US Embassy Stormed in Cairo...

[Uncle Ted]

Look, if the State Department actually had credible information that attacks were imminent and did nothing, it would be outrageous.

Given that there is no possible reasonable motivation to intentionally put diplomats at risk (including a well-loved ambassador who was close to Clinton) I feel quite confident there is much more to the story than you suggest.

Time to get outraged...

Libya: We gave US a three-day warning of Benghazi attack on consulate

US diplomats were warned of possible violent unrest in Benghazi three days before the killings of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three members of his team, Libyan security officials say.

The claim came as the country's interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, said his government had information that the attack on the US consulate had been planned by an Islamist group with links to al-Qa'ida and with foreigners taking part.

[...]

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...#ixzz26p1VXFJx

[Moliere]

Time to get outraged...



Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...#ixzz26p1VXFJx

I'm not outraged. I'm buying the WH talking point it was all spontaneous. Did you see the video of Mitt Romney criticizing the 50% of Americans that don't pay taxes!!??!!

[Maximus]

I read what was the translation of what's in the video. But I also know what a dead body looks like. Do you?

no one is denying the guy is dead.

[oxcoug]

Yes, crass indeed.

Oh spare me, I'll show you crass. MBN, the fact that he served tours in other Muslim states doesn't answer the question as he wasn't a US Ambassador - the symbolic head and most visible figure of the US government - in any of those places. And there were plenty of other qualified people.

And Frank - I don't care at all about the man's sexuality - I care very much about his safety and well-being and that of American diplomatic personnel. As such I care about the judgment (or lack of) evidenced in his appointment. There are no political points scored here - I'm not even aware of the any political conversation around the fact - I shared information shared with me by Foreign Service personnel, one of which has served in the same country as Stevens.

The question isn't anyone here politicizing it - it's the fact that however medieval it might be, a gay Ambassador will be interpreted as a provocation by fundamentalist Muslims - does anyone actually dispute that?

And if a mob of Armenians killed a US Ambassador of obvious Turkish extraction would it be "crass" of me to point out that it might have been bad judgment to install a Turkish dude as the Ambassador to Armenia? Or if we sent a guy named "Israel Cohen" in a kippah to be Ambassador to Egypt and he got killed by a mob - wld it be "crass" for me to suggest that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to send Tevye into an assignment with militant Islamic elements?

[calicoug]

Time to get outraged...



Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...#ixzz26p1VXFJx

No it isn't.

First, they are suggesting the Libyan diplomatic corp was informed of security issues. That's the group that was actually attacked. So are we being asked to believe they didn't care about security issues involving themselves?

Second, we don't know who they spoke to or who else was told about those issues after the meeting.

Third, we don't know if the report is true.

Fourth, we don't know (if the report is true) if the information was credible.

Fifth, we don't know if there was any response.

These kinds of reports exist after most terrorist attacks. People want someone to blame (see 9/11). It is possible there is reason for outrage. This isn't it.

[byu71]

No it isn't.

First, they are suggesting the Libyan diplomatic corp was informed of security issues. That's the group that was actually attacked. So are we being asked to believe they didn't care about security issues involving themselves?

Second, we don't know who they spoke to or who else was told about those issues after the meeting.

Third, we don't know if the report is true.

Fourth, we don't know (if the report is true) if the information was credible.

Fifth, we don't know if there was any response.

These kinds of reports exist after most terrorist attacks. People want someone to blame (see 9/11). It is possible there is reason for outrage. This isn't it.

Romney needs a guy like you to spin him out of his problems.

By the way, you aren't an intern for MSNBC are you.


Note: I realize I was being a smart ass and just couldn't help myself. I regard you as a very intelligent political foe.

[frank ryan]

Oh spare me, I'll show you crass. MBN, the fact that he served tours in other Muslim states doesn't answer the question as he wasn't a US Ambassador - the symbolic head and most visible figure of the US government - in any of those places. And there were plenty of other qualified people.

And Frank - I don't care at all about the man's sexuality - I care very much about his safety and well-being and that of American diplomatic personnel. As such I care about the judgment (or lack of) evidenced in his appointment. There are no political points scored here - I'm not even aware of the any political conversation around the fact - I shared information shared with me by Foreign Service personnel, one of which has served in the same country as Stevens.

The question isn't anyone here politicizing it - it's the fact that however medieval it might be, a gay Ambassador will be interpreted as a provocation by fundamentalist Muslims - does anyone actually dispute that?

And if a mob of Armenians killed a US Ambassador of obvious Turkish extraction would it be "crass" of me to point out that it might have been bad judgment to install a Turkish dude as the Ambassador to Armenia? Or if we sent a guy named "Israel Cohen" in a kippah to be Ambassador to Egypt and he got killed by a mob - wld it be "crass" for me to suggest that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to send Tevye into an assignment with militant Islamic elements?

