Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 05-05-2014, 06:00 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,953
I have strenuously argued that I believe Bush and his advisers were just simply wrong on Iraq, because they believed what they wanted to, as opposed to lying. Does that answer your question, mags?

If it does, let me ask you one: who gave more caveats and hedges to their public statements: Susan Rice ("the best information we have at the moment...") or Condi Rice ("don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud")?
  #202  
Old 05-05-2014, 06:02 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
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.
food stamps are way up, millions of people have left the employment market. The fiasco that is Obama Care netted 7 million people which is far short of the gap it was claimed would fix and for that our premiums shot up and business were saddled with more expenses. His solution to curbing Iran's nuclear program was to give them money. He poured hundreds of millions into a solar cell factory that his own advisers told him would fold. I don't have to try hard to find things I don't like either.
  #203  
Old 05-05-2014, 06:03 PM
Jack Batty's Avatar
Jack Batty Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 15,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
That's easy. Bush lied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
Interesting take. Perhaps you should start on thread on the subject.
So he didn't lie? Did he find those WMDs under that chair in the oval office after all?

Last edited by Jack Batty; 05-05-2014 at 06:04 PM.
  #204  
Old 05-05-2014, 06:05 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,953
Maybe Obama should fix the ACA, food stamps, and Solyndra with some Spec Ops guys riding into town on motorcycles.
  #205  
Old 05-05-2014, 06:09 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
food stamps are way up, millions of people have left the employment market. The fiasco that is Obama Care netted 7 million people which is far short of the gap it was claimed would fix and for that our premiums shot up and business were saddled with more expenses. His solution to curbing Iran's nuclear program was to give them money. He poured hundreds of millions into a solar cell factory that his own advisers told him would fold. I don't have to try hard to find things I don't like either.
Actually, the Iraq solution was a combination of sanctions and money. The ole "carrot and stick" approach. Seems to be working, and much cheaper than a day or two of war, even one that would be over in a few weeks and should pay for itself.

Solar cell technology is worth investing in. I've not no problem with that. No one bats 1,000.

Not sure what's controversial about food stamps.

As a business owner, I'm really tired of paying gigantic health insurance premiums for my employees. The rates went up a bit this year, as they do every year. I don't see ACA as being an issue. Not sure what "new expenses" you're referring to.
  #206  
Old 05-05-2014, 06:11 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Batty View Post
So he didn't lie? Did he find those WMDs under that chair in the oval office after all?
Or maybe you should start that thread. Sounds like it'll be very interesting. I'll keep an eye out.
  #207  
Old 05-05-2014, 06:12 PM
Jack Batty's Avatar
Jack Batty Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 15,036
Or maybe you should start one - it seems to be top of your to-read list. Don't be such a slug.
  #208  
Old 05-05-2014, 06:21 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
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.
Oh, good heavens. Bush had been saying al Qaeda was on the run for 7 years, and killing Bin Laden was certainly more tangible evidence that we were making progress than Bush's posturing. And "on the run" doesn't mean "totally eradicated."

Quote:
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.
As I said, I gave him the benefit of the doubt until March 2003. I knew he was lying when he signed a letter to Congress, as required by the October 2002 Congressional authorization, that certified in writing that all diplomatic efforts had failed, and that nothing short of military force could protect us from Saddam.

He did that 11 days after Hans Blix reported to the UN Security Council that after thorough examination of all sites identified by our intelligence as possible WMD facilities or stockpiles --- including the Presidential palaces, traveling unannounced to sites by helicopter so that there would be no time to hide anything, examining the sites with ground-penetrating radar to ensure that there were no hidden basements or false walls --- that no evidence of WMD manufacturing or storage had been found, that the only remaining WMD questions were about missing records of claimed destruction of stockpiles, that even some conventional missiles that had been determined to be able to fly about 20 miles farther than the 94-mile UN limit (Baghdad is about 8,000 miles from the US) were already being destroyed, and that Iraq was cooperating with the inspections not only actively, but proactively.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv...0030319-1.html

Blix estimated than the accounting discrepancies could be cleared up within a few months, and that the continued presence of inspectors would prevent Saddam from resuming any WMD activity without our knowing about it.

