

http://www.state.gov/m/ds/about/overview/c9004.htm


Wikipedia is nice but requires critical thinking skills and google won't help you with that