Donald Trump is running for President, not for chairman of the History Dept. Trump is making a radical and important point: recent Middle East interventions by the US have not had a stabilizing effect-that is, they have not furthered US interests.
Is this post arguing that these US interventions served US interests or not?
How is carbon divestment supposed to work? It's not like oil/gas/coal producers are strapped for cash and need to IPO their shares to tide them over until they're profitable. Under what conditions could carbon divestment result in 2/3 or more of reserves being left in the ground?
Yeah, the Sec'y just asserted that there is no accountability or review necessary at the State Dep't. No matter what happens. Only an old stick-in-the-mud would care about what actually happened. Look forward, not back, my friend.
Love this blog, but the host here (like Obama, Rice, Clinton and Powers) supported intervention in Libya and isn't too concerned about the "stuff happens" aspect afterward. Either you support arming rebels (of unknown alliance and beliefs) or you support Gaddafi...
It's unsupported, but you could say that about any reasonable explanation for what happened. Since when does security leave an ambassador behind? What were all the those people who were evacuated doing there?
Here is a definition of "consulate:"
Consulates (and their chief diplomat, the consul) handle minor diplomatic issues like issuing visas, aiding in trade relationships, and taking care of migrants, tourists, and expatriates.
Was any of that really going on in Benghazi?
While we don't know what was going on at the consulate or CIA annex (whatever that is), it wasn't likely dealing with lost tourists. So until the US Gov't explains (likely never) people will necessarily form their opinions with speculation.
Rice's statements on Benghazi were distorted many times in different and sometimes partisan ways, that's true. It doesn't then follow that Rice was being honest or forthcoming in her well-prepared public statements, and I don't see how you arrive at this:
10. Susan Rice had nothing whatsoever to do with Libya, had no special knowledge of the situation in Benghazi, and she briefed the talking points she was given by the CIA in the aftermath. ???
Every account of the Obama administration's decision to intervene in Libya maintains that Secretary Clinton, along with Susan Rice and Samantha Power were the key advocates for US participation. Further, given Rice's long career in African affairs as well as her desired transition to be the next Sec'y of State, why would you make the assertion that she had "no special knowledge?" The FBI interviews of survivors evacuated to Germany were already done, why wouldn't she know what those eyewitnesses had to say? Lastly, given James Risen's reporting on US support for arming Libyan rebels, link to nytimes.com
Rice's statements of September 16: “Opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are readily available in post-revolutionary Libya, and it escalated into a much more violent episode.”
looks very much like diplomatic doublespeak.
It was always pretty clear that the assault on the CIA annex in Benghazi was not a part of any demonstration--it happened hours after the events at the consulate. Susan Rice certainly made no attempt to clarify that aspect of the events in Benghazi. While Fox News would never be my source for reliable information, we should not therefore trust every government statement by the current administration.
Certainly Susan Rice has a motive for minimizing the responsibility for any problems in Benghazi--the President decided that the War Powers Act didn't apply and his administration never got Congressional approval for the
Libyan intervention. Further, within the administration, most accounts of the intervention hold that Defense Secretary Gates and others were against while Susan Rice was prominent among supporters. To say now that Benghazi was not her portfolio is disingenuous...there's a reason that she was selected to be the public face of the administration's response.
If Fox News were to criticize Susan Rice and the Obama administration on their support for Kagame and his operations in the Congo would Informed Comment leap to defend them? Do we know what was going on at the CIA annex in Benghazi? Shouldn't we ask more questions about Benghazi? Fox News is truly awful, but do you expect that MSNBC will hold Obama to account?
I'm a grumpy old man who usually just responds with critical comments, but this is the kind of post that makes this blog worth reading every day.
Donald Trump is running for President, not for chairman of the History Dept. Trump is making a radical and important point: recent Middle East interventions by the US have not had a stabilizing effect-that is, they have not furthered US interests.
Is this post arguing that these US interventions served US interests or not?
Why is BDS different from what many think was effective in South Africa?
How is carbon divestment supposed to work? It's not like oil/gas/coal producers are strapped for cash and need to IPO their shares to tide them over until they're profitable. Under what conditions could carbon divestment result in 2/3 or more of reserves being left in the ground?
"What difference does it make?"
Yeah, the Sec'y just asserted that there is no accountability or review necessary at the State Dep't. No matter what happens. Only an old stick-in-the-mud would care about what actually happened. Look forward, not back, my friend.
Love this blog, but the host here (like Obama, Rice, Clinton and Powers) supported intervention in Libya and isn't too concerned about the "stuff happens" aspect afterward. Either you support arming rebels (of unknown alliance and beliefs) or you support Gaddafi...
It's unsupported, but you could say that about any reasonable explanation for what happened. Since when does security leave an ambassador behind? What were all the those people who were evacuated doing there?
Here is a definition of "consulate:"
Consulates (and their chief diplomat, the consul) handle minor diplomatic issues like issuing visas, aiding in trade relationships, and taking care of migrants, tourists, and expatriates.
Was any of that really going on in Benghazi?
While we don't know what was going on at the consulate or CIA annex (whatever that is), it wasn't likely dealing with lost tourists. So until the US Gov't explains (likely never) people will necessarily form their opinions with speculation.
Rice's statements on Benghazi were distorted many times in different and sometimes partisan ways, that's true. It doesn't then follow that Rice was being honest or forthcoming in her well-prepared public statements, and I don't see how you arrive at this:
10. Susan Rice had nothing whatsoever to do with Libya, had no special knowledge of the situation in Benghazi, and she briefed the talking points she was given by the CIA in the aftermath. ???
Every account of the Obama administration's decision to intervene in Libya maintains that Secretary Clinton, along with Susan Rice and Samantha Power were the key advocates for US participation. Further, given Rice's long career in African affairs as well as her desired transition to be the next Sec'y of State, why would you make the assertion that she had "no special knowledge?" The FBI interviews of survivors evacuated to Germany were already done, why wouldn't she know what those eyewitnesses had to say? Lastly, given James Risen's reporting on US support for arming Libyan rebels,
link to nytimes.com
Rice's statements of September 16: “Opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are readily available in post-revolutionary Libya, and it escalated into a much more violent episode.”
looks very much like diplomatic doublespeak.
It was always pretty clear that the assault on the CIA annex in Benghazi was not a part of any demonstration--it happened hours after the events at the consulate. Susan Rice certainly made no attempt to clarify that aspect of the events in Benghazi. While Fox News would never be my source for reliable information, we should not therefore trust every government statement by the current administration.
Certainly Susan Rice has a motive for minimizing the responsibility for any problems in Benghazi--the President decided that the War Powers Act didn't apply and his administration never got Congressional approval for the
Libyan intervention. Further, within the administration, most accounts of the intervention hold that Defense Secretary Gates and others were against while Susan Rice was prominent among supporters. To say now that Benghazi was not her portfolio is disingenuous...there's a reason that she was selected to be the public face of the administration's response.
If Fox News were to criticize Susan Rice and the Obama administration on their support for Kagame and his operations in the Congo would Informed Comment leap to defend them? Do we know what was going on at the CIA annex in Benghazi? Shouldn't we ask more questions about Benghazi? Fox News is truly awful, but do you expect that MSNBC will hold Obama to account?