Bush didn't care. He wanted to invade, so he wrote and signed a letter to Congress alleging facts which he knew to be false.
  #209  
Old 05-05-2014, 06:48 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
Oh, good heavens. Bush had been saying al Qaeda was on the run for 7 years, and killing Bin Laden was certainly more tangible evidence that we were making progress than Bush's posturing. And "on the run" doesn't mean "totally eradicated."
I agree with that. But certainly you'd agree that after Obama decided to make that part of his reelection platform, an attack by Al Qaeda would be, shall we say, unhelpful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
As I said, I gave him the benefit of the doubt until March 2003.
That's what I anticipated you meant, but wasn't sure. I do not consider that giving him the benefit of the doubt. Assuming that he was mistaken, and not lying, that is giving him the benefit of the doubt.



So, all the Bush attack dogs, can relax. The above was the singular reason for my question. But you guys should still start a thread on it. I'm sure it will be a fresh, informative, and non-partisan discussion. I'm all atwitter in anticipation.
  #210  
Old 05-05-2014, 06:52 PM
YogSothoth YogSothoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
Sorry, but I haven't read most of the thread, just a few posts from some conservatives on the first page not answering the question. Has any conservative really given an answer yet? Saying "if it can be proved that the President isn't a liar" isn't really answering the question
  #211  
Old 05-05-2014, 06:52 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
I agree with that. But certainly you'd agree that after Obama decided to make that part of his reelection platform, an attack by Al Qaeda would be, shall we say, unhelpful.
The campaign claim was "Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive." I can't imagine an Al Qaeda attack would hurt the popularity of a sitting president, at least in the short term. I don't think I've ever seen that happen. Americans tend to rally around their leaders after such an event.
  #212  
Old 05-05-2014, 06:55 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Actually, the Iraq solution was a combination of sanctions and money. The ole "carrot and stick" approach. Seems to be working, and much cheaper than a day or two of war, even one that would be over in a few weeks and should pay for itself.
It's Iran, not Iraq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Solar cell technology is worth investing in. I've not no problem with that. No one bats 1,000.
He was told to the month when it would collapse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Not sure what's controversial about food stamps.
It means his economic policy was a failure and has driven more people in to poverty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
As a business owner, I'm really tired of paying gigantic health insurance premiums for my employees. The rates went up a bit this year, as they do every year. I don't see ACA as being an issue. Not sure what "new expenses" you're referring to.
The expense is for businesses who weren't paying it in the first place. It's not the function of business to provide this service.
  #213  
Old 05-05-2014, 06:57 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
The campaign claim was "Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive." I can't imagine an Al Qaeda attack would hurt the popularity of a sitting president, at least in the short term. I don't think I've ever seen that happen. Americans tend to rally around their leaders after such an event.
I would agree with that, except when in the throes of a campaign, the President is trying to craft a narrative that the enemy has been defeated, as he was. And there is an opponent ready to call him out on misstatements. As Romney did on Benghazi until Candy Crowley (amazingly) interrupted and tried to correct Romney—while she was WRONG.
  #214  
Old 05-05-2014, 07:24 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogSosoth View Post
Sorry, but I haven't read most of the thread, just a few posts from some conservatives on the first page not answering the question. Has any conservative really given an answer yet? Saying "if it can be proved that the President isn't a liar" isn't really answering the question
The short answer is no.

The closest I've seen to an honest answer was the fellow up thread who said the evidence is so overwhelming it's like asking what could change your mind about gravity.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for one piece of convincing evidence that the administration knowingly lied.
  #215  
Old 05-05-2014, 07:37 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post

The expense is for businesses who weren't paying it in the first place. It's not the function of business to provide this service.
On this I completely agree. I would love to see government supplied health insurance to all Americans. In the meantime, I would not be able to look myself in the mirror if I didn't provide health insurance as an employee benefit. We pay 100% of the premiums to everyone who works more than 20 hours per week. It costs a fortune. But that was true before the ACA as well.
  #216  
Old 05-05-2014, 07:40 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
. . .
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 . . .
The indented quote is definitely untrue. Susan Rice did no such thing.

But here's the thing: even if it were true...so fucking what? We don't impeach Presidents for political spin. Lying to weekend press shows is not a crime. Hell, lying to the United Nations in order to start a war is not a crime.

So, even if the whole fantasy were true...you got nothing.
  #217  
Old 05-05-2014, 07:41 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
I agree with that. But certainly you'd agree that after Obama decided to make that part of his reelection platform, an attack by Al Qaeda would be, shall we say, unhelpful.
You do realize of course, that Al Qaeda didn't carry out the attack. Right? You understand that? After alleging that the White House had information at its fingertips about who carried out the attack, but you think that they disregarded that information to push their own agenda about who really was behind the attack? I mean, with all the Internet available to you, along with ample proof that al Qaeda didn't carry out the attack, you aren't ignoring those facts simply to push an anti-Obama message...

