(01-07-2020 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 10:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 10:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Minor quibble. It was not the failure to help, but rather the failure to have anyone in a position and location from which help could be provided. The former would be a failure to respond to a crisis, the latter would be intentional, almost as if a crisis was wanted. But why?

Quote:Still, it was no secret that Benghazi was dangerous. In retrospect, it's clear that the US mission there was too lightly guarded and fortified, and Stevens himself had requested more security. How did this happen?
The problem, according to an internal State Department review, was essentially bureaucratic. Two State Department bureaus, Diplomatic Security and Near Eastern Affairs, had nominal authority — but no one person or bureau had point on Benghazi security. Both Diplomatic Security and Near Eastern Affairs made piecemeal improvements to security, but neither did enough.
The mission also had a confusing legal status. It wasn't an embassy or even an official consulate; it was so off-book that the Libyan government was never officially notified of its existence. This put the mission outside the normal State Department procedures used to allocate security funding and personnel.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/12/9489389/b...-explained

That's now why, that's what. That's what the situation was. My question is why. Why was that allowed to happen? Why was that tolerated? What was important enough to take that stupid risk?

I feel like that lays out the why pretty well - it was allowed to happen because of too much bureaucracy.

So why didn't somebody go away for a long time for it?

I'll give you my take. Bureaucracies are very adept at circling the wagons when there is a controversy. They can always figure out how to make something nobody's fault, no matter how bad it was. And republicans were so busy trying to hang Hillary for it that they forgot to ask the questions that needed asking.

Bottom line: Benghazi doesn't happen without somebody screwing up majorly. And whoever that is needs to be doing time. He or she isn't.

Without surprise inspections, how would we know if Iran was complying?

Iran got their frozen money and a lifting of sanctions.

We got ... promises.

At best this delays Iran’s entry as a nuclear power. Nukes in the hands of an Islamic theocracy...what could go wrong?

Are the inspections better now? No.

Are they worse? No.

All the stuff you mention of satellite tracking and radioactivity signatures holds now.

But the Iranians are honorable and noble people who would never lie to us, even if we are infidels.

Good to know.

(01-07-2020 05:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  How do these restrictions from the Iran deal "support letting Iran develop the bomb"?

Here is the inspection procedure, as outlined at https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publicatio...clear-deal

"In practice, under the terms of deal, inspections “where necessary, when necessary” translates to: inspections where necessary, within 24 days, if five of the parties to the deal agree, for a period of 15 years.
"Here are the steps for the inspections process related to undeclared sites [JCPOA, Annex I, Section Q, July 14, 2015.]:
“Request for clarification” (Day 0): If the IAEA has concerns about undeclared nuclear activities or sites, or any potential violations of the agreement, it will first “provide Iran the basis for such concerns and request clarification.”
“Request for access” (Days 1-14): If Iran’s explanations do not satisfy the IAEA, the Agency may submit a request to access the suspicious sites in question. The IAEA “will provide the reasons for access in writing and make available any relevant information.” Within 14 days, Iran and the IAEA must either 1) agree on the procedures to inspect the sites in question, or 2) resolve the IAEA’s concerns by alternative arrangements without inspections.
“Dispute resolution” (Days 15-21): If Iran and the IAEA cannot reach a resolution within 14 days of the IAEA’s request for access, the issue will be brought before the Joint Commission established by the agreement for dispute resolution. A consensus of 5 of the 8 members of the Joint Commission (the P5+1 nations, plus Iran, plus the EU High Representative) would issue a ruling and determine the course of action within 7 days. This means, Iran, China, and Russia could not block a consensus without the support of one Western country.
“Implementation” (Days 22-24): Following the determination of the Joint Commission, Iran would have 3 additional days to implement the decision."

That procedure has enough holes to drive a Mack truck through. Essentially there is no real inspection protocol with teeth, and with those rules and a country the size of Iran, it would be fairly easy to hide a nuke program for years.

(01-07-2020 06:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 06:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Got to tell you, all this interaction with Lad, Big, and Founty is really making me more convinced we cannot have a liberal led government in DC. Misguided idealism combined with selective deafness is not a great model.

Still waiting to hear about the “only” from Lad.

I’m still waiting for you to actually respond to the former colonel’s quote...

Also, not sure what “only” you’re talking about.

I haven’t read it, but if your point or his point, is that maybe the strike was not the best option, I can believe that. What you and I and the Colonel don’t have are the ntelligemce estimates of what he may have been planning.

The “only” is what you have interject3d into my positions that I did not say. I responded immediately, and asked several times since then where you got it. No response to multiple requests. You seem adept at looking up stuff. Look it up.

Going to dinner now.

(01-07-2020 06:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 10:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 10:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Minor quibble. It was not the failure to help, but rather the failure to have anyone in a position and location from which help could be provided. The former would be a failure to respond to a crisis, the latter would be intentional, almost as if a crisis was wanted. But why?

