Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 05-04-2014, 06:53 PM
furt furt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: College Park, MD
Posts: 9,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Sounds more like the court of the opinion of Yogi Berra. What I foresee is a good chunk of the American people thinking that there was a cover-up, but also an even larger number that will think how useless this is and wondering why it is important to reveal even more about of how the security of our embassies and overseas locations is done.

Because that was the impression I got after Issa and others tried early to get "to the bottom of this" and they revealed several secrets just in the attempt at making anything stick.
If so, then you should welcome them to investigate and look so foolish, right?


Or are you going to go with "I am appalled at this foolish and uneccessary distraction from the important work of the American People(TM)"

Last edited by furt; 05-04-2014 at 06:53 PM.
  #152  
Old 05-04-2014, 06:53 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
Scenario #1: A planned terrorist attack on our consulate killed the Ambassador on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks because we didn't have beefed up security on that date in Libya (not Paris or London, but fucking Libya) really making the executive branch looking like a bunch of dumbasses..or . . .
Or making the Republican-led House of Representatives look like dumbasses, for cutting funds for diplomatic security. That's why this part isn't the key to the drumbeat of criticism: it reflects badly on the Republicans.
  #153  
Old 05-04-2014, 07:31 PM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
Or making the Republican-led House of Representatives look like dumbasses, for cutting funds for diplomatic security. That's why this part isn't the key to the drumbeat of criticism: it reflects badly on the Republicans.
Also it shows jtgain is working under a cloud of misinformation about the issue.

It was the Ambassador's decision to be there that day. The place he was wasn't an embassy, it was a local office and a secret compound. And no amount of security can deflect mortar fire or RPGs. So unless the security improvements involved a force field or building a fortress, little could be done. And it's not like he wasn't offered:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
After a meeting to discuss the deteriorating security situation at the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, embassy officials in Tripoli drafted a cable on August 16 outlining the circumstances and specifying that security needs would be made known in a subsequent message. This cable, excerpts from which have been reported by Fox News, still remains classified. But after reading it, Army General Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command and thus the senior U.S. military official in the region, phoned Stevens and asked if the compound needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, according to two government officials. 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.[50]


But because of FOX and RW Radio, otherwise intelligent people are arguing with a separate and imaginary set of facts. And because of partisan blindness, I'll bet people who read this post will still repeat the same nonsense misinformation, again. Because the repetition of the echo chamber beats out the dissonant tone of reality.

Last edited by Lobohan; 05-04-2014 at 07:32 PM.
  #154  
Old 05-04-2014, 10:07 PM
Xema Xema is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
Can you please state and explain your quibble with her characterization of the events as an "attack" by "heavily armed extremists" and how that contradicts what you say the WH knew as of 9/17?
No quibble there. The problem is with her statement that the attack began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo”.

It didn't begin spontaneously and it wasn't a reaction to events in Cairo: everyone knows that now, and the White House was in possession of information that clearly indicated this then. Which leads to the conclusion that they sent her out to lie.
  #155  
Old 05-04-2014, 10:38 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
It didn't begin spontaneously and it wasn't a reaction to events in Cairo: everyone knows that now, and the White House was in possession of information that clearly indicated this then. Which leads to the conclusion that they sent her out to lie.
Ok. We might be getting somewhere here. I have a couple questions.

One: what specific information was the WH in possession of at that time that clearly indicated that the attack wasn't spontaneous? And, to be clear, what is your understanding of "not spontaneous?" (That is, in your book is any attack by well-organized armed militants BY DEFINITION not spontaneous, or would you allow that some attacks by such groups could qualify as spontaneous, as the case may be?)

Two: Am I to understand that the "lie" you refer to is Susan Rice saying "we don't know yet whether it was planned [months in advance]" in response to Bob Schieffer's question, as opposed to having said "yes Bob [it was planned months in advance]?" Or was the lie something else?