He was killed because he was the Ambassador not because he was a gay man.

[calicoug]

Romney needs a guy like you to spin him out of his problems.

By the way, you aren't an intern for MSNBC are you.


Note: I realize I was being a smart ass and just couldn't help myself. I regard you as a very intelligent political foe.

. No worries. I enjoy our chats.

And Romney needs someone much smarter than me. If you believe Politico, his operation is a mess.

[il Padrino Ute]

How will this administration spin this?

My guess is that Carney will say something along the lines of "See? This is what happens when free speech runs amok."

[byu71]

. No worries. I enjoy our chats.

And Romney needs someone much smarter than me. If you believe Politico, his operation is a mess.

I watch way too many of these political entertainment shows. I watch O'Reilly, Morning Joe, the first part of Chuckie Todd's show, Chris Hayes, Anderson Cooper, Meet the Press, Fox News Sunday, Gretta on occasion and no one will ever convince me the media isn't in the tank for Obama and the dems.

I actually think with them seeing the polls show most of America believes that, they feel less of the need to try and hide it.

Like most things with these type of shows something is out there, like a Peggy Noonan or Crystal or Erik Ericson who have their own agenda's which go beyond getting a republican elected. It then becomes easy to enhance this into reporting of contentions within the campaign and play it up to the hilt.

Romney doesn't need advice from the "sideliners" on the political entertainment shows. The folks within his own party though are probably more damaging to him than those on the other side.

The dems do seem more united behind a liberal agenda. Republicans can't even define what a conservative is even though most of them claim to be one. Is Noonan, Crystal, Hannity, Beck, George Will, Limbaugh, Erick Ericson et. al. all conservatives? Dumb ass Hannity proudly claims he is a conservative not a republican. Heck, I thought I was one (conservative not a dumb ass), but I don't really relate well to any of them, except we all supposedly want Obama out.

So yes, I think Politico is spinning and we provide the climate to make that spin easy.

[il Padrino Ute]

Egypt has issued an arrest warrant for Terry Jones and others.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1893315.html

[oxcoug]

He was killed because he was the Ambassador not because he was a gay man.

You have no idea what all when into the calculations of those who plotted his death.

But regardless, please answer my question: Are militant Islamic radicals likely to interpret an openly gay US Ambassador in the midst as a provocation? As some sort of incitement?

There is no question they would.

Does it then potentially provide them with added fuel for the fires of their primitive outrage? And does the added incentive potentially - even potentially - increase the danger to Ambassador Stevens and the diplomatic and security personnel who were with him?

It is more than plausible.

Lesson: If you are going to have half-assed security at a consulate in a lawless state rife with Islamism, it is questionable judgment at best to add any unnecessary provocation to the equation.

And for the record, both of the Foreign Service personnel who shared this with me used adjectives like "brave," "good" and "idealistic" to describe Stevens - there is no kind of judgment from me toward him on this topic. There is all kinds of judgment from Muslims toward him.

[Pelado]

You have no idea what all when into the calculations of those who plotted his death.

But regardless, please answer my question: Are militant Islamic radicals likely to interpret an openly gay US Ambassador in the midst as a provocation? As some sort of incitement?

There is no question they would.

Does it then potentially provide them with added fuel for the fires of their primitive outrage? And does the added incentive potentially - even potentially - increase the danger to Ambassador Stevens and the diplomatic and security personnel who were with him?

It is more than plausible.

Lesson: If you are going to have half-assed security at a consulate in a lawless state rife with Islamism, it is questionable judgment at best to add any unnecessary provocation to the equation.

And for the record, both of the Foreign Service personnel who shared this with me used adjectives like "brave," "good" and "idealistic" to describe Stevens - there is no kind of judgment from me toward him on this topic. There is all kinds of judgment from Muslims toward him.

So do we know for sure that he was gay? Someone posted a HuffPo piece earlier disputing that.

[oxcoug]

So do we know for sure that he was gay? Someone posted a HuffPo piece earlier disputing that.

I haven't looked at or been aware of a single article on the topic - all I have is the word of two people in the foreign service, one of which overlapped with Stevens in one of his countries for about six months. They both say that it's pretty much an "open secret" in State. Both had entirely good things to say about Stevens and the information about his sexuality was not shared as a negative.

[oxcoug]

I haven't looked at or been aware of a single article on the topic - all I have is the word of two people in the foreign service, one of which overlapped with Stevens in one of his countries for about six months. They both say that it's pretty much an "open secret" in State. Both had entirely good things to say about Stevens and the information about his sexuality was not shared as a negative.

I will add - the question in my mind was first raised by one of those contacts - who is an Obama supporter and may be fairly described as an aggressive Romney critic - so there was no "political" motivation in how he framed the question.

As he put it over Skype chat - "diplomats exist to smooth relationships and break down barriers between countries, so it seems questionable to introduce anything unnecessary that might get in the way of that."