Are you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
I would agree with that, except when in the throes of a campaign, the President is trying to craft a narrative that the enemy has been defeated, as he was.
Cite that Obama said that "the enemy has been defeated," because I'm pretty sure you know that's BS.
  #218  
Old 05-05-2014, 07:58 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
That's what I anticipated you meant, but wasn't sure. I do not consider that giving him the benefit of the doubt. Assuming that he was mistaken, and not lying, that is giving him the benefit of the doubt.
That makes no sense at all. I assumed that he was mistaken right up until we had proof to the contrary. When all we had was satellite photos, I was fine with him assuming the worst. The CIA might have been wrong, but he couldn't take that chance. I don't blame the CIA for being overly pessimistic, and I don't blame Bush for assuming their worst case estimates, when it's his job to protect the country.

This in spite of the fact that I knew he was grossly exaggerating the threat, even if the CIA was right. I mean, look at Syria today. We know they have chemical weapons. We know they support terrorists. But nobody is running around saying that America's security depends on invading them.

But after the UN inspectors visit the sites that the CIA identified, and find that they have clearly been abandoned for years, and some alleged chemical weapons factories don't even have indoor plumbing, then we know for a fact that the CIA was mistaken. That's good news, right? Now we don't have to invade!

But Bush read Blix's report (if he didn't, he was criminally negligent), and knew for a fact that the CIA was wrong about every single site they identified, and knew for a fact that Iraq was cooperating with the inspections, and knew for a fact that invasion wasn't necessary to keep America safe.

And then he turns around and says nothing short of invasion will save us from Saddam's WMDs. That's not being mistaken. He was knowingly, deliberately, lying. In writing, to Congress, as well as to the American people.
  #219  
Old 05-05-2014, 08:21 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
But Bush read Blix's report (if he didn't, he was criminally negligent), and knew for a fact that the CIA was wrong about every single site they identified, and knew for a fact that Iraq was cooperating with the inspections, and knew for a fact that invasion wasn't necessary to keep America safe.

And then he turns around and says nothing short of invasion will save us from Saddam's WMDs. That's not being mistaken. He was knowingly, deliberately, lying. In writing, to Congress, as well as to the American people.
Is it conceivable that Bush in good faith simply couldn't believe the Blix report? The thing that's never made sense to me is, why would Bush lie knowing that the truth would come out and his legacy would end up being, well, exactly what it is? What was he hoping for, on the theory that he was lying?
  #220  
Old 05-05-2014, 08:26 PM
rsa rsa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogSosoth View Post
Sorry, but I haven't read most of the thread, just a few posts from some conservatives on the first page not answering the question. Has any conservative really given an answer yet? Saying "if it can be proved that the President isn't a liar" isn't really answering the question
Same with me, the tread didn't appear promising at first, but page 4 has some decent info for people like me who not following the conspiracy of the day. (Haven't looked at pages 2 & 3.)
  #221  
Old 05-05-2014, 08:28 PM
Jack Batty's Avatar
Jack Batty Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 15,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
Is it conceivable that Bush in good faith simply couldn't believe the Blix report? The thing that's never made sense to me is, why would Bush lie knowing that the truth would come out and his legacy would end up being, well, exactly what it is? What was he hoping for, on the theory that he was lying?
There's a difference between "couldn't believe" and "didn't want to believe." That, I believe, negates the whole "good faith" part of that question.
  #222  
Old 05-05-2014, 08:30 PM
Jack Batty's Avatar
Jack Batty Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 15,036
As for the "what was he hoping for?" That once Iraq was a smoldering crater he'd have weekly parades down Pennsylvania Avenue in his honor.

I.e. - damn the rationalizations, once we beat the shit out of them, I'll be the biggest hero since Red Grange.
  #223  
Old 05-05-2014, 08:32 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
Is it conceivable that Bush in good faith simply couldn't believe the Blix report?
No, but it's far more conceivable that he simply didn't care, as the decision to go to war was already made.
Quote:
why would Bush lie knowing that the truth would come out and his legacy would end up being, well, exactly what it is? What was he hoping for, on the theory that he was lying?
You have the awesome benefit of knowing how it turned out. ISTM, he was already sure his war would be a quick, comprehensive win. His people were telling him it would take weeks, not months, the war would pay for itself with oil, sunshine and flowers would break out all over the Middle East, and he'd wind up a globally-beloved hero. A misunderstanding about the cause of it wouldn't matter after that - winning cures all of that.
  #224  
Old 05-05-2014, 09:05 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
Is it conceivable that Bush in good faith simply couldn't believe the Blix report? The thing that's never made sense to me is, why would Bush lie knowing that the truth would come out and his legacy would end up being, well, exactly what it is? What was he hoping for, on the theory that he was lying?
It's conceivable that he thought Blix might have missed something. Heck, it's conceivable to me that even Bush's team missed something after they wasted billions of dollars looking for WMDs after we invaded. There may be a stray shell or test tube somewhere.