I'm trying to make sure we're speaking in the same terms here.
  #156  
Old 05-04-2014, 10:44 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
By the way, for reference this is the Face the Nation segment with Bob Schieffer:

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine.
  #157  
Old 05-04-2014, 11:13 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post
If so, then you should welcome them to investigate and look so foolish, right?
What makes you think that I did not think about Voltaire's only prayer that he needed to be granted by god when Issa and the other Republicans were "investigating"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post
Or are you going to go with "I am appalled at this foolish and uneccessary distraction from the important work of the American People(TM)"
Nah, the first one will do, but as I mentioned, there is a good chunk of Americans that will see that foolishness and call it a triumph. What I do think is that many more Americans will not see it that way and even here and in other threads I have seen conservatives wondering once again if the mad Tea Party is grabbing the wheel again after being told to cool it down for the next election.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 05-04-2014 at 11:15 PM.
  #158  
Old 05-05-2014, 12:23 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
Ok. We might be getting somewhere here. I have a couple questions.
What we're getting at is the totally unnecessary mission of Rice in the first place. There was no reason for her to go in front of cameras. There was no reason to prep her with a message.
  #159  
Old 05-05-2014, 12:39 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
And so had the White House rejected all requests for an official to appear on news programs, you would NOT have claimed a cover-up at that point? Give me a break.
  #160  
Old 05-05-2014, 12:46 AM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post
If so, then you should welcome them to investigate and look so foolish, right?
If Issa wants to waste even more time on even more investigation, that's his privilege, and it's up to the voters of his district to decide whether he's doing any good.

What is NOT his privilege is to state, for the record, " ... the American people have learned that you cannot believe what the White House says. You cannot believe what the spokespeople say. You cannot believe what the president says," to kick off that investigation. In fact, a statement like that absolutely disqualifies him from any participation in an honest investigation.
  #161  
Old 05-05-2014, 01:34 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
And so had the White House rejected all requests for an official to appear on news programs, you would NOT have claimed a cover-up at that point? Give me a break.
Well bless your heart, you're a debate psychic.

How about this. The WH cooperates with requests for emails. That would be a start toward not claiming a coverup.
  #162  
Old 05-05-2014, 02:29 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
I'm not a relentless critic of the White House, and I would criticize them for going radio silent and not talking to the press after four Americans were murdered. "They didn't need to say anything" is simply asinine.
  #163  
Old 05-05-2014, 08:28 AM
furt furt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: College Park, MD
Posts: 9,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
What is NOT his privilege is to state, for the record, " ... the American people have learned that you cannot believe what the White House says. You cannot believe what the spokespeople say. You cannot believe what the president says," to kick off that investigation. In fact, a statement like that absolutely disqualifies him from any participation in an honest investigation.
I agree that it kind of blows his credibility as an impartial fact-finder; then again, I don't think anyone thought he was that anyway. He's a relentless partisan. Watergate was advanced, in the early stages, by partisans as well. Partisan does not mean necessarily wrong, and the adversarial system works in our courts. So yeah, so long as the first amendment applies, he does have the privilege to say it, and you and I have the right to judge him for it.


And BTW, do you have an opinion on Obama announcing that the IRS scandal has "not even a smidgen" of truth to it, even while his DOJ is supposedly still investigating? Just wondering.

Last edited by furt; 05-05-2014 at 08:30 AM.
  #164  
Old 05-05-2014, 08:32 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
I haven't followed the IRS issue closely, but Darrell Issa has proven that the existence of an investigation has no connection as to whether there is actually a problem.
  #165  
Old 05-05-2014, 08:59 AM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post
And BTW, do you have an opinion on Obama announcing that the IRS scandal has "not even a smidgen" of truth to it, even while his DOJ is supposedly still investigating? Just wondering.
To be precise, he didn't say that there wasn't a smidgen of "truth." He said there wasn't a smidgen of "corruption."

However, I would readily agree Obama shouldn't have said that. Given his position he shouldn't be prejudging the outcome of an ongoing investigation. I'd doubly feel that way if Obama were personally leading the investigation, as Darrell Issa is.
  #166  
Old 05-05-2014, 09:54 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
Also it shows jtgain is working under a cloud of misinformation about the issue.

