Althouse: "Shifting blame to our dead ambassador is wrong on the facts."

January 23, 2014

"Shifting blame to our dead ambassador is wrong on the facts."

"I know — I was there."

49 comments:

Anonymous said...: I don't want to set up a false dichotomy here, but who needs Churchill when you've got MLK and Mandela?; 1/23/14, 6:47 AM
Paco Wové said...: MLK and Mandela

I fail to see their relevance here.

What we've got are people of the stature of Hillary!, Harry Reid, Patrick Kennedy, Biden, Obama, et al.

The government we deserve, apparently.; 1/23/14, 6:51 AM
Larry J said...: Who needs experts in the field when people in DC can make all the decisions? Why not blame the dead guy? It isn't as if he has anything else to lose. Holding living government officials to blame? Why, that's just crazy talk, especially when Hillary!!! is involved.; 1/23/14, 6:54 AM
Anonymous said...: One wonders what positive sign to Patrick Kennedy encouraged him to cut security from 30 to 9?

Oh, I forgot the Accountability Review Board didn't ask him any questions...; 1/23/14, 7:08 AM
pm317 said...: However, on July 13, State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy refused the Defense Department offer and thus Chris's July 9 request. His rationale was that Libyan guards would be hired to take over this responsibility. [...] Because Mr. Kennedy had refused to extend the special forces security mission, State Department protocol required Chris to decline Gen. Ham's two offers to do so, which were made after Aug. 6.

So this explains the lack of security. And somehow Kennedy (read Obama guy) is right smack in the middle of it (Hillary did not choose him but he was chosen for that position by Obama). Hillary blogs conveniently blame budget cuts and Republicans for the lack of security but looks like it was the Obama minion in the State.; 1/23/14, 7:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Bush was waiting for the Americans or freedom-loving individuals inside of the Iraqis to jump out.

Bernard Lewis may even have influenced Bush's policy thinking such that Saddam's toxic mix of Western Fascism and tribal Sunni authoritarianism needed to go.

I mean, most folks in the West are glad both Saddam and Gadhafi are gone, but the costs and the outcomes can clearly be debated.

Obama, on the other hand, seems far enough Left that even Clintonesque interventionism rankles his instincts (and he's worried about his base)

He might be waiting for the arc of history to bend towards justice, and for some stability in the Middle-East to emerge from the Westernized protestors waiting to jump out of the Arab Springers.

That hasn't worked out so well.

Kind of a hands-off, difference splitting, peace-dealing subsumption of military power to int'l entities whether they exist or not.

I'm not calling him neo-neo-colonial, or anti-colonial, but pointing out some likely guiding principles when it comes to taking that Churchill bust out of the White House.; 1/23/14, 7:14 AM
Bob Boyd said...: "Patrick Kennedy refused...the offer"

"Leon Panetta signed the order..."

There is a name conspicuously absent from this narrative.; 1/23/14, 7:15 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Protocol required him to decline offers of security? Something tells me we need to rewrite some protocol.; 1/23/14, 7:16 AM
Anonymous said...: This is related to to overall framework of Libya to Syria to Iran to our entire current Middle-East foreign policy, and which ideals are likely guiding it.; 1/23/14, 7:16 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "But soon after the Aug. 1 meeting, and as a complete surprise to us at the embassy, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed the order without Chris's concurrence."

-- If true, that's a huge error. Chains of command exist for a reason, but it looks more and more like no one knew what was going on till it was too late.; 1/23/14, 7:21 AM
virgil xenophon said...: "Leon Panetta signed the order..."

Panetta is strictly a left-wing highly ideological political hack and lefty hatchet-man..; 1/23/14, 7:41 AM
Bob Boyd said...: Why the rush to change the nature of the mission if the facts on the ground are saying not yet?

Perception?
The US Military is protecting Americans from Libyans(situation unstable, outcome in doubt).
US Miliitary working side by side with Libyans training them. (situation stable, outcome already positive).
Progress that could be reported to an electorate headed to the polls in mere weeks.; 1/23/14, 7:41 AM
pm317 said...: Why the rush to change the nature of the mission if the facts on the ground are saying not yet?

Notice Panetta and Obama man in the State, Kennedy are in on it. Where was Hillary and Obama on it?

And I think Althouse correctly surmised that they wanted to project an aura of success -- but she incorrectly attributed it to Hillary and Stevens in her previous post.; 1/23/14, 7:53 AM
damikesc said...: Notice Panetta and Obama man in the State, Kennedy are in on it. Where was Hillary and Obama on it?

No better evidence exists that these people should have no power than the realization that their underlings think they should have no power and they don't seem to mind.; 1/23/14, 8:27 AM
chickelit said...: -- If true, that's a huge error. Chains of command exist for a reason, but it looks more and more like no one knew what was going on till it was too late.

