Now it's getting pitiful, can you say "Temper Tantrum", now it's the Ocean?

christiefan915 said:
What I see is the Florida Keys separating the Atlantic Ocean from the Gulf of Mexico. There's a reason all these smaller bodies are called bays, inlets, gulfs etc. rather than throwing them all under the umbrella term "ocean".
Click to expand...

Keep hairsplitting. Maybe it will distract people from the thread topic.

Look! A squirrel!

h2B28794B
 
christiefan915 said:
What I see is the Florida Keys separating the Atlantic Ocean from the Gulf of Mexico. There's a reason all these smaller bodies are called bays, inlets, gulfs etc. rather than throwing them all under the umbrella term "ocean".
Click to expand...
this is all open ocean, though;
the geography is misleading, as there really isn't any shelter like a bay or inlet or harbor,the only mitigating factor is the depths around the Keys, or Florida Bay,
but if you are out there, it is unsheltered, in effect on the ocean
 
annata said:
this is all open ocean, though;
the geography is misleading, as there really isn't any shelter like a bay or inlet or harbor,the only mitigating factor is the depths around the Keys, or Florida Bay,
but if you are out there, it is unsheltered, in effect on the ocean
Click to expand...

I don't really have a problem with this, only with the political theatre of righties braying "Obama's closing the ocean! Obama's closing the ocean!"
 
christiefan915 said:
I don't really have a problem with this, only with the political theatre of righties braying "Obama's closing the ocean! Obama's closing the ocean!"
Click to expand...
LOL. Why i focus on foreign policy, at least i can understand proximate causes and realpolitik.

US internal politics are so much kabuki; it is maddening to try to distill any truth - it's all obscured
 
Big money said:
Obama's closing the bay! Obama's closing the bay!

Happy now?
Click to expand...

Precision is my byword.

Government shutdown also shuts down Keys waters

The Associated Press

KEY LARGO, Fla. -- The federal government shutdown also has shut down popular fishing waters in the Florida Keys.
Fishing guides were notified this week that the 281-square-mile Biscayne National Park would be closed until further notice. Most of that park is comprised of water.

Everglades National Park also was closed, putting almost all of Florida Bay off limits. In an email, Park Superintendent Dan Kimball said the closure applies to fishing guides, kayakers and pleasure boaters.

Dave Fowler, who heads the park's Key Largo ranger station, told The Key West Citizen (http://bit.ly/16pzEMr ) that rangers will enforce the closure but will focus on educating violators about the situation. He said that during the last government shutdown in 1995, rangers in the Key Largo district didn't write a single ticket for violating the closure.


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/05/3671088/government-shutdown-also-shuts.html#storylink=cpy
 
annata said:
LOL. Why i focus on foreign policy, at least i can understand proximate causes and realpolitik.

US internal politics are so much kabuki; it is maddening to try to distill any truth - it's all obscured
Click to expand...

I think I agree with this, especially your first sentence.
 
christiefan915 said:
Chris Stevens declined help twice. Then the poor man was killed. Now the others are covering for his bad decision.

"U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens — one of the four people killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack at in the U.S. post in Benghazi, Libya — twice declined a senior U.S. military official’s offer to have added security assistance, according to a McClatchy News report.

McClatchy News reported Tuesday that two unnamed government officials told them that it’s still unclear why Stevens would turn down the offer.

In the weeks before the attack, Stevens met in Germany with Army Gen. Carter Ham, then-head of the U.S. Africa Command, and Ham told Stevens he could provide him more military security. But Stevens declined the offer.

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” an unnamed defense official told McClatchy.
Click to expand...


Yeah....blame the dead man....blame the victim....

No shit....some "unnamed sources" told a left wing webcite the big news, huh....its all the dead man's fault for getting himself murdered.....

but don't believe Charlene Lambs testimony UNDER OATH and in public that says otherwise....

god....you're as big as ass as desh aren't you....?....you'll stoop to any level to make excuses for Democrats....
 
christiefan915 said:
I think I agree with this, especially your first sentence.
Click to expand...
It's what interests me, I've spent most of my time trying to understand geo-politics, and the various players, and the shifting alliances.

Still our recent "dizzying interventionism" has clarifyed the mind, that we are doing a lot of things around the world not in our best interest, or the world's

we seem to lurch from crisis to crisis of our own makings, or own inability to use "soft power" instead of hard power.