But it's not conceivable to me that he remained convinced of what he wrote and signed in his letter to Congress --- that non-military options were not working, and that nothing short of invasion could protect America. The inspections clearly were working, and the worst-case threat scenarios were clearly shown to be false.

Besides, it was all of a piece. Bush didn't just lie about WMDs; he deliberately conflated Iraq and al Qaeda in almost every speech. The White House deliberately fed stories to reporters, including those of the NYT, anonymously, and then quoted them in support of their assertions. To the best of my knowledge, they never once admitted that any of their claims had been false, even after they were proven false. I remember once case where some big shot, probably Rumsfeld, was pressed on a claim he had made for months that had been conclusively shown to be false, and he replied that he had stopped making it. To him, that was good enough. But I don't think they ever came out and said, that stuff we told you before was wrong.

Last edited by TonySinclair; 05-05-2014 at 09:06 PM.
  #225  
Old 05-06-2014, 08:45 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
I would agree with that, except when in the throes of a campaign, the President is trying to craft a narrative that the enemy has been defeated, as he was. And there is an opponent ready to call him out on misstatements. As Romney did on Benghazi until Candy Crowley (amazingly) interrupted and tried to correct Romney—while she was WRONG.
Actually from what I can recall, she was correct. Romney had incorrectly stated that Obama didn't call the attack a terrorist one and Crowley correctly stated that Obama had, indeed, called it an act of terrorism the very next day.

Compare that to Romney's behavior.
Quote:
when Romney issued the statement, “It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks,” it demonstrated both a lack of leadership and a twisting of the truth.

The Romney camp released the quote for public consumption at 10:24pm Tuesday night. In fact, Politico had posted a story at 10:06pm that included a statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, which said, “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.” She was both condemning the attacks and saying, simply, that the Administration does not support those who criticize others’ religious beliefs. She was also referring to a virulently anti-Muslim video produced by American extremists that had been translated into Arabic and was being circulated on YouTube. It’s tough to construe Clinton’s statement as sympathy with the attackers.
Before the bodies were even cold, Romney was trying to exploit their blood for political gain with nearly as much joy as he used to do in sprinting to a microphone the first Monday of every month to do a celebratory dance over bad unemployment data.

Benghazi is getting to be a litmus test for me- if you believe that there is anything to this "scandal", then you can't be considered to be living in reality.
  #226  
Old 05-06-2014, 12:22 PM
YogSothoth YogSothoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsa View Post
Same with me, the tread didn't appear promising at first, but page 4 has some decent info for people like me who not following the conspiracy of the day. (Haven't looked at pages 2 & 3.)
I just read page 4, it was a fun read, but I see the conservatives on this board are still bitter about their losses and trying to avoid the question. So far, none of them have answered the OP's question, they all just want to talk about lies.

For the record, whatever the attacks were, it does not contradict the presumed assumption that Al Qaeda is on the run, terrorism is down, and we have Obama to thank for it. I see the Republicans as spending so much time on this precisely because they are afraid their built-up political capital saying they're the party that's tough on terrorism is crumbling around them and they are scared people are seeing how much better Democrats can do to protect them. Also because of severe Obama Derangement Syndrome
  #227  
Old 05-06-2014, 04:02 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogSosoth View Post
. . . whatever the attacks were, it does not contradict the presumed assumption that Al Qaeda is on the run, terrorism is down, and we have Obama to thank for it. I see the Republicans as spending so much time on this precisely because they are afraid their built-up political capital saying they're the party that's tough on terrorism is crumbling around them and they are scared people are seeing how much better Democrats can do to protect them. Also because of severe Obama Derangement Syndrome
Especially the latter! If they were still a rational political party, they could say, "Yes, Obama is doing a pretty good job...but he's just continuing the policies of his predecessor." They could emphasize the role of Bob Gates, a Bush nominee.

