Guess what 60 Minutes decided to do last night? (Answer: Benghazi)

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

We’ll go with the first one you made in this thread- in this post: the President (and his administration) did not lie about the cause of attack (at worst, Rice made a cautious misstatement qualified by "the investigation is ongoing and we shouldn’t jump to conclusions), and there’s no reason to believe that they knew immediately that it was a planned, coordinated attack. The fact that there were threats, and the fact that some intelligence personnel had a belief that was later shown to be correct, does not translate to “the President knew and lied”. There’s absolutely nothing there.

The administration line was that it was the video that caused a spontaneous attack, and they stuck with even after knowing for sure it was a planned attack. There was no caution in Rice’s misstatement. She made it over and over.

This is very, very false. An incorrect statement. You’ve also claimed that witnesses were under pressure not to talk. This is false, and has been false for months- there were interviews back in May. The Republicans are far more interested in using this as a political cudgel then in actually investigating the facts… the last thing they want is to actually have their “demands” met! So even when they’ve already had access, they’ll just pretend they didn’t.

Interviews in front of a select committee, not widely reported, since Media Matters had to dig up the Daily Beast rather than a more mainstream source. Not that Daily Beast isn’t legit, but if they have the scoop, that’s a sad commentary on the mainstream media.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

More pointedly, your claim that the 60 Minutes piece concluded that the administration lied is completely wrong. There is not even any assertion like that in the story.

I predict you will again just ignore this.

[adaher]

60 Minutes doesn’t draw conclusions. I do. They simply said that the administration was saying one thing, but knew another to be true.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

The administration line was that it was the video that caused a spontaneous attack, and they stuck with even after knowing for sure it was a planned attack. There was no caution in Rice’s misstatement. She made it over and over.

Every statement in this paragraph is incorrect. You are wrong about all of it. They did not “stick to it”, there was plenty of caution in Rice’s misstatement (have you even read it?!?), and she didn’t make it “over and over”, unless that means she made it two or three times on the same day to different networks, with appropriate qualifying cautions. You are wrong about this.

Interviews in front of a select committee, not widely reported, since Media Matters had to dig up the Daily Beast rather than a more mainstream source. Not that Daily Beast isn’t legit, but if they have the scoop, that’s a sad commentary on the mainstream media.

You’re not even trying here. Incredibly weak. Another walk-back and goalpost shift. You made a totally false statement. You were 100% wrong. Just own up to it.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

60 Minutes doesn’t draw conclusions. I do. They simply said that the administration was saying one thing, but knew another to be true.

60 minutes did not say this. You are wrong again.

[adaher]

Are you even trying?

Contrary to the White House’s public statements, which were still being made a full week later, it’s now well established that the Americans were attacked by al Qaeda in a well-planned assault

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57609479/60-minutes-benghazi/

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Are you even trying?

You fail again. That statement does not say that the President knew about it and lied. It says just what I’ve said- it was a misstatement- they said the wrong thing, and they qualified it with cautions like “the investigation is ongoing”.

[iiandyiiii]

And you’re ignoring the 100% totally false statement you made about witnesses being prevented from speaking to Congress.

[adaher]

I take the Obama defense. I did not know it was false, and the whole Senate and MSM did not know it was false. Furthermore, if you had heard ANY other story from the Daily Beast and nowhere else, you’d question its veracity. So to call that issue settled just because a liberal media watchdog says so is premature.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

I take the Obama defense. I did not know it was false, and the whole Senate and MSM did not know it was false. Furthermore, if you had heard ANY other story from the Daily Beast and nowhere else, you’d question its veracity. So to call that issue settled just because a liberal media watchdog says so is premature.

Pathetic. You were very, very wrong, like you usually are. Especially if you buy that the Senate didn’t know about it. A stupid, wrong claim that can be brushed aside. Let’s see if you use that claim “the witnesses aren’t allowed to talk to Congress!” again.

[sylmar]

@iiandyiiii

Pathetic. You were very, very wrong, like you usually are. Especially if you buy that the Senate didn’t know about it. A stupid, wrong claim that can be brushed aside. Let’s see if you use that claim “the witnesses aren’t allowed to talk to Congress!” again.