Whereas hard power—the ability to coerce—grows out of a country's military or economic might, soft power arises from the attractiveness of a country's culture, political ideals, and policies.

http://www.amazon.com/Soft-Power-Means-Success-Politics/dp/1586483064
Hard power remains crucial in a world of states trying to guard their independence and of non-state groups willing to turn to violence. It forms the core of the Bush administration's new national security strategy.
But according to Nye, the neo-conservatives who advise the president are making a major miscalculation: They focus too heavily on using America's military power to force other nations to do our will, and they pay too little heed to our soft power.
It is soft power that will help prevent terrorists from recruiting supporters from among the moderate majority.
And it is soft power that will help us deal with critical global issues that require multilateral cooperation among states.
That is why it is so essential that America better understands and applies our soft power. This book is our guide.
Click to expand...
 
christiefan915 said:
Yes, I do appreciate adding any bit of trivia to my meat-cleaver mind.
Click to expand...


Try this...

report from the Accountability Review Board....
It said the number of Diplomatic Security staff in Benghazi before and on the day of the attack 'was inadequate despite repeated requests ... for additional staffing.'

Even the Dem. Senate review board that did the whitewashing don't lie as much as your sources.....

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-death-Christopher-Stevens.html#ixzz2h094Ybl9
 
christiefan915 said:
What I see is the Florida Keys separating the Atlantic Ocean from the Gulf of Mexico. There's a reason all these smaller bodies are called bays, inlets, gulfs etc. rather than throwing them all under the umbrella term "ocean".
Click to expand...

I'm pretty familiar with those waters and my parents, retired in the Keys, are auxiliary Coast Guard down there. And if you want to minimize that fine, but in their 60's after 9/11 they decided to join up and worked their asses off to pass the computer and physical tests (the computer stuff was hardest, they didnt really do anything with computers at the time.)

Call those bodies of water what you will...Florida Bay is shallow as hell but if you are out there, you will be in the middle of nowhere. It is not to be taken lightly. Not to mention that the illegal trade thru those waters could also get you boarded and killed.
 
christiefan915 said:
Interesting how you guys continue to drag Hillary into this but completely ignore what Stevens should have done but didn't. One might conclude cons know the real facts behind that royal screw-up but need a controversial figure to blame it on instead.

CAIRO — In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.

Why Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation in the first of two attacks that took place late Sept. 11 and early Sept. 12, 2012, would turn down the offers remains unclear. The deteriorating security situation in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The next day, the embassy drafted a cable outlining the dire circumstances and saying it would spell out what it needed in a separate cable.

“In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover,” said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News. Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said. Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy.

The offers of aid and Stevens’ rejection of them have not been revealed in either the State Department’s Administrative Review Board investigation of the Benghazi events or during any of the congressional hearings and reports that have been issued into what took place there.

Stevens’ deputy, Gregory Hicks, who might be expected to be aware of the ambassador’s exchange with military leaders, was not asked about the offer of additional assistance during his appearance before a House of Representatives committee last week, and testimony has not been sought from Ham, who is now retired.

Both Hicks and Ham declined to comment on the exchange between Ham and Stevens. Hicks’ lawyer, Victoria Toensing, said Hicks did not know the details of conversations between Stevens and Ham and was not aware of Stevens turning down an offer of additional security.

“As far as Mr. Hicks knows, the ambassador always wanted more security and they were both frustrated by not getting it,” she said.

Some Republican lawmakers expressed surprise when told that Stevens had turned down such an offer.

“That is odd to me because Stevens requested from the State Department additional security four times, and there was an 18-person special forces security team headed by Lt. Col. Wood that Gen. Ham signed off on that the State Department said no to,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., who has been among the most vocal critics of the Obama administration on Benghazi. “The records are very clear that people on the ground in Libya made numerous requests for additional security that were either denied or only partially granted.”

But a spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, indicated that some lawmakers may have been aware of Stevens’ exchange with Ham. “Decisions conveyed by Ambassador Stevens were made on behalf of the U.S. State Department,” the spokesman, Frederick Hill, said in an email. “There were certainly robust debates between State and Defense officials over the mission and controlling authority of such forces. The lack of discussion by the public ARB report about the role inter-agency tension played in a lack of security resources remains a significant concern of the Oversight Committee.”

One person familiar with the events said Stevens might have rejected the offers because there was an understanding within the State Department that officials in Libya ought not to request more security, in part because of concerns about the political fallout of seeking a larger military presence in a country that was still being touted as a foreign policy success. “The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct requests for security,” an official familiar with the case, who agreed to discuss the case only anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject, told McClatchy.

Still, the offer from Ham provided Stevens with a chance to plead for more assistance, an opportunity he apparently did not seize.

Congressional hearings into the Benghazi attacks – there were in fact two, one on a compound often referred to as the consulate, where Stevens and State Department computer specialist Sean Smith died, and a second hours later on a nearby CIA annex, where two security contractors, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were killed – have focused primarily on the events during the night of the attacks and subsequent statements by Obama administration officials.

There have been fewer questions, however, about the months leading up to the attack and how the State Department, the CIA and defense officials addressed a growing security problem. Among the questions that have not been probed is why the Benghazi mission, with its large CIA contingent, remained open when other Western countries, most notably Great Britain, had pulled out of Benghazi in the weeks preceding the attacks because of security concerns.