But they have sold their soul to the principle that Obama can do nothing right, ever, and so they are compelled to extremist interpretations of reality. When Obama actually does do something right, they are compelled to deny it. It's a mass psychosis.
  #228  
Old 05-06-2014, 04:09 PM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
There is certainly a scandal here. It's not a huge one, but it's clear the administration crossed the line from standard spinning of an issue into a positive light into outright dishonesty.

The email that people linked to this thread clearly shows the focus of the talking points was on the demonstrations leading to the attack. This wasn't true. They knew it wasn't true. They sold that to people because of the election.

I expect the President and his administration to piss on us from time to time and claim it's raining. Both parties do it. But this was over the line. You can spin, and focus on the positive. You can ignore the negative or refuse to answer it. But you shouldn't lie about something this serious, especially when we can go back and learn that you knew the truth.
  #229  
Old 05-06-2014, 04:18 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
There is certainly a scandal here. It's not a huge one, but it's clear the administration crossed the line from standard spinning of an issue into a positive light into outright dishonesty.

The email that people linked to this thread clearly shows the focus of the talking points was on the demonstrations leading to the attack. This wasn't true. They knew it wasn't true. They sold that to people because of the election.

I expect the President and his administration to piss on us from time to time and claim it's raining. Both parties do it. But this was over the line. You can spin, and focus on the positive. You can ignore the negative or refuse to answer it. But you shouldn't lie about something this serious, especially when we can go back and learn that you knew the truth.


So you didn't bother to read the thread then?
  #230  
Old 05-06-2014, 04:18 PM
nate nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
There is certainly a scandal here. It's not a huge one, but it's clear the administration crossed the line from standard spinning of an issue into a positive light into outright dishonesty.
I still haven't seen any proof that the administration was being dishonest here... Can you provide a simple timeline illustrating your point? I admit I'm not an expert at this, but did the administrator make up that the attacks were spontaneous or were they told that by the intelligence community?
  #231  
Old 05-06-2014, 04:21 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Actually from what I can recall, she was correct. Romney had incorrectly stated that Obama didn't call the attack a terrorist one and Crowley correctly stated that Obama had, indeed, called it an act of terrorism the very next day.
No, he didn't. Here is the only passage from the Rose Garden speech that mentions the word "terror" (bolding mine):

Quote:
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
I included the previous two paragraphs to show that thePresident has shifted to the attacks of 9/11. When he did mention "terror" it was not directly related to the Benghazi incident.

Now, one could argue that Obama thought he was including Benghazi in that statement. But, 1) the look on his face when Romney confronted him in the debate, 2) Susan Rice's talking points that Sunday, and 3) the narrative about the video that the administration was pushing for the following two weeks or so argues strongly that is not what he meant.

Also, even Candy Crowley acknowledged that while she thought Obama called Benghazi a terrorist attack (which doesn't show up in the transcript), she pointed out that the administration was pushing the video as the explanation. From here:

Quote:
“I heard the president speak at the time. I, sort of, reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it,” said Crowley. “I knew that the president had said, you know, these acts of terror won’t stand. Or, whatever the whole quote was.”

“Right after that I did turn around and say, but you’re totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that that there was this riot outside the Benghazi consulate which there wasn’t,” Crowley added.
  #232  
Old 05-06-2014, 04:21 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
A question for the thread: is this going to come back to bite Republicans in the ass in a big way in 2016?

Before they ultimately hold their nose and nominate whichever remotely moderate candidate is left standing on the debate stage, will primary voters force him to pledge his adherence to right-wing orthodoxy on Benghazi? That could wind up being a much bigger liability among independents than Republicans are willing to admit. Seems Jeb Bush, for one, may know this already.
  #233  
Old 05-06-2014, 04:29 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
I included the previous two paragraphs to show that thePresident has shifted to the attacks of 9/11. When he did mention "terror" it was not directly related to the Benghazi incident.
Wow, well that's a stretch if I ever saw one. How about we bold both the part that serves your point and the part that doesn't?

Quote:
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
Are you seriously arguing that "this terrible act" is not meant to be encompassed by "acts of terror?"

And by the way, can you clarify the distinction between "heavily armed extremists" and "terrorist" as these words are used in common plain English? Can you provide an example of a "heavily armed extremist" attacking a U.S. diplomatic facility that could not legitimately be called a "terrorist?"
  #234  
Old 05-06-2014, 04:47 PM
nevadaexile nevadaexile is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
There is strong evidence this was a pre-planned attack. There is virtually no evidence that the explanation advanced by the WH - demonstration against a video that got out of hand - accurately explained what happened.