You think Ads is bothered by being wrong? He’s got a decades worth of posts to suggest he’s not…

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@adaher

Are you even trying?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57609479/60-minutes-benghazi/

This is a nice test of how stupid you really are. Please point to where anything there says that the administration lied.

Here is a pro tip for you - all that statement says is that what at this time is believed was not what was believed at a previous time. Read carefully.

[Gyrate]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

This is a nice test of how stupid you really are. Please point to where anything there says that the administration lied.

Here is a pro tip for you - all that statement says is that what at this time is believed was not what was believed at a previous time. Read carefully.

You’re doing it wrong. FIRST you start with the assumption that Obama is an incompetent liar and THEN you read everything with that assumption as a given. It all makes perfect sense then.

[magellan01]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Let me provide an example. Let’s say a president is greeted by a major natural disaster that affects a major population center. Let’s say that a month later, the best his disaster management team was able to do was get the power back on in about half the city and rescue all the inhabitants. This may seem terrible, and the opposition would probably try to smear him with it. If, however, it turns out that in the past 2-3 administrations, not a single one had done it better, it suddenly becomes a lot less reasonable to blame him for it, because obviously it wasn’t an unmitigated failure, but rather better than expected. If the only other administration operating under similar conditions had multiple major attacks on US embassies, then the Obama foreign policy, with it’s one attack, is obviously not doing so bad.

That is not the point. Using your scenario, I think the administration in question deserves some credit for having fewer attacks. We can agree on that. But then we look at a completely different thing: how they handle the attack. There are two components to that. One is the actual defense they were able to put together. The other is how they handle relaying what happened to the American people. I don’t think it’s much to ask that regardless how they did otherwise, that they be honest and forthright with us. Not trying to put forth a completely false narrative for political expediency. If they do that, and get caught doing it, they deserve all that falls on them. Do you not agree?

[Truman_Burbank]

@adaher

60 minutes did an investigation of Benghazi which they broadcast last night. They revealed that a) the administration lied about the cause of the attack, because they knew right away it was a planned, coordinated attack, not spontaneous, and b) that lives were saved only because heroic individuals disobeyed orders or acted without orders.

Actually, it wouldn’t be fair to call these revelations, since they have been known for over a year, but a lot of people might not have known what Benghazi was all about, since most of the reporting before 60 Minutes was about the partisan finger-pointing rather than the facts.

Now that the Davies source has been discredited, care to retract at least (b), above?
Isn’t it interesting that *Fox News *told this guy to take a hike, but CBS owns Simon and Schuster, the publisher of Davies’ upcoming book? Or do you see no problems with this as a primary source for your OP?

[sylmar]

(Highlighting mine)

@adaher

60 Minutes doesn’t draw conclusions. I do. They simply said that the administration was saying one thing, but knew another to be true.

Because you’re eminently more qualified as an artiste?

@Truman_Burbank

Now that the Davies source has been discredited, care to retract at least (b), above?
Isn’t it interesting that *Fox News *told this guy to take a hike, but CBS owns Simon and Schuster, the publisher of Davies’ upcoming book? Or do you see no problems with this as a primary source for your OP?

Ad says he needs more crayons…

[Ravenman]

nm

[iiandyiiii]

@magellan01

I don’t think it’s much to ask that regardless how they did otherwise, that they be honest and forthright with us. Not trying to put forth a completely false narrative for political expediency. If they do that, and get caught doing it, they deserve all that falls on them. Do you not agree?

I agree- if they were caught doing this, they should be criticized heavily. But they haven’t been caught doing this- there’s no evidence that Rice’s statements (with her qualified cautions added) were anything but based on the intelligence reports she received. So no evidence that they “put forth a completely false narrative for political expediency”.

[Robot_Arm]

@adaher

I only need him to be wrong now for vindication, not for political purposes.

You want the president to be wrong just so you’ll feel better. I’ve heard it said of some people that they put party before country. You’re the first I’ve ever heard admit to putting whining before country.

[ElvisL1ves]

Give him credit for admitting it. There are many more, including on this board, who feel the same way but won’t admit it.