Quote:Still, it was no secret that Benghazi was dangerous. In retrospect, it's clear that the US mission there was too lightly guarded and fortified, and Stevens himself had requested more security. How did this happen?
The problem, according to an internal State Department review, was essentially bureaucratic. Two State Department bureaus, Diplomatic Security and Near Eastern Affairs, had nominal authority — but no one person or bureau had point on Benghazi security. Both Diplomatic Security and Near Eastern Affairs made piecemeal improvements to security, but neither did enough.
The mission also had a confusing legal status. It wasn't an embassy or even an official consulate; it was so off-book that the Libyan government was never officially notified of its existence. This put the mission outside the normal State Department procedures used to allocate security funding and personnel.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/12/9489389/b...-explained

That's now why, that's what. That's what the situation was. My question is why. Why was that allowed to happen? Why was that tolerated? What was important enough to take that stupid risk?

I feel like that lays out the why pretty well - it was allowed to happen because of too much bureaucracy.

So why didn't somebody go away for a long time for it?

I'll give you my take. Bureaucracies are very adept at circling the wagons when there is a controversy. They can always figure out how to make something nobody's fault, no matter how bad it was. And republicans were so busy trying to hang Hillary for it that they forgot to ask the questions that needed asking.

Bottom line: Benghazi doesn't happen without somebody screwing up majorly. And whoever that is needs to be doing time. He or she isn't.

Not going to lie, but having a hard line that all major incompetence, regardless of intent or whether it is negligent, deserves jail time, is a bit scary.

(01-07-2020 08:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not going to lie, but having a hard line that all major incompetence, regardless of intent or whether it is negligent, deserves jail time, is a bit scary.

It does in the military. Maybe I'm being too hard because of my training and experience in that area. But I see no reason why we can't have the same level of accountability in State Department.

We're now at war with Iran. Prayers for a quick and as safe as possible resolution.

(01-07-2020 08:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 08:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not going to lie, but having a hard line that all major incompetence, regardless of intent or whether it is negligent, deserves jail time, is a bit scary.

It does in the military. Maybe I'm being too hard because of my training and experience in that area. But I see no reason why we can't have the same level of accountability in State Department.

At some point there are too many wheels in motion and variables. I understand if you can file it under criminal negligence, but it doesn’t seem too far fetched that the Benghazi happened because it basically fell through the cracks and no one thought they were the final group who could make decisions.

Just saw this tweet - seems too shocking to be true, but I bet it is:

Quote:R eminder that as this crisis escalates, we have no Director of National Intelligence, no Dep Dir, no Homeland Security Secretary, no Dep Sec, no head of CBP or ICE, no State Dept Under Sec of Arms Control, no Asst Sec for Europe, and no Navy Sec.

https://twitter.com/vermontgmg/status/12...61888?s=21

(01-07-2020 08:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 08:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 08:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not going to lie, but having a hard line that all major incompetence, regardless of intent or whether it is negligent, deserves jail time, is a bit scary.

It does in the military. Maybe I'm being too hard because of my training and experience in that area. But I see no reason why we can't have the same level of accountability in State Department.

At some point there are too many wheels in motion and variables. I understand if you can file it under criminal negligence, but it doesn’t seem too far fetched that the Benghazi happened because it basically fell through the cracks and no one thought they were the final group who could make decisions.

And that situation cannot be tolerated.

But this goes beyond some lackey in State Department. There were no--zero, zip, nada--military units close enough to render any meaningful response. That had to be a screw up on multiple levels.

(01-07-2020 08:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just saw this tweet - seems too shocking to be true, but I bet it is:

Quote:Reminder that as this crisis escalates, we have no Director of National Intelligence, no Dep Dir, no Homeland Security Secretary, no Dep Sec, no head of CBP or ICE, no State Dept Under Sec of Arms Control, no Asst Sec for Europe, and no Navy Sec.

https://twitter.com/vermontgmg/status/12...61888?s=21

So what? There are people acting in each of those positions, and they should be able to handle it.

(01-07-2020 08:38 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  We're now at war with Iran. Prayers for a quick and as safe as possible resolution.

Not according to Iran:

Quote:Iran ‘Concludes’ Attacks, Foreign Minister Says: Live Updates
Updated Jan. 7, 2020, 11:02 p.m. ET21 minutes ago

Iran does not seek “seek escalation or war,” the minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said in a tweet hours after Iran launched missile strikes against Americans in Iraq.
...
Iran has “concluded” its attacks on American forces and does “not seek escalation or war,” the country’s foreign minister said in a tweet on Wednesday.

See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/world...-iran.html

(01-07-2020 11:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 08:38 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  We're now at war with Iran. Prayers for a quick and as safe as possible resolution.

Not according to Iran:

Quote:Iran ‘Concludes’ Attacks, Foreign Minister Says: Live Updates
Updated Jan. 7, 2020, 11:02 p.m. ET21 minutes ago

Iran does not seek “seek escalation or war,” the minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said in a tweet hours after Iran launched missile strikes against Americans in Iraq.
...
Iran has “concluded” its attacks on American forces and does “not seek escalation or war,” the country’s foreign minister said in a tweet on Wednesday.

