The three headed dragon against Obama

[theprof00]

badgenome said:

theprof00 said:

Oh wait, you said the "state department" was strenuously objecting, not the white house.

According to your link, the white house was simply doing what it was told, and that they in fact had approved a lot more information being left in earlier.

So, are we now past blaming Obama for this, or does this still tie into him somehow?

Well, it is his administration. A president is going to be expected to answer for what his administration does and needs to be seen as dealing with such situations, not pleading ignorance as if it's some kind of defense.

Other than that, I guess he should have to answer for personally pushing the YouTube video long after it was known that Ansar al-Sharia had pulled off the attack in revenge for the killing of al-Libi and for the White House's lie (via Jay Carney) that they and the State Department together only made one change to the talking points, an insignificant change of "consulate" to "diplomatic outpost". And I suppose we're also owed an explanation as to why assets in the region were told to stand down instead of responding to the attack.

ok well, that is your opinion.
Most of the CIA and military take their confidentiality very seriously, so I'm not sure exactly what we should do about transparency. The immediate end-result to this would seem to be that the CIA just stops telling the white house and state anything. So we'll just be completely out of the loop.

I also don't see how we're owed an explanation for that stand down decision. Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder why the hell we would be talking about our military strategy and movements with civilians?