The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Conservatives Reject New York Times Report! The Horror On The Right

"Give US Liberty!"

The Right wants the liberty to frame the Benghazi attack on the US Consulate and killing of four Americans in their "likeness."  

Is there any level of low conservatives will not stoop to facilitated that they perceive as politically expedient?  

For sake of discussion, let's clarity a few points via a set of questions.  

Have you heard or read anyone or any entity (media, pundits, surrogates, et al) speak of or any comment about denial of congressional funding for additional US Embassy security?  
I. GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security .. 
II. Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Securit

Are you aware Ambassador Stevens denied additional security twice over the yeas proceeding his death?
I. Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security ... 
II. The GOP's embassy security problem | MSNBC 
III. CNN Fact Check: What about the security in Benghazi? -

Who is responsible for worldwide US Embassy Security? The responsibility is shared between the host country and the US State Department. PBS explored issues related to embassy security In a September 2012, four months after the tragic killings in May of that year.  (bold text added by The Pardu)
Who's responsible for security at an embassy -- the host country or the embassy itself?There's a dual responsibility. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the host country is responsible for security of embassies. However, experience has taught the Americans that they can't rely on the host country to do that. They've experienced big losses in places like Kuwait, and Beirut a couple of times, even in Islamabad, Pakistan, when it was burnt to the ground. So they've learned they need to establish their own security bureaucracy to take care of that, and the Diplomatic Security Service (or law enforcement arm of the State Department) came into being in the mid-1980s. 
What can be done to step up security at U.S. embassies?One of the things you can do is draw down on personnel, which is what they did in Libya. They had an ordered departure, where they had nonessential personnel, family members and dependents evacuated from the country. The other thing is to draw down American personnel from vulnerable facilities like Benghazi and leave the local personnel in charge of the facility to conduct business because they are less of a target. They can increase the local police and military presence outside the perimeter. They can also bring in additional Marines like they have done now in Tripoli. 
Which embassies have a Marine presence?It's usually at the larger facilities, like Sanaa, Yemen, and Cairo, Egypt. At the smaller consulates and sometimes at smaller embassies, you don't have Marines stationed there. It depends on the post, the number of Americans there and the amount of classified information that needs to be protected. And sometimes even the political sensibilities of the country. 
Which embassies are most at risk of attacks?The State Department looks at that carefully. When you look at the profile of what happened in Benghazi, it was a recently established facility in a place where the bureaucracy hadn't caught up with it yet. So Congress hadn't appropriated money and the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations didn't have the opportunity to really plan and build a new facility there that meets security specifications. Anytime you have a new embassy in that kind of situation, you don't really have any real security. Places that are new, like in South Sudan, which is a new country, might have issues. A well-established facility in the Middle East can be attacked -- as we've seen in Cairo and Sanaa -- but when it's a well-built, well-fortified structure, it's much more difficult to impact.

Before we move to a piece from The Moderate Voice via RePost US, we want to remind of the recent New York Times investigation report that casts serious and credible doubt of the Benghazi attacks as coordinated and enacted by Al Qaeda. The NYT report is at the core of what follows as The Moderate Voice delves into conservative rejection of the NYT investigation results.

As you read the following, we will be amazed if you come away with any impression beyond an unyielding desire from the Right to retain Benghazi as a political issue. The horrors of the attack and killings provide fodder against President Obama and political leverage to disparage Hillary Clinton should she decide to seek the Democratic nomination in 2016.

Conservative Republicans reject New York Times Benghazi findings (via The Moderate Voice)
The New York Times investigation that found Al Qaeda or a terrorist group was not behind the Benghazi attack is — as predicted here — being rejected by Republicans. As I noted in that post: This most likely won’t change the partisan attacks on…

No comments :

Post a Comment