Under Republican control, the committees are like little Salems of the 17th century, looking for witches to burn. There was no coverup simply because there was nothing to cover up. The GOP is keeping this ridiculous charade alive because their base wants desperately to believe there was some ghastly conspiracy and that Obama chuckled as he watched the attack from DroneTV.
Congressman Dan Burton of the House Committee on Government Reform spent a lot of time investigating the death of Vince Foster in the 1990s. Does that mean that Dan Burton should be listened to?
Of course not. He was a nut, and he’s Example One of why not everything Congress does is credible.
Hmmmm, selective thinking.
I believe that makes five.
And having this sort of scandal was particularly important because after Obama succeeded in killing Bin Laden where Bush failed, the GOP was losing its position as the go to party for national security. So it was essential that they find ammunition where they could paint Obama as weak in that area. When finally at last they had American Blood spent overseas that wasn’t part of a war they started, they latched on it it like a drowning man to a life preserver.
No, it’s basic reasoning, not selective thinking. The fact that a congressional oversight committee is making inquiries into something is, of itself, not evidence of wrongdoing.
When Democrats took control of the House in 2007, Congressman Henry Waxman started holding hearings on every damned thing he can think of to do “oversight” of the Bush White House. Only a sucker would believe that every one of these investigations or hearings were based on wrongdoing or good governance: a fair bit of them were surely motivated by partisanship and political showboating.
Neither party is immune from political showboating. It just so happens that now the shoe is on the other foot. Therefore, the standard of whether an investigation is warranted is based on the facts, not the silly fact that Congress is holding a hearing.
Obama taking credit for killing bin-Laden is like Nixon taking credit for landing on the moon.
I’d say maybe more like selective thinking with a false implication.
You’ve forgotten about the 2008 debate where the hypothetical was raised- what would you do if you found out bin Laden as in Pakistan? Would you go in and get him? McCain said he wouldn’t, Obama said he would. It was a gutsy move- tell the Pakistan government about it and they would find a way to mess up the mission, intentionally or not. So he risked the possibility of an attack by Pakistani forces and political fallout from a botched attempt. He deserves credit for the move.
I’m going to start double-counting the ad-hoc hypothesis angle if you keep this up. Every tangential ad-hoc hypothesis now counts as two.
Perhaps there is another person who cares about how you’re keeping score, but I rather doubt it.
It’s great how you accuse everyone else of all these logical fallacies or prejudices. Perhaps you could inform us of the Latin translation of, “If Obama does it, it is wrong”? Because I’d like to start throwing around that fallacy in response to several posts in this thread.
I’m not saying it was wrong to kill Obama. Are you saying Obama get the credit for killing Bin Laden? Because Obama mentioned he would, given the opportunity?
I’m absolutely certain there are literally thousands, if not millions of people who said pretty much the same thing over the intervening ten years. Claiming credit for Obama killing Bin Laden here on the Dope is a communal reinforcement fallacy.
That’s six.
Communal reinforcement isn’t a logical fallacy.
Also, you’ve used ad-hoc hypothesis incorrectly, it’s only a fallacy if the hypothesis is unsupported. Stating that further military intervention wouldn’t have saved any lives is easily supported.
Do you have anything of substance to add to this debate? Because there was actually a pretty rousing discussion on Benghazi going on before this was derailed to the “look how many fancy terms Acewiza can throw around to get attention” show.
The substance I have clearly shown is how Benghazi apologists used nothing but fallacies and illogical thinking in support of their position.
Every thread in this forum has examples of strawmanning (which is inherent to the medium) and ad hominem. You engaged in the latter yourself, can we thus write off any arguments you’ve made? That’s a hypothetical, since you haven’t actually made an argument, per se.
Selective thinking/confirmation bias was just an empty accusation on your part, with no evidence. If you can prove that there was substance to the Vince Foster investigation, then do so.
As previous noted, of your other two accusations, one was grossly wrong and the other isn’t even a fallacy, nor did you present an argument as to why Obama shouldn’t be given at least some credit for the Bin Laden mission. He was commander-in-chief at the time.
Other than that though, a rousing success on your part.
I guess it depends on how you define “further.” I define it in the context of State Department mismanagement that set the stage. As in “further” intervention starting before the attack. That is also my premis as clearly stated at the end of my first post in this thread. It rests at Hillary’s feet. All this bluster and debate about what happened or not after the fact is just so much rubbish.
Your false, therefore unsupported ad-hoc position “after the fact.” Truth:
“Gye, Hugo (October 8, 2012). “Revealed: Ambassador to Libya told officials of security worries on day he died in consulate raid as special forces chief says he asked for ‘more not less’ back-up month before attack”. Daily Mail (UK). Retrieved October 10, 2012.”
My premise, in response to Magiver, was that deploying more soldiers after the initial attack, in the fashion he advocated, wouldn’t have saved any American lives. Your leaping in with your own, unrelated premise, doesn’t make mine fallacious. I didn’t even address your premise.
The title of the thread is after all, “Benghazi Attack for Dummies.” If you can’t put things on a timeline you are probably to dumb to even be thinking about it all, and I am not going to do your thinking for you.
It should be noted Human Action edited his above response after/during when I quoted him.
Can you articulate where I used the fallacy, or not?
In response to your edit, doubling-down on the accusation of ad-hoc hypothesis.