It was the Ambassador's decision to be there that day. The place he was wasn't an embassy, it was a local office and a secret compound. And no amount of security can deflect mortar fire or RPGs. So unless the security improvements involved a force field or building a fortress, little could be done. And it's not like he wasn't offered:


But because of FOX and RW Radio, otherwise intelligent people are arguing with a separate and imaginary set of facts. And because of partisan blindness, I'll bet people who read this post will still repeat the same nonsense misinformation, again. Because the repetition of the echo chamber beats out the dissonant tone of reality.
I'm not making any argument other than the purposeful talking points from the administration shortly after the attacks that they were spontaneous and inspired by the YouTube video. A denial that such a thing occurred is similar to Big Brother's assertion of increasing the chocolate ration. I had several discussions around the water cooler about the freedom of an individual to post a YouTube video and that those actions should never be an excuse for murder.

Months later, it was denied that such an excuse was ever raised. Posters in this thread and others continue to deny that such talking points were given.

Your Wikipedia site is very informative, and the investigation may indeed show that we provided all of the security necessary given the Ambassador's wishes and the nature of the attack. It still doesn't change the purposeful response of the administration to change the narrative from a planned attack (which by all accounts it KNEW to be the case or had reason to know) to a spontaneous demonstration.
  #167  
Old 05-05-2014, 10:29 AM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
I'm not making any argument other than the purposeful talking points from the administration shortly after the attacks that they were spontaneous and inspired by the YouTube video.
Susan Rice's statements contained the following allegations, albeit she peppered the living fuck out of all of them with provisos such as "current best assessment" and "based on information we have at present" and "we believe" and stressing the need for further investigation to firm up the administration's assessment:

- Protesters showed up to replicate protests in Cairo (yes, strongly implying they were motivated by the video if not saying it outright)
- Heavily armed extremists distinct from the aforementioned protesters launched into an attack.

So let's say it again: she did NOT say that the attackers were motivated by the video. It's impossible to have a reasoned debate on this subject when you and your brethren persist in misrepresenting the administration's line.

Out of a desire to be charitable to your reading comprehension skills, I refuse to believe you're actually bothering to read what she said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
It still doesn't change the purposeful response of the administration to change the narrative from a planned attack (which by all accounts it KNEW to be the case or had reason to know) to a spontaneous demonstration.
Define "planned attack." In the context where the question of being pre-planned came up, namely Rice's appearance on Face the Nation, clearly "pre-planned" meant weeks or months in advance. When asked if the attack was preplanned, Susan Rice said we don't know yet for sure. That is plainly different from categorically denying it was preplanned.

Quote:
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
This statement is 100% consistent with the CIA-provided talking points, namely:

Quote:
We cannot rule out the individuals has [sic] previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.
"Inability to rule out" is not the same as having a basis to "conclude." The WH had no basis to conclude that it was preplanned, again, "several months ago" as explicitly characterized in the question that Susan Rice was answering.

If your argument is that an attack by heavily armed extremists is ipso facto evidence of a months-long planning process, fine--though I have no idea why you'd make that assumption--but then Susan Rice never disputed that the attack was launched by heavily armed extremists. So you're saying she was "covering up" something that was plainly implicit, by your lights, in what she said?

By the way, your claim that the WH "KNEW" that it was preplanned is severely weakened by the fact that even today we don't know that it was preplanned (in the sense of being planned months in advance to occur on the night of 9/11/12).
  #168  
Old 05-05-2014, 10:45 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
So let's say it again: she did NOT say that the attackers were motivated by the video. It's impossible to have a reasoned debate on this subject when you and your brethren persist in misrepresenting the administration's line.

Out of a desire to be charitable to your reading comprehension skills, I refuse to believe you're actually bothering to read what she said.
I have indeed read the transcripts of those news interviews. The parties used language calculated to allow them to retreat to the fall back position that you have described.

The American public should not have to parse words or re-read transcripts in order to see through the deception that was purposefully put all over the media. Obama himself went on David Letterman and talked about the video. The purpose of those appearances were and remain obvious: give the public the impression that the attacks were a result of a spontaneous demonstration resulting from the YouTube video. And further, as your cites support, the administration knew immediately that the attacks were not a part of any spontaneous demonstration.

