2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Plantae]

Yes, I'm a human being, thanks for noticing! But you're not making it sound like a good thing.

Anyway, spades won't fight back, but people will. If you insult someone, you're not encouraging to improve his behavior. On the contrary, he'll now be more likely to respond in kind.

I didn't mean it to sound patronizing. I'm simply suggesting that I'm not so cowed by this infraction that I don't think this a point worth arguing.

There's a difference between an insult, which is generally unfounded, and an indictment of character. It's not possible to address the wrong action without addressing the actor. There's no way to address bigotry without implying that someone is a bigot. And not calling someone out on this fact is doing absolutely nothing to end the persistence of bigotry.

It's true, a positive tact is often better. People can be coaxed, encouraged to improve themselves. But not in every instance. And when something is heinous enough, fault is warranted.

But I completely agree that what I said was a violation of the policy here against flaming.

His duty is to protect American lives, not to playcate [sic] the Libyan Government. If he placed the happiness of the Libyan Government over the lives of American men and women then he is not fit to hold office.

If. The argument you present here is a straw man. It's not as if it was a simple trade-off of "placate" or "protect." I doubt the intention by the president was this simple, or that the foreign policy concerns of the attacks were so readily truncated. But even if it they were, it is also entirely possible that the president thought he was taking the best course, which would succeed in achieving both those aims.

If we judged presidents solely on the basis of their foreign policy decisions, and moreover, on the basis of their worst foreign policy decision, I assure you that absolutely none of them would be fit to hold office. Instead, we hope, against hope, that they will do the best they can under the circumstances. Oftentimes, they disappoint us. And they should be held accountable. And we should be angry. But that doesn't mean that the same presidents that disappointed us aren't capable of making the right decisions, or choosing the right policies. Mistakes are learned from, not forgotten.

[Roy Karrde]

If. The argument you present here is a straw man. It's not as if it was a simple trade-off of "placate" or "protect." I doubt the intention by the president was this simple, or that the foreign policy concerns of the attacks were so readily truncated. But even if it they were, it is also entirely possible that the president thought he was taking the best course, which would succeed in achieving both those aims.

In which case impeachment proceedings should proceed as he has failed the office to take even the most basic options to protect Americans.

If we judged presidents solely on the basis of their foreign policy decisions, and moreover, on the basis of their worst foreign policy decision, I assure you that absolutely none of them would be fit to hold office. Instead, we hope, against hope, that they will do the best they can under the circumstances. Oftentimes, they disappoint us.

Yet even here he has failed in the most basic principal of the Presidency which is to protect American lives and property. He had the means and opportunity to do so, and he did not do it.

[Plantae]

In which case impeachment proceedings should proceed as he has failed the office to take even the most basic options to protect Americans.

Not taking the "most basic options" would mean not providing any support, whatsoever. There were provisions for security. Were they adequate? No. But the "most basic options" were certainly provided here. Any additional security would have been more than "most basic."

Yet even here he has failed in the most basic principal of the Presidency which is to protect American lives and property. He had the means and opportunity to do so, and he did not do it.

The suggestion here seems to be that the president believed the ten-member CIA team present at the consulate would be enough to repel the attack.

[Roy Karrde]

Not taking the "most basic options" would mean not providing any support, whatsoever. There were provisions for security. Were they adequate? No. But the "most basic options" were certainly provided here. Any additional security would have been more than "most basic."

Most basic options during a ATTACK would be providing necessary military back up to save the lives. That above else has to be the most basic option. Again remember his first duty is to the safety and security of the people in those buildings. And I will remind you there were multiple warnings before the attack that the security was not enough to prevent a attack, and that their Libyan protectors were looking like they were going to turn on them. As such the embassy did not even provide the most basic security.

The suggestion here seems to be that the president believed the ten-member CIA team present at the consulate would be enough to repel the attack.

The real time data provided by the drone should have been more than enough to dispel that belief. Such things such as the size of the force, the calls for help, and the fact the Consulate was on fire all should contribute to the belief of the need for a rescue.

[Plantae]

Most basic options during a ATTACK would be providing necessary military back up to save the lives. That above else has to be the most basic option. Again remember his first duty is to the safety and security of the people in those buildings. And I will remind you there were multiple warnings before the attack that the security was not enough to prevent a attack, and that their Libyan protectors were looking like they were going to turn on them. As such the embassy did not even provide the most basic security.

They did provide military back-up. They sent Delta Force commandos from Fort Bragg to Sicily, but they didn't arrive in Benghazi in time. The battle fought at the consulate was not a continuous one. It was two, punctuated attacks, with a long pause in between. This article offers other reasons for the slow response that make it clear that President Obama did everything he could. I don't think it's an exhaustive investigation by any means, but there are clearly other reasons for the lack of security.

But as both you and this article point out, the real failure here is the fact that the response was so delayed, as a result of a larger failure of security in the African region.

The real time data provided by the drone should have been more than enough to dispel that belief. Such things such as the size of the force, the calls for help, and the fact the Consulate was on fire all should contribute to the belief of the need for a rescue.

And maybe that was the case. But it doesn't seem that it was possible for any additional aid to arrive in time.

[Roy Karrde]

They did provide military back-up. They sent Delta Force commandos from Fort Bragg to Sicily, but they didn't arrive in Benghazi in time. The battle fought at the consulate was not a continuous one. It was two, punctuated attacks, with a long pause in between. This article offers other reasons for the slow response that make it clear that President Obama did everything he could. I don't think it's an exhaustive investigation by any means, but there are clearly other reasons for the lack of security.

And as noted, there were the ability to provide Airforce fly overs, something that has been used in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past to disperse crowds and could have gotten there within minutes if not a hour at most. There is no reason why not to provide air support while the Delta Force Commandos were being prepared.

But as both you and this article point out, the real failure here is the fact that the response was so delayed, as a result of a larger failure of security in the African region.

And maybe that was the case. But it doesn't seem that it was possible for any additional aid to arrive in time.

So you deny that there is a Airforce facility that has helicopters and jets at the ready, merely a hour away from Libya?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...hazi-2#slide-2

As Popular Mechanics notes "There seems to be little downside to sending warplanes to Benghazi. Perhaps such a demonstration could have prevented the attack on the CIA safe house, saving two lives and halting the loss of a critical intelligence operation."

[Dark Sage]

In which case impeachment proceedings should proceed as he has failed the office to take even the most basic options to protect Americans.

Not going to happen. I don't think Boehnir will take that step. After all, no-one even considered taking that step against Bush after we found out that he had ample warning of the attack that caused thousands of American casualties.

[Roy Karrde]

Not going to happen. I don't think Boehnir will take that step. After all, no-one even considered taking that step against Bush after we found out that he had ample warning of the attack that caused thousands of American casualties.

Once the attack was known, Bush did not prevent the military from saving lives. Infact the shoot down order was given close to the time the 4th Plane Crashed. Infact he initially believed that the plane was shot down from military aircraft as following his order.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...lane-shot-down