Officials have publicly referred to Ham’s phone call before. In his Feb. 7 testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the military was aware of the Aug. 16 cable and that someone had turned down Ham’s offer.

Referring to the cable, Dempsey said: “I was aware of it, because it came in, in Gen. Ham’s report. Gen. Ham actually called the embassy to, to see if they wanted to extend the special security team there and was said – and was told no.” Dempsey said the State Department never requested more from the military. “We never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces on the ground,” Dempsey told the committee.

The Aug. 16 cable remains classified. But Fox News has quoted liberally from it, reporting that State Department officials convened a meeting a day earlier to discuss security, which the cable described as “trending negatively.” “RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said, according to Fox News. The Accountability Review Board investigation, commissioned by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and released in December, placed blame for the Benghazi attack in large part on the State Department for not answering repeated calls for more security.

But the report also is peppered with references to Stevens and how well the embassy made the case to Washington for more security. In a news conference at the time of the release of the board’s finding, Adm. Mike Mullen, one of the board’s two chairmen and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, referred to the failing of the embassy.
“As the chief of mission, he certainly had a responsibility in that regard, and actually he was very security conscious and increasingly concerned about security,” Mullen said. “But part of his responsibility is certainly to make that case back here, and he had not gotten to that point where you would, you might get to a point where you would be considering, ‘It’s so dangerous, we might close the mission.’” The embassy Stevens oversaw in Tripoli “did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security” in Benghazi, the report stated.

Traditionally, State Department officials have depended on the State Department’s own Diplomatic Security Service, local police and military forces and security contractors to secure embassies around the world. U.S. military personnel at embassies consist usually of Marines whose job it is to guard the perimeter of a compound and to protect classified documents and equipment inside. It is rare that U.S. forces would be called upon to guard embassy personnel traveling outside embassy grounds.

Any increase in U.S. military force would have required State Department approval. It’s unknown if Stevens might have passed along Ham’s offer to the State Department and been turned down, or whether he believed that the security team Ham offered would not provide the kind of security he needed.
Officials familiar with the exchanges between Ham and Stevens said they did not know whether Ham offered any other support than the security team.
“It was a brief conversation,” the defense official said.

James Rosen and Jonathan S .Landay contributed from Washington.

Click to expand...

Your last two articles, Politico and McClatchy are covering the same story in mid-May, 14-15. What you are ignoring is what came before and after:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...of-requests-for-greater-security-in-benghazi/

Documents Back Up Claims of Requests for Greater Security in Benghazi
Oct 19, 2012 3:22pm

Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have released new documents backing up claims by security personnel previously station in Libya that there was a shortage of security personnel in Benghazi.

The documents contain previously unreleased cables from Ambassador Stevens and his staff reflecting concerns about safety in the country.

The U.S. State Department did not have an immediate comment.

One signed by Stevens and titled “LIBYA’S FRAGILE SECURITY DETERIORIATES AS TRIBAL RIVALRIES, POWER PLAYS AND EXTREMISM INTENSIFY,” dated June 25, 2012, assess the increase in violence. ”From April to June, Libya also witnesses an increase in attacks targeting international organizations and foreign interests,” Stevens wrote, describing attacks on a United Nations official in Benghazi, International Committee for the Red Cross buildings in Benghazi and Misrata, and IED at the mission in Benghazi, and RPG fired at the British Ambassador’s convoy, and an attack on the consulate of Tunisia.

A Libyan government national security official told Stevens “that the attacks were the work of extremists who are opposed to western influence in Libya. A number of local contacts agreed, noting that Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya and that the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities in Derna,” a village to the east in Benghazi. Other contacts disagreed with that assessment, however.

Another cable from Stevens, titled “The Guns of August; security in eastern Libya” and dated August 8, 2012, states “Since the eve of the (July) elections, Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape during the Ramadan holiday.” Stevens describes the incidents as “organized, but this is not an organized campaign.” The Supreme Security Council, the interim security force, he says, “has not coalesced into a stabilizing force and provides little deterrence.”

Stevens wrote that the people of Benghazi want a security apparatus but “inherently fear abuse by the same authorities. This debate, playing out daily in Benghazi, has created the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

A cable signed by Stevens on the day of his murder, September 11, described a meeting with the Acting Principal Officer of the Supreme Security Council in Benghazi, commander Fawzi Younis, who “expressed growing frustration with police and security forces (who were too weak to keep the country secure)…”

The documents also included an “ACTION MEMO” for Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy dated December 27, 2011, and written by US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman. With the subject line: “Future of Operations in Benghazi, Libya,” the memo states: “With the full complement of five Special Agents, our permanent presence would include eight U.S. direct hire employees.”