I might be dense on some things, but I consider myself a reasonably educated person when it comes to current events. If I was lead to believe by the administration that the attacks were a result of a spontaneous demonstration, I'm sure that many others were similarly mislead, and that it was purposefully done that way two months before an election.
  #169  
Old 05-05-2014, 11:13 AM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Jtgain, I don't see how you can deny that the administration had sufficient basis to "believe" in good faith, duly conditioned with "we're not sure yet," that there was a protest at the consulate in Benghazi that day, independently of there being a major attack subsequently. Their belief was supported by on-the-ground reporting at the time, the CIA's assessment that there was a spontaneous reaction to events in Cairo, and the fact that it's a pretty freaking crazy coincidence if the entire Muslim world is aflame on the same day over this execrable video, and the one place where the violence takes the worst turn happens to be the one place where the turmoil has zero to do with the video. Why would that have been the administration's most plausible working theory, absent harder intelligence on which to base their assessment?

If the administration had come out and said, "We know with certainty that the attack wasn't preplanned. There simply aren't any terrorists left to do such planning, because President Obama has effectively won the war on terror and Al-Qaeda and similar groups just don't pose an organized threat any longer. We are investigating the security lapse, but we have no expectation of discovering that it was preplanned," then I would agree with you.

For the sake of discussion, when Susan Rice was asked, "Do you believe this was planned months in advance?" by Bob Schieffer, what should she have said? I want a sample answer that would meet your standard of veracity.

Last edited by Donald Rump; 05-05-2014 at 11:15 AM.
  #170  
Old 05-05-2014, 11:20 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
If the administration had come out and said, "We know with certainty that the attack wasn't preplanned. There simply aren't any terrorists left to do such planning, because President Obama has effectively won the war on terror and Al-Qaeda and similar groups just don't pose an organized threat any longer. We are investigating the security lapse, but we have no expectation of discovering that it was preplanned," then I would agree with you.
What difference would that make? No more than 72 hours after the attack according to Xema's timeline the administration said it was a pre-planned attack. It doesn't make any difference if on day one they said the Martians had attacked. There was crime comitted, no failure to disclose any relevant information, thus no cover up even if there was an attempt to hide something from the public initially.
  #171  
Old 05-05-2014, 11:47 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post
What information and/or evidence could theoretically change your mind?


This week, an email was released in response to a FOIA for documents related to Benghazi. The email was about briefing the National Security Advisor for her nigh-unprecedented five-TV-shows-in-one-day appearance several days after the attacks. The official response was to say that the email wasn't really about Benghazi.

When asked by a journalist this week to account for his actions in this much-publicized case in which a US ambassador was murdered, a high-level Obama official's response was quote "Dude, it was two years ago."


I'm entirely willing to believe that this is much more about incompetence and confusion than about ill intent. But the admin from the start has withheld information, failed to be forthcoming, and taken this unseriously. They're very much acting like the teenager who will only open his bedroom door three inches wide. The fact that he's doing it doesn't prove he has weed in there, and you'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt, but at some point you get so tired of the damned secretiveness about everything that at some point you don't mind seeing Darrell Issa kick the door in to find out what the hell is going on.
I left the whole post but bolded the part I want to respond directly to.

I find your deliberate mischaracterization of the context of the pseudo-quote is appalling and reprehensible; IMO you should be embarrassed by your transparent and pathetic attempt to distort the record and warp perception.

The "2 years ago" comment was clearly in response to an inquiry about his inability to recall a picayune detail about a specific email. The fact that so many people are trying, as you did, to make it out to be anything else says a whole lot more about those people than it does about anything the administration did regarding Benghazi.
  #172  
Old 05-05-2014, 11:59 AM
Procrustus Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post

I might be dense on some things, but I consider myself a reasonably educated person when it comes to current events. If I was lead to believe by the administration that the attacks were a result of a spontaneous demonstration, I'm sure that many others were similarly mislead, and that it was purposefully done that way two months before an election.
You may have concluded that because there were in fact spontaneous demonstrations in other parts of the Middle East that that time, partly, I'm sure, in response to that video. It was all over the news. You don't have to parse words from the administration to realize they never said the consulate attack was such a demonstration.
  #173  
Old 05-05-2014, 12:29 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
What difference would that make? No more than 72 hours after the attack according to Xema's timeline the administration said it was a pre-planned attack.
Sorry no, they went on a witch hunt for the maker of the film. They were clearly trying to spin what happened.
  #174  
Old 05-05-2014, 12:43 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Sorry no, they went on a witch hunt for the maker of the film. They were clearly trying to spin what happened.
Of course they were trying to spin it. So what?
  #175  
Old 05-05-2014, 12:57 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
The American public should not have to parse words or re-read transcripts in order to see through the deception that was purposefully put all over the media.
I would say that a "scandal" that ultimately hinges on the use of the word "terrorist" instead of "heavily armed extremist"--admit it, if Susan Rice had said "terrorist attack" we wouldn't be talking about this--ought to require an appropriately careful reading of what was said.