That sounds like a titanic error.; 1/23/14, 8:32 AM
Mark O said...: Percipient witnesses can ruin your narrative.

One year ago today, Hillary revealed the sum of her character when she asked, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"; 1/23/14, 8:39 AM
madAsHell said...: It's curious that Hillary wasn't in the command loop. It's "Duck Soup" starring Hillary as Margaret Dumont.

So, Mr. Hicks testimony is not included in the final report, and he takes it to the Wall Street Journal.

Stay safe, Mr. Hicks!!; 1/23/14, 8:46 AM
Skyler said...: I wonder why it takes a year to learn these things.; 1/23/14, 8:48 AM
garage mahal said...: As you know, you go to Benghazi with the security you have, not the security you might want or wish to have at a later time.; 1/23/14, 8:50 AM
Browndog said...: garage mahal said...

As you know, you go to Benghazi with the security you have, not the security you might want or wish to have at a later time

The case was made (why we went to war). Rightly or wrongly.

Maybe you can make the case as to why Stevens was in Benghazi on 9/11, and not in Tripoli.; 1/23/14, 9:01 AM
garage mahal said...: Maybe you can make the case as to why Stevens was in Benghazi on 9/11, and not in Tripoli.

I couldn't make the case why any ambassador should be present in any Islamic shit-hole around the world.; 1/23/14, 9:06 AM
Mark O said...: When we learn the reason Stevens was in Benghazi, all will be revealed.; 1/23/14, 9:22 AM
Darrell said...: Remember all the facts that first came out within a month or two of the terrorist attack? They still hold. We had to hire a British security firm because American firms wouldn't put up with the restrictions on the contract--especially that the guards NOT HAVE ammunition. Dig up the rest.

Garage always fucks himself anyway. I don't have to tell him to do it.; 1/23/14, 9:32 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: It requires a willing suspension of disbelief to think that Clinton was unaware of the specifics of what was occurring with the security, and that Obama was unaware of at least the general concept of what was occurring with the security.; 1/23/14, 9:32 AM
SGT Ted said...: Pin it on the dead guy = low class.; 1/23/14, 9:37 AM
SGT Ted said...: If Hillary isn't in the loop, that makes Hillary the incompetent one.; 1/23/14, 9:40 AM
SGT Ted said...: Garage shows his ignorance of how security operations work.; 1/23/14, 9:43 AM
SGT Ted said...: garage forgets that the reason Obama had his Ambassador in Bhengazi is that Obama was supporting the Islamists that overthrew and killed Ghaddafi and didn't think things through. Then, when the guys on the ground asked for better security, it was denied to them, by Dept of State, who's boss is Obama. It doesn't matter why.

Failure of Leadership at the very top. There's no excuse for it. None.; 1/23/14, 9:47 AM
Fen said...: We need a new qualifier for President, to be asked of each candidate at every debate:

"Have you ever taken responsibility for mistakes you made in your previous jobs? Provide examples."; 1/23/14, 9:47 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "If Hillary isn't in the loop, that makes Hillary the incompetent one."

-- I steadfastly remain open to the possibility of there being more than one incompetent.; 1/23/14, 9:56 AM
SGT Ted said...: @Matthew,

Oh the entire lot of them up there are incompetent. You could ID where they are just using a weather map.; 1/23/14, 10:03 AM
Wince said...: Poll: Majority of Registered Voters Say Obama Administration Is Not Competent

The only bright spot in the Quinnipiac poll for President Obama is his positive approval on terrorism — 48 percent to 41 percent say they approve of the job Obama is doing to fight terrorism.

There seems to be a time lag in how the Obama media myths eventually crumble, in direct proportion to the unmistakable immediacy of the actual, unreported truth.; 1/23/14, 10:06 AM
Trashhauler said...: "...[Y]ou go to Benghazi with the security you have, not the security you might want or wish to have at a later time."

That's kind of a (perhaps intentional) silly comparison. Rumsfeld was referring to a physical limitation about what existed at the time, whereas the Benghazi restriction on security seems to have been a combination of bureaucratic inertia and misunderstanding.

Such errors happen all the time when working interagency, and particularly in dealings between Defense and State. Most are corrected before anyone gets killed, but sometimes not. Even then, such errors can be forgiven, if acknowledged and corrected. Ass-covering is to nobody's credit.; 1/23/14, 11:03 AM
Anonymous said...: garage mahal said...
As you know, you go to Benghazi with the security you have, not the security you might want or wish to have at a later time.

The analogy being Rumsfeld and Iraq?