See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/world...-iran.html

I guess the prayers have been answered.

(01-07-2020 09:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 08:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 08:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 08:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not going to lie, but having a hard line that all major incompetence, regardless of intent or whether it is negligent, deserves jail time, is a bit scary.

It does in the military. Maybe I'm being too hard because of my training and experience in that area. But I see no reason why we can't have the same level of accountability in State Department.

At some point there are too many wheels in motion and variables. I understand if you can file it under criminal negligence, but it doesn’t seem too far fetched that the Benghazi happened because it basically fell through the cracks and no one thought they were the final group who could make decisions.

And that situation cannot be tolerated.

But this goes beyond some lackey in State Department. There were no--zero, zip, nada--military units close enough to render any meaningful response. That had to be a screw up on multiple levels.

Sure - I’m not arguing there wasn’t a mistake. You asked why this happened and I pretty quickly found out that information for you.

And now I don’t see why these mistakes are deserving of jail time.

(01-08-2020 06:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sure - I’m not arguing there wasn’t a mistake. You asked why this happened and I pretty quickly found out that information for you.
And now I don’t see why these mistakes are deserving of jail time.

And that's the difference. I think they clearly deserve jail time--and a lot. They may arguably be capital treason.

(01-08-2020 08:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-08-2020 06:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sure - I’m not arguing there wasn’t a mistake. You asked why this happened and I pretty quickly found out that information for you.
And now I don’t see why these mistakes are deserving of jail time.

And that's the difference. I think they clearly deserve jail time--and a lot. They may arguably be capital treason.

Treason is defined as being when someone “levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

(01-08-2020 09:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-08-2020 08:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-08-2020 06:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sure - I’m not arguing there wasn’t a mistake. You asked why this happened and I pretty quickly found out that information for you.
And now I don’t see why these mistakes are deserving of jail time.

And that's the difference. I think they clearly deserve jail time--and a lot. They may arguably be capital treason.

Treason is defined as being when someone “levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

Some people define it as asking for a favor.

(01-07-2020 11:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 11:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 08:38 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  We're now at war with Iran. Prayers for a quick and as safe as possible resolution.

Not according to Iran:

Quote:Iran ‘Concludes’ Attacks, Foreign Minister Says: Live Updates
Updated Jan. 7, 2020, 11:02 p.m. ET21 minutes ago

Iran does not seek “seek escalation or war,” the minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said in a tweet hours after Iran launched missile strikes against Americans in Iraq.
...
Iran has “concluded” its attacks on American forces and does “not seek escalation or war,” the country’s foreign minister said in a tweet on Wednesday.

See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/world...-iran.html

I guess the prayers have been answered.

only if donny goes back on his word.... Which is the only thing he EXCELS at so there's hope!!

Heres what he said 2 days ago:
"These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner."

(01-07-2020 06:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 05:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  How do these restrictions from the Iran deal "support letting Iran develop the bomb"?

Here is the inspection procedure, as outlined at https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publicatio...clear-deal

"In practice, under the terms of deal, inspections “where necessary, when necessary” translates to: inspections where necessary, within 24 days, if five of the parties to the deal agree, for a period of 15 years.
"Here are the steps for the inspections process related to undeclared sites [JCPOA, Annex I, Section Q, July 14, 2015.]:
“Request for clarification” (Day 0): If the IAEA has concerns about undeclared nuclear activities or sites, or any potential violations of the agreement, it will first “provide Iran the basis for such concerns and request clarification.”
“Request for access” (Days 1-14): If Iran’s explanations do not satisfy the IAEA, the Agency may submit a request to access the suspicious sites in question. The IAEA “will provide the reasons for access in writing and make available any relevant information.” Within 14 days, Iran and the IAEA must either 1) agree on the procedures to inspect the sites in question, or 2) resolve the IAEA’s concerns by alternative arrangements without inspections.
“Dispute resolution” (Days 15-21): If Iran and the IAEA cannot reach a resolution within 14 days of the IAEA’s request for access, the issue will be brought before the Joint Commission established by the agreement for dispute resolution. A consensus of 5 of the 8 members of the Joint Commission (the P5+1 nations, plus Iran, plus the EU High Representative) would issue a ruling and determine the course of action within 7 days. This means, Iran, China, and Russia could not block a consensus without the support of one Western country.
“Implementation” (Days 22-24): Following the determination of the Joint Commission, Iran would have 3 additional days to implement the decision."

That procedure has enough holes to drive a Mack truck through. Essentially there is no real inspection protocol with teeth, and with those rules and a country the size of Iran, it would be fairly easy to hide a nuke program for years.

The agreement without an effective inspection clause is worthless, and only benefits Iran. (Yes, Lad I said only this time). Advocating for this agreement in effect is advocating for Iran - a state sponsor of terrorism and a threat to the world.

just listened to his remarks,, and sounds like donny's backing down. thank God!!