Personally, I don't think it's a good thing that months-long "scandals" can now be perpetuated by a sloppy review of the facts pushed by rabidly partisan media outlets, with the mainstream media falling all over itself to project "balance" in order to protect its market share on the right. All of this Benghazi bullshit is poisoning the well of public discourse for years to come, as far as I can tell. God help the next Republican administration.
  #176  
Old 05-05-2014, 01:10 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Are you unable to fucking read? Try it again, with the important part helpfully bolded:

Are you now saying that the fighters involved in the assault were US gov't officials?
Snowboarder, as the one who posted that quote originally, and did not get a response from Magiver, I wouldn't expect him to reply to you either. But thanks for bringing it up. I don't like to ask other posters to respond to my own post when they miss or ignore it. Makes me look needy.
  #177  
Old 05-05-2014, 01:55 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Snowboarder, as the one who posted that quote originally, and did not get a response from Magiver, I wouldn't expect him to reply to you either. But thanks for bringing it up. I don't like to ask other posters to respond to my own post when they miss or ignore it. Makes me look needy.
You're welcome. The willful ignorance and deliberately obtuse collation of facts by those searching for a scandal is astounding (and somewhat bewildering); all I can do is keep pointing to facts. As you note, it prolly won't help any, yet I feel compelled to try and carry out the SD mission anyway.
  #178  
Old 05-05-2014, 02:19 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
I would say that a "scandal" that ultimately hinges on the use of the word "terrorist" instead of "heavily armed extremist"-.
The scandal is the deliberate front loaded lie followed by a witch hunt of the guy making a movie followed by a lack of cooperation in the investigation.
  #179  
Old 05-05-2014, 02:54 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
The scandal is the deliberate front loaded lie followed by a witch hunt of the guy making a movie followed by a lack of cooperation in the investigation.
Along with a very healthy dollop of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
  #180  
Old 05-05-2014, 03:36 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
Along with a very healthy dollop of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Well that explains how he got elected. 52% of the public now realize what they got out of the deal. The next election cycle will find Democrats running from his shadow.
  #181  
Old 05-05-2014, 03:38 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
The scandal is the deliberate front loaded lie followed by a witch hunt of the guy making a movie followed by a lack of cooperation in the investigation.
Yes, and the "lie" reduces to Susan Rice having used the words "heavily armed extremists" instead of "terrorists."

Why? Because whether or not there was a protest over the fucking video is beside the point and always has been. If the admin had come out and said,

Quote:
There was a protest over the video in Benghazi that was hijacked by al-Qaeda terrorists, against whom we were unprepared, resulting in the avoidable death of our ambassador
would you still be accusing them of a cover up or somehow trying to change the narrative to benefit them in the election? How exactly would that work? And how exactly does Susan Rice's script differ in any substantive way from the one I just contemplated?
  #182  
Old 05-05-2014, 03:44 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Well that explains how he got elected. 52% of the public now realize what they got out of the deal. The next election cycle will find Democrats running from his shadow.
And you make my point for me.
  #183  
Old 05-05-2014, 03:47 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Well that explains how he got elected. 52% of the public now realize what they got out of the deal. The next election cycle will find Democrats running from his shadow.
Yeah, peace and prosperity sucks.
  #184  
Old 05-05-2014, 04:12 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Yeah, peace and prosperity sucks.
To Republicans, yeah. How are we supposed to make the world know we're #1 if we don't go out and beat up on some other country that looked at us cross-eyed once? And the people the Republicans actually care about are having massive prosperity!
  #185  
Old 05-05-2014, 04:15 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
It is funny how Lara Logan made a report which emphasized everything that the Benghazi Truthers have been saying, and it was found to be (a) poorly sourced, (b) wrong, and (c) she hasn't been on-air for a long time because of it. I guess the private sector is more accountable than government.
  #186  
Old 05-05-2014, 04:24 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
Yes, and the "lie" reduces to Susan Rice having used the words "heavily armed extremists" instead of "terrorists."
No, the lie was sending her out in the first place and then doing everything possible to stop the investigation.
  #187  
Old 05-05-2014, 04:27 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Yeah, peace and prosperity sucks.
explain that to the unemployed and people who lost their insurance or had their premiums skyrocket. You know, the voters.