It fails on two points:

1. You don't need to go to Benghazi until the security is better. Yeah, you can make the argument about Iraq but Establishing a Consulate isn't a huge undertaking, and

2. The scale is off by 3 orders of magnitude. Rumsfeld took perhaps 170,000 troops to Baghdad, and perhaps would have been better with double that. But the Army wasn't big enough to send double (period) and certainly not sustain them ina rotation. He tried on the cheap and it failed. As a former Army officer: "Few operations fail due to too many troops" :)

In Libya, we're arguing about 9 versus 30. The Army can come up with 21 or 210, or 2100 extra SOF troops for a location if it has the priority...

It was a policy, a political, a management decision, not a resource constrained decision.; 1/23/14, 11:05 AM
jr565 said...: As Hillary said "what does it matter?"
As garage intones : fake scandal.

You're not going to get lefties admit to error, even though an ambassador was killed. Meanwhile, we need to get to the bottom of traffic jams in New Jersey under the Christie admin. And no stone will be left unturned.; 1/23/14, 11:11 AM
jr565 said...: garage mahal said...
As you know, you go to Benghazi with the security you have, not the security you might want or wish to have at a later time.

Crap argument. Since of course the embassy could be granted more security. If they don't have enough at the time, and especially if some was requested but denied, then its not comparable.; 1/23/14, 11:14 AM
jr565 said...: Further, in regards to Iraq, when more troops were asked for!, more were sent. When more security was asked for by the embassy IT WAS denied.

Rumsfeld was t arguing that no further troops could be added to the field. The stated department apparently was.; 1/23/14, 11:17 AM
jr565 said...: "You go to benghazi with the security you have."
But we were already in benghazi so its not a question of going there. And were talking the difference of an invasion, versus adding a few people to a security detail.; 1/23/14, 11:21 AM
Rusty said...: garage mahal said...

As you know, you go to Benghazi with the security you have, not the security you might want or wish to have at a later time

Indeed. What was on hand would of been helpful, but somebody gave them the order to stand down.
Nearby security operatives were prepared to go to their rescue.
Who gave the order for them to stand down?

You know a lot about lying. Why concoct an elaborate lie? A foolish one at that.; 1/23/14, 12:35 PM
garage mahal said...: You know a lot about lying.

Known as "facts you don't like".; 1/23/14, 12:57 PM
B said...: Shifting blame to our dead ambassador is wrong on the facts.

Shifting blame to a video producer was also wrong on the facts. The ambassador is dead and the video producer is in jail.

But hey, at this point, what difference does it make?; 1/23/14, 4:04 PM
Rusty said...: garage mahal said...
You know a lot about lying.

Known as "facts you don't like".

The irony screams down the quarter mile.

When you come up with some, garage, post em.; 1/23/14, 4:25 PM
mccullough said...: By this account, General Ham comes off well. And Stevens acquiesced due to protocol to Kennedy's decision not to have more US military security but to rely on the Libyans. And Stevens agreed that additional US Security shouldn't stay unless they remained under his command, instead of military command, so they could have diplomatic immunity. But since State, through Kennedy with Stevens protocol-driven acquiescence, said no additional troops, the additional troops were withdrawn.

So Stevens deference to State protocol was a partial cause of his death.; 1/23/14, 4:27 PM
mccullough said...: I don't see how Panetta is to blame here. Stevens was partially using the diplomatic immunity issue as an excuse to keep the special forces as security instead of transferring them to military command to train the Libyans. But Stevens had already acquiesced to Kennedy's decision that no additional US security would continue. So how is Panetta to blame for signing the transfer of authority order? Worse, when the military got into a firefight with some Libyans, Stevens said the special forces should be withdrawn until diplomatic immunity could be worked out. Despite Stevens request, Ham ordered six troops to remain anyway. Stevens seems like a good guy in an impossible situation but this story doesn't begin to explain why he couldn't push back against Kennedy or go over his head to Hillary. Protocol is more important than your life?; 1/23/14, 4:46 PM
n.n said...: The aftermath of our intervention in Libya, including Benghazi, can be explained by a sudden need to launch a preemptive strike and regime change. This is not above Obama's pay grade; but, it does escape his better judgment.; 1/23/14, 5:30 PM
Bob Boyd said...: maccollough

"...explain why he couldn't push back against Kennedy or go over his head to Hillary..."

Because she already knew.; 1/23/14, 6:20 PM
jr565 said...: Garage, that should read 'Known as "facts" you don't like.'

It's your "facts" that are in question.; 1/23/14, 7:39 PM
mccullough said...: Bob Boyd,

Maybe Hillary knew and it was her decision but is there evidence of that? Was P. Kennedy taking orders from the White House?; 1/23/14, 11:21 PM
Kirby Olson said...: Blame the victim. It works, especially if they are dead, and cannot respond. Unfortunately there is this hick, Hicks.; 1/24/14, 7:39 AM