This would seem to suggest that Undersecretary Kennedy had approved a plan for five permanent security agents in Benghazi, but that never happened. It should be noted that there were ultimately a total of five Diplomatic Security Agents in Benghazi that night since there were two stationed at the Benghazi compound, and three escorted Ambassador Chris Stevens to the compound.

In a letter to President Obama, House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chair of the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations, note the Obama administration response that “two extra DS agents would have made no difference. This misses the point. These agents would have provided the added cover to fully evacuate all personnel from the compound – not just those who survived.”

One of the key conversations in the documents begins on February 11, at 5:29 pm, when Shawn Crowley, a foreign service officer at the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, writes: “Apologies for being a broken record, but beginning tomorrow Benghazi will be down to two agents…We have no drivers and new local guard contract employees have no experience driving armored vehicles…”

On February 11, 1:13 pm, Regional Security Officer of the Libyan Embassy Eric Nordstrom emails State Department officials, cc-ing then-Ambassador Gene Cretz, saying he’ll try to send personnel from the Security Support Team to Benghazi. “I’ll speak with our SST personnel to se if they can free up 1 or 2 bodies for Benghazi….While the status of Benghazi remains undefined, DS” – Diplomatic Security – “is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this has severely hampered operations in Benghazi. That often means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS personnel present. That often means that outreach and reporting is non-existent.”

Norstrom notes that the British have “a 5 person team assigned to just their head of mission, so they have made a commitment to maintain a larger presence in Benghazi than the USG,” the U.S. government.

At 8:53 pm. James Bacigalupo, the Regional Director Near East Asia Bureau of Diplomatic Security DSS for the State Department, emails Nordstrom, “Call me, I am surprised at your statement that ‘DS is hesitant to devote resources as I (you) have indicated previously that has severely limited operations in Benghazi.’”

Norstrom responds on Sunday, February 12: 8:58 pm “we have had multiple times previously had no movements in Benghazi because we had only 2 DS agents on the ground. Havingno movements for upwards for 10 days severely limits operations in Benghazi. I’ve been placed in a very difficult spot when the Ambassador tells me that I need to support Benghazi but can’t direct MSD” – Mobile Security Detachment – ” there and been advised that DS isn’t going to provide more than 3 DS agents over the long term.”

Get more pure politics at ABCNews.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com

Nordstrom adds at 9:00 pm: “the last time we had only 2 agents at post, suspending outside movements for approximately 10 days.”

Meanwhile, security on the ground became increasingly precarious.

A March 2012 memo (mistakenly cited as 2011) from the Research & Information Support Center titled “Progress Elusive in Libya,” based on open-source reporting, states that in late December 2011 “reports indicated that al-Qa’ida leadership in Pakistan had sent ‘experienced jihadists to Libya to build a new base of operations in the country. Between May and December 2011, one of these jihadists had recruited 200 fighters in the eastern part of the country. Documents seized in Iraq indicate that many foreign fighters who participated in the Iraqi insurgency hailed from eastern Libya. This small batch of fighters would have been dealt with quickly by a central authority, were it in place. Until a stronger national army or guard force is developed, rural Libya will remain fertile territory for terrorist groups such as al-Qai’da in the Islamic Maghreb.”

The committee also released some photographs of the Benghazi compound, before and after the attack.

Issa and Chaffetz say they’ve “been told repeatedly” that the Obama administration not only “repeatedly reject(ed) requests for increased security despite escalating violence, but it also systematically decreased existing security to dangerous and ineffective levels,” and did so “to effectuate a policy of ‘normalization’ in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war.”

This “normalization,” the GOP congressman write, “appeared to have been aimed at conveying the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse. The administration’s decision to normalize was the basis for systematically withdrawing security personnel and equipment – including a much-needed DC-3 aircraft – without taking into account the reality on the ground. In an interview with Mr. Nordstrom, he maintained that the State Department routinely made decisions about security in early 2012 without first consulting him.” The congressmen submit ten questions for the president to answer.

-Jake Tapper
Click to expand...
 
Stop dragging Hillary into it, Annie. She has no hope of being elected in 2016 if you keep reminding people of Benghazi.
 
tekkychick said:
So you've given up on your "markets are doing fine" schtick now that the markets AREN'T doing fine?

Real safety issue having people in federal waters when the coast guard isn't able to rescue them. You know they WILL sue if they get into trouble.


It's pretty fucking obvious. Pass a clean CR bill. How hard is that?
Click to expand...

Link me up to my supposed "markets are doing fine" schtick. I'll give you a hint. It didn't happen. Will you apologize for your lie about me?

Although I will say that the changes in the markets are more due to the Debt Limit than it is due to the Continuing Resolutions.

You know what is obvious? A petulant child is doing all he can to try to make it more "painful", thankfully he's doing it in obvious ways. He keeps doing silly things like this and everybody will understand that it's his "fault".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top