It's still "the economy stupid".
  #188  
Old 05-05-2014, 04:30 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
And you make my point for me.
Obama makes the point for himself. His numbers have tanked and Democrats are distancing themselves from him.
  #189  
Old 05-05-2014, 04:32 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,559
This is really bizarre. But here is a question that I'd like liberals to answer specifically:

Forget who is in the White House, if what transpired happened while GWB was in office—all the facts the same as you see them, would you think this statement to be more true or untrue:
Susan Rice was sent on the five Sunday Morning talk shows to intentionally craft a narrative that was untrue, but one that would be potentially less damaging to Obama's reelection bid
So, would you think it be:

A) Definitely true
B) Likely true
C) Likely untrue
D) Definitely untrue

Again, we're not talking about what you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, just what your gut would tell you.
  #190  
Old 05-05-2014, 04:50 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
explain that to the unemployed and people who lost their insurance or had their premiums skyrocket. You know, the voters.

It's still "the economy stupid".
But unemployment is way down, and most people who have any change to their health insurance find that it's a change for the better Sure, you can find people still unemployed, but that's always true. Even in the best economic times. I don't have to try to hard to find things I don't like about President Obama, but I still think he's the best president we've had in a very long time.
  #191  
Old 05-05-2014, 05:12 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,688
It's kind of unbelievable, but in reading the comments here and on other sites, it seems that the Benghazi truthers really don't understand two very obvious points:

1. It is an undisputed fact that there were several protests around the world that were directly incited by the video, according to the protesters themselves. When Obama gave his speech to the UN, and when Rhodes wrote his memo, they were addressing people who understood this. And yet, both demagogues like Hannity, and idiots like <mumble>, insist on taking any reference to the video as assertions about Benghazi.

2. The fact that some people on the ground at Benghazi were certain that the attack was unrelated to a protest does not mean that the people in Washington were certain of it. The people in Washington received conflicting reports, from many people, and did their best to sort them out. If one experienced and credible person is reporting there was a protest before the attack, and another says there wasn't, it's more reasonable to assume that the guy who didn't see it just wasn't at the right place at the right time, rather than to assume that the guy who says he saw it was mistaken.

Anyone who thinks that he can immediately separate the wheat from the chaff when several conflicting reports come in, please stop posting here, and go serve your country by working for the CIA.
  #192  
Old 05-05-2014, 05:19 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
This is really bizarre. But here is a question that I'd like liberals to answer specifically:

Forget who is in the White House, if what transpired happened while GWB was in office—all the facts the same as you see them, would you think this statement to be more true or untrue:
Susan Rice was sent on the five Sunday Morning talk shows to intentionally craft a narrative that was untrue, but one that would be potentially less damaging to Obama's reelection bid
So, would you think it be:

A) Definitely true
B) Likely true
C) Likely untrue
D) Definitely untrue

Again, we're not talking about what you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, just what your gut would tell you.
Definitely untrue. Her comments seem to be a genuine attempt to tell us what they knew at the time. And she stressed, several times, that it was to early to draw conclusions.

And I still don't see how it helps Obama to admit that we couldn't defend our ambassador against a ragtag group of protesters, rather than against the most deadly terrorist group in modern history.

For your information, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on WMDs right up until March of 2003, i.e., until Bush directly contradicted the reports of the UN inspection team that had been on the ground in Iraq for over three months.
  #193  
Old 05-05-2014, 05:26 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
Anyone who thinks that he can immediately separate the wheat from the chaff when several conflicting reports come in, please stop posting here, and go serve your country by working for the CIA.
As Brit Hume asked of jane Harman this weekend, who fed Susan Rice with the narrative linking the Benghazi attack with the video.

