Diplomats asked repeatedly for more security before Libya attack, lawmakers claim [ournewsa.blogspot.com]
Almost every innovation now commonplace in politics â€" search ads, social networking, online video hubs, do-it-yourself grass-roots tools â€" has traceable roots to a ragtag bunch of techies whose dream candidate was a loser. Remember Howard Dean? How Howard Dean's bid gave birth to Web campaigning
U.S. diplomats in Libya repeatedly appealed for more security in Benghazi in the run-up to the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate but were "denied these resources," two congressional lawmakers said.Â
House oversight committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, pressed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for more information on those requests and other concerns in a letter Tuesday.Â
They detailed a string of attacks and other security incidents in Benghazi starting in April, and asked the State Department what measures it took to address the threat. They claimed officials have told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee of "repeated requests" for additional security.Â
"Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the Ambassador's life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012," they wrote. "In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. Â The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington."Â
The committee plans to hold an Oct. 10 hearing on security in the region leading up to the attack. The letter to Clinton alleges 12 incidents that showed the deteriorating security situation on the ground. Â Â
The reported incidents include an account that members of the Libyan security force were urged by their family members to quit over rumors "of an impending attack."Â
The letter also said threats on Facebook prompted Ambassador Chris Stevens to stop taking morning runs around Tripoli, though he reportedly later resumed those runs. The letter included other incidents which have been well-documented including the June attack on a convoy carrying the British ambassador. Plus it said "assailants" put an explosive device at the gate of the U.S. Consulate in early June, blowing a hole in the security perimeter.Â
"Put together, these events indicated a clear pattern of security threats that could only be reasonably interpreted to justify increased security for U.S. personnel and facilities in Benghazi," the lawmakers wrote.Â
Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11.Â
Fox News reported on Friday that the physical security was so substandard at the Benghazi consulate that it required a waiver, signed off in Washington by the secretary of state, the head of diplomatic security, or the heads of foreign building operations. A State Department spokeswoman said there would be no comment on the issue until their internal investigation is complete.Â
The department, meanwhile, has stood by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice in the face of criticism and calls for her resignation. Rice came under fire for claiming repeatedly the Sunday after the attack that it was a "spontaneous" reaction to protests over an anti-Islam film. The administration now acknowledges the assault was a coordinated terror attack.Â
Fox News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.
Suggest Diplomats asked repeatedly for more security before Libya attack, lawmakers claim Articles Question by HongKongMan1997: Questions to Employers? At most workplaces, there is this "Office Politic" or "Politic Game". I am aware that some employers think firing employee can be the most expensive thing they can do. On little reflection, I can understand why. This would be more the case with entry/junior level positions. Employees are investment that employers invest on by giving them salary, benefits, and keeping them around. You fire them, and you lose what you invested on them without really getting your returns. Another thing is employers will have to re-do the whole process of searching for suitable candiates again which is a hassle, times-taking, and there's no guarantee that hiring someone else will be any better than the one they fired. Any more thoughts or reasons? What has the SMALL United States got to do with my question? Cost and loss analysis in employee/employer relationship is the same in all countries on earth. Great thoughts on the issue. However, I'd like to add that when it comes to choosing who to let go, the politic/games does have influence. You hang out with the upper management or play tennis/golf with them, you will be less likely to be selected for terminiation. I think, interpersonal relationship, personality of employees, supervisors and other touchy sensitive issues do weigh in on employee termination. Best answer for Questions to Employers?:
Answer by TIMOTHY D L
In the USA, if your job isn't done I will fire you. Otherwise I don't care what is going on in you small life! I am retired... old school!
Answer by Marty K
It they're smart, they understand this and the same rule applies to their customers as you've described with employees.
Answer by kbyprotocal
In order to run a successful business , your employees have to be happy and know that they are treated equally in terms of discipline and benefits. That is why unions were formed. Investing time to train and teach a employee is part of business cost. A employee that is not performing to the standards of others hurts the whole business, it is a cancer waiting to grow and must be removed.
Answer by worldneverchanges
When you invest in your employee you expect returns just like investing in anything else. If you don't get the returns it is time to sell the stock or fire the employee instead of investing in that person further. Cut the losses. If the performance doesn't meet expectations of the company it is time for that employee to go. It is not politics or a game. It is reality. Keeping a non-performing or under-performing employee around is hazardous to the company. It lowers morale and creates a whole lot of issues. Hiring someone is a chance you take.
Answer by veraperezp
It is not a game. Office politics are a social phenomenom, a very real thing that exists in every office in the world, be it military, civilian, educational, etc. It is always there, most people are so used to it that to them it is normal. Why do you think Dilbert is so funny? Because of the stupid crap that happens to him? Or because 99% of the crap that happens in Dilbert is something you have seen in person or has happened to somebody that you know? Firing people is no game either. It is a very traumatic event for the person losing his job, the coworkers and even the manager. During the dot com days I was consistently ordered to lay off one of my employees every 90 days because the company was bleeding money like crazy. It was horrible. Because of this it is very rare to see a person getting summarily terminated unless there is a criminal offense involved. By the time somebody gets fired there is a lot of paperwork involved.
Answer by jpr_sd
Hey H.K. Man, As we near our November elections, Politics will always play a part in any "Social situation", and Yes, work is a social situation. There will always be the person that is the center of attention. If we are lucky, in the workplace, that person will be the boss. That, however, is not always the case. Ideally, we would like to think, it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game -- BUT, in today's world, plays are rarely noticed -- WINS always are! (The company your work for, unless it is some social service agency, pays their bills by winning, not by placing in the top 5). Sometimes, there are situations where you have two equally "qualified" employees; Let's say Joe and Diane. Joe spends his off time schmoozing with the boss, Diane spends her off time researching the competition. Diane is obviously the harder worker, right? Not always --! Joe may be making contacts with others in the industry or at least appear to, when he is spending time with the boss. In today's world, appearances ARE EVERYTHING! If they weren't, we wouldn't need the latest cell phone, the sportiest/classiest car or even the membership to ??? I am usually Diane! Sadly, I know that the other Diane's out there, when we make a success, we don't feel it is as well noticed. So we have a tendency to try to toot our own horn -- we also look desperate when we do this. Firing is a very tenuous proposition. It is an aggressive move, and a move even if followed by the letter of the law, is still subject to litigation (I fired a Bartender for selling an alcoholic drink TO-GO, I and my employer were sued from here to eternity, with allegations of everything from sexism to sexual harassment to racism -- The lawsuit took 2 years and in the end, it was cheaper to settle than to pay to take it to a judge or jury trial) So investment isn't always the reason that an employer won't terminate someone. It may be easier to get the "Squeaky Wheel" to quit and hope that the "Family" in the office will get over any turmoil. My advise, in most cases, if you are in a situation where a "Joe" is getting all the perks and you are a Diane, is to either become a "Joe" or look for an employer who fosters a more even playing field in the workplace. Hope I added something of value to the other comments! James in San Diego
0 comments:
Post a Comment