So we don't need to know exactly who was involved to understand that the WH was working to present a false narrative.
The problem with this being a “pre-planned” attack is that there was almost no one at the facility on the day in question and it implies that someone inside the ambassador’s private circle leaked information about his travel plans to the individuals or the group which planned and executed it.

Had the group attacked an empty building, this would be in the “ho-hum file” of any credible news organization’s archives. They however caught an US ambassador visiting a lightly guarded consulate which he chose to go to rather oddly on the anniversary of the US’ single largest terrorist event. This has always smacked of luck (on the terrorists part) poor judgment (on the ambassador’s and his security detail’s part than any type of coverup.

If there was a “coverup” it seems likely that State wanted to not seem inept in its handling of a questionable trip made at a poor time period to do so. Face saving usually can appear to be a “coverup” to the conspiracy-minded.
  #235  
Old 05-06-2014, 04:53 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
Wow, well that's a stretch if I ever saw one. How about we bold both the part that serves your point and the part that doesn't?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
Are you seriously arguing that "this terrible act" is not meant to be encompassed by "acts of terror?"
The point—the fact—is that he did not call it an act of terror. One might infer that he consider it so, but he did NOT say it. And if a Debate Moderator is going to open her yap and correct one candidate, she should be 1,000% percent sure that she is 10,000 percent correct. In fact, no, not even then. But hey, it helped your guy, so "applause". Nice principled stance there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
And by the way, can you clarify the distinction between "heavily armed extremists" and "terrorist" as these words are used in common plain English? Can you provide an example of a "heavily armed extremist" attacking a U.S. diplomatic facility that could not legitimately be called a "terrorist?"
One doesn't make Obama sneeze. To the degree that he avoids it, he must be allergic to it.
  #236  
Old 05-06-2014, 05:01 PM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
I still haven't seen any proof that the administration was being dishonest here... Can you provide a simple timeline illustrating your point? I admit I'm not an expert at this, but did the administrator make up that the attacks were spontaneous or were they told that by the intelligence community?
I don't think a timeline of exactly what happened when is very important.

The thread I will always remember was one we had one the Presidential debate, that turned into a discussion on Benghazi.

It was over a month after the attack. It had been widely reported that it was in fact an attack. Not a protest. Not a protest that turned into an attack.

We were in the middle of debating whether there was a cover up or not and people still at that point didn't know that it wasn't a protest turned wrong.

That's how powerfully and consistently the Obama administration was pumping out that message. That was exactly what they wanted.

Here's some highlights from that thread, in late October. (The attack happened on Sept 11th.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
That's just the thing. There wasn't a riot.

It didn't happen. It was either a mistake or a lie to claim there was a riot depending on how much you trust the administration.

There was an organized terror attack in Libya on 9/11/2012, not a mob rioting. No one disputes this anymore.

I guess we can put to bed the argument that Obama Administration couldn't possibly have been hoping to deceive the American people about the nature of the attack since there's someone right here in this thread who still insists that some riot took place, rather than an organized and planned terror attack.

Have you been reading the thread? You should make some effort to have knowledge of the basic facts before participating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
What the fuck are you even talking about, Debaser?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus View Post
In fact there is plenty of dispute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
There was no riot in Libya at all? This is literally the first time I've heard this. I tried several Google searches using variations on "Libya riot," but I haven't found anything that indicates that there were no riots at all. What source am I missing for this story?
These are posters who I disagree with from time to time, but that are generally well informed. The administration was broadcasting the lies about an attack so consistently and loudly that they didn't even know there wasn't any protest. They still didn't know it was a straight up attack long after the facts had come out.

Note that back then I wasn't ready to call the administration liars about this yet. There was a chance that it was fog of war, or something. But nothing has come out yet backing up their story.

It seems very clear that the talking points that Rice went out with were designed to confuse people and mislead, at the very least.

The claim that some people are making here that she was telling the truth because she did mention heavily armed militants showed up is just silly. That doesn't get her off the hook. Clearly she was downplaying that and mentioning the protests as much as possible, and that part wasn't true.