The question was asked at about 1:00 in.

WARNING: Harman comes off like an imbecile. First trying to pooh-pooh those trying to get to what happened to the narrative concerning 4 dead Americans with Area 51 and then not being able to answer Hume's question
  #194  
Old 05-05-2014, 05:32 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
Definitely untrue. Her comments seem to be a genuine attempt to tell us what they knew at the time. And she stressed, several times, that it was to early to draw conclusions.

And I still don't see how it helps Obama to admit that we couldn't defend our ambassador against a ragtag group of protesters, rather than against the most deadly terrorist group in modern history.
Oh, come on. In the one case it was a spontaneous crowed —completely unexpected, unforeseeable—that formed and did their violence. The other scenario is that this was a planned coordinated attack by an Al Qaeda related group. Neither explanation is good, but the latter went against his trying to brag that "Al Qaeda was on the run" that he was spouting on the campaign trail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
For your information, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on WMDs right up until March of 2003, i.e., until Bush directly contradicted the reports of the UN inspection team that had been on the ground in Iraq for over three months.
So, after the WMDs weren't found, did you give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude he was mistaken? Or that he lied about them being there? Just curious.
  #195  
Old 05-05-2014, 05:32 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
Forget who is in the White House, if what transpired happened while GWB was in office—all the facts the same as you see them, would you think this statement to be more true or untrue:
Susan Rice was sent on the five Sunday Morning talk shows to intentionally craft a narrative that was untrue, but one that would be potentially less damaging to Obama's reelection bid
So, would you think it be:

A) Definitely true
B) Likely true
C) Likely untrue
D) Definitely untrue
So you're asking, "Assuming GWB did this terrible thing x, which contrary to all evidence I'm alleging Obama did, would you hold it against GWB?"

Yeah, sure - but there isn't agreement (in this thread anyway) on the key question of the whole controversy, namely whether Susan Rice said anything that she knew (or the admin people feeding her talking points knew) to be untrue as of 9/16/12. Can you demonstrate that she did?
  #196  
Old 05-05-2014, 05:40 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
As Brit Hume asked of jane Harman this weekend, who fed Susan Rice with the narrative linking the Benghazi attack with the video.

The question was asked at about 1:00 in.

WARNING: Harman comes off like an imbecile. First trying to pooh-pooh those trying to get to what happened to the narrative concerning 4 dead Americans with Area 51 and then not being able to answer Hume's question
Why would Jane Harman have any information regarding Susan Rice's prep for anything? She hasn't been a Rep since 2011.
  #197  
Old 05-05-2014, 05:48 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
So, after the WMDs weren't found, did you give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude he was mistaken? Or that he lied about them being there? Just curious.
That's easy. Bush lied. He and members of his administration said that they knew Iraq had WMDs. They stated it as a fact. They offered what they called evidence to back up their assertion. Many of us knew at the time that the so-called evidence was fabricated or incorrect. Today, everyone knows that it was false and that the so-called evidence was fabricated. We know they lied.

Thus far, no one has proven anything like that with regards to the events in Benghazi.
  #198  
Old 05-05-2014, 05:49 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Why would Jane Harman have any information regarding Susan Rice's prep for anything? She hasn't been a Rep since 2011.
That's the Fox News way. They pack these panels full of right-wingers ramming home the RNC line seven ways to Sunday, and the token Democrat they pick is some inarticulate and ill-prepared retired congresswoman who doesn't know what she's talking about.
  #199  
Old 05-05-2014, 05:50 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
As Brit Hume asked of jane Harman this weekend, who fed Susan Rice with the narrative linking the Benghazi attack with the video.

The question was asked at about 1:00 in.

WARNING: Harman comes off like an imbecile. First trying to pooh-pooh those trying to get to what happened to the narrative concerning 4 dead Americans with Area 51 and then not being able to answer Hume's question
Actually, I don't really understand why the CIA guy says they told her that they thought there was a protest, but he was surprises when she mentioned the video. What else would the protests be about, especially when protestors in Cairo and Pakistan explicitly said it was about the video?
  #200  
Old 05-05-2014, 05:55 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
That's easy. Bush lied.
Interesting take. Perhaps you should start on thread on the subject.

Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017