Last edited by Debaser; 05-06-2014 at 05:03 PM.
  #237  
Old 05-06-2014, 05:04 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
The point—the fact—is that he did not call it an act of terror. One might infer that he consider it so, but he did NOT say it. And if a Debate Moderator is going to open her yap and correct one candidate, she should be 1,000% percent sure that she is 10,000 percent correct. In fact, no, not even then. But hey, it helped your guy, so "applause". Nice principled stance there.
I think it's pretty damn clear what he said. However, I'll be the first to agree with you that what Candy Crowley did was unbelievably unprofessional, inappropriate, and damaging to the integrity of the debate process. She shouldn't be allowed within a quarter mile of a presidential debate, as far as I'm concerned. Even if they're 1,000% sure that they're 10,000% correct moderators shouldn't be fact checking debate participants. Way to confirm everything the right ever said about a liberal media bias, Candy.
  #238  
Old 05-06-2014, 05:05 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
One doesn't make Obama sneeze. To the degree that he avoids it, he must be allergic to it.
Seriously dude, what's the difference? I've been trying to get a straight answer on this for half the thread.
  #239  
Old 05-06-2014, 05:06 PM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
A question for the thread: is this going to come back to bite Republicans in the ass in a big way in 2016?

Before they ultimately hold their nose and nominate whichever remotely moderate candidate is left standing on the debate stage, will primary voters force him to pledge his adherence to right-wing orthodoxy on Benghazi? That could wind up being a much bigger liability among independents than Republicans are willing to admit. Seems Jeb Bush, for one, may know this already.
I agree with this. Unless more comes out it's probably best to not focus on this too much during the upcoming elections, and certainly not in 2016.

It's not a big enough lie to sway independent voters I don't think.
  #240  
Old 05-06-2014, 05:08 PM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yeat!
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
I think it's pretty damn clear what he said. However, I'll be the first to agree with you that what Candy Crowley did was unbelievably unprofessional, inappropriate, and damaging to the integrity of the debate process. She shouldn't be allowed within a quarter mile of a presidential debate, as far as I'm concerned. Even if they're 1,000% sure that they're 10,000% correct moderators shouldn't be fact checking debate participants. Way to confirm everything the right ever said about a liberal media bias, Candy.
Agreed, 100%. I was shocked at how badly moderated that debate was. She wasn't even trying to hide it.
  #241  
Old 05-06-2014, 05:17 PM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,799
I can see it now- Obama addresses the nation after say George HW Bush dies- says something like "this death is a sad day for America". Then the Republicans will be like "CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?!?!?!?!? HE NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT BUSH DIED!!!!!!"

Jeez-o-peets. While talking about the incident, he mentioned "acts of terror". Does it take a fucking rocket scientist to infer that by "acts of terror" he meant the Benghazi attack? He was right, Romney was wrong (and his own behavior was despicable, exploiting the dead before their blood turned cold) and Crowley was correct in her correction of Romney.

In the words of your next president, "what difference does it make?" Suppose he had acted like a Republican, sprinting to a microphone as soon as he heard the news shouting "TERRORISM! TERRORISM! WOE IS US!" How would that have been helpful?
  #242  
Old 05-06-2014, 05:17 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
The claim that some people are making here that she was telling the truth because she did mention heavily armed militants showed up is just silly. That doesn't get her off the hook. Clearly she was downplaying that and mentioning the protests as much as possible, and that part wasn't true.
What should she have said on 9/16 in response to the questions, "What happened, who was behind it, is there any indication this was related to the events in Cairo and other protests throughout the Middle East this week, and was it preplanned for weeks in advance?" I would like to know what sample script she could have used that would be acceptable to you, bearing in mind that at that time there were conflicting reports--some said there had been a protest, others not--and that the CIA had provided its own assessment (spontaneous reaction to events in Cairo evolving into an attack, etc.).

Last edited by Donald Rump; 05-06-2014 at 05:18 PM.
  #243  
Old 05-06-2014, 05:32 PM
nate nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
It seems very clear that the talking points that Rice went out with were designed to confuse people and mislead, at the very least.
It doesn't seem clear to me. How are you coming to this conclusion? What evidence have you seen that leads you to think this?
  #244  
Old 05-06-2014, 05:47 PM
Lamar Mundane Lamar Mundane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
I don't think a timeline of exactly what happened when is very important.

The thread I will always remember was one we had one the Presidential debate, that turned into a discussion on Benghazi.

It was over a month after the attack. It had been widely reported that it was in fact an attack. Not a protest. Not a protest that turned into an attack.

We were in the middle of debating whether there was a cover up or not and people still at that point didn't know that it wasn't a protest turned wrong.

That's how powerfully and consistently the Obama administration was pumping out that message. That was exactly what they wanted.

Here's some highlights from that thread, in late October. (The attack happened on Sept 11th.)
Where is your evidence that there was no protest? There were protests all over the Muslim world that day over the video, including earlier in Tripoli. The New York Times, which has done the best reporting on this and actually interviewed militia members who were there, had this to say:

Quote:
The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.
A spontaneous protest and a planned attack are not mutually exclusive. They can happen one after the other or even at the same time, by different groups of people.

I have not seen any evidence that it was first, foremost, and only a planned attack.

Last edited by Lamar Mundane; 05-06-2014 at 05:48 PM.
  #245  
Old 05-06-2014, 05:47 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
Seriously dude, what's the difference? I've been trying to get a straight answer on this for half the thread.
Amen. I can see this scenario playing out in my mind:

Obama: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a scum-sucking piece of crap. He killed innocent men, women and children in a depraved and disgusting way, which makes him a total waste of human skin. I look forward to his soul being tortured for eternity, burning in fire hotter than 10,000 suns; condemned to feel the concentrated anguish of all the peace-loving peoples of the world, whom he made his enemy, through his insipid career of hate and violence.

Benghazi Truther Chorus: OMG Obama didn't call him a terrorist!!!
  #246  
Old 05-06-2014, 07:39 PM
furt furt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: College Park, MD
Posts: 9,285
I'm just gonna put this out there since I don't think anyone has mentioned it: it's one thing for Rice to come on like three days after the incident and be wrong. Okay, maybe things were still muddled.

But a full week went by and Hillary was promising the families of the dead they were going to get ... not AQ, not terrorists ... the guy who made the video. And another week went by and Obama was in the UN still saying "there is no video that justifies attacking an embassy," long after he should have known the video really had nothing to do with it. THAT is a lot more problematic.


I don't think Clinton or Obama was being deliberately misleading; I think the most likely scenario is that someone below them did figure it out eventually and opted to stick with the video story, and kept feeding it to them. One of Obama's worst traits is that he is unwilling to throw his subordinates to the wolves. That may arguably be a good trait on a personal level, but it's hampered his presidency IMO.

Last edited by furt; 05-06-2014 at 07:40 PM.
  #247  
Old 05-06-2014, 08:02 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
When he did mention "terror" it was not directly related to the Benghazi incident.
I think I understand your rules:

1. Whenever Obama mentions terror, he is not talking about Benghazi.

2. Whenever Obama mentions protests, he is talking exclusively about Benghazi.
  #248  
Old 05-06-2014, 08:05 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane View Post
Where is your evidence that there was no protest? There were protests all over the Muslim world that day over the video, including earlier in Tripoli. The New York Times, which has done the best reporting on this and actually interviewed militia members who were there, had this to say:
Upthread I posted another quote from the New York Times where they also report that the video was a motivation for the attacks. But acknowledging the legitimacy of that quote, and yours, and others that are in this thread would completely undermine the positions of certain dopers here that Susan Rice lied.
  #249  
Old 05-06-2014, 08:20 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post
I'm just gonna put this out there since I don't think anyone has mentioned it: it's one thing for Rice to come on like three days after the incident and be wrong. Okay, maybe things were still muddled.

But a full week went by and Hillary was promising the families of the dead they were going to get ... not AQ, not terrorists ... the guy who made the video. And another week went by and Obama was in the UN still saying "there is no video that justifies attacking an embassy," long after he should have known the video really had nothing to do with it. THAT is a lot more problematic.


I don't think Clinton or Obama was being deliberately misleading; I think the most likely scenario is that someone below them did figure it out eventually and opted to stick with the video story, and kept feeding it to them. One of Obama's worst traits is that he is unwilling to throw his subordinates to the wolves. That may arguably be a good trait on a personal level, but it's hampered his presidency IMO.
Our embassy /was/ attacked over the video - in Cairo. Was Obama explicitly referring to Benghazi at the UN?

With all due respect to the families of the victims, the source of that quote from Clinton is Tyrone Woods' father talking to Glenn Beck. Without knowing the larger context of what she said to him I'm not prepared to extrapolate too much from that. The quote he attributed to Biden in that interview struck me as hard to believe, too. Of course, who knows.
  #250  
Old 05-06-2014, 08:34 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
From AP, 9/25/12:

Much of the growing ire is aimed at the United States because of anti-Islam film produced in this country, but the White House has now deemed the attack on its consulate in Libya a "terrorist attack" and has not ruled out the possibility it was premeditated. Obama now says it "wasn't just a mob action."

"There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents," President Obama says in the speech excerpts.

"There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."

Seems to me he's not specifically talking about Benghazi here.

Last edited by Donald Rump; 05-06-2014 at 08:34 PM.
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 12:21 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