• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's how the Benghazi investigations have run so far:

Investigation 1: We'd like all documents pertaining to events A, B, C, D, E, F, and G please.

Administration: Here's all we have. It's a whole lot of paper because they're mostly emails with long headers and long threads which are duplicated in each email. Also, we printed it out double spaced and in 24 point font.

Investigation 1: Hmmm. Doesn't seem like very much. Are you sure?

Administration: Yup.

Investigation 1: Ok. Well, here's our report. Consider it incomplete because there was a lot of missing information.

Fox News (some months later): We found that the administration didn't release documents relating to event A.

Investigation 2: Ok, this investigation is necessary because the first one was incomplete. We have determined that there are new documents that have just come to light pertaining to A. Are there any documents pertaining to B, C, D, E, F, or G?

Administration: Nope.

Investigation 2: Ok, Well, here's our report. Consider it incomplete because there was a lot of missing information.

Fox News (some months later): We found that the administration didn't release documents relating to event B.

Investigation 3: Ok, this investigation is necessary because the first two were incomplete. We have determined that there are new documents that have just come to light pertaining to B. Are there any documents pertaining to C, D, E, F, or G?

Administration: Nope.

...

Investigation 8: Ok, this investigation is necessary because the first seven were incomplete. We have determined that there are new documents that have just come to light pertaining to G. Are there any more documents pertaining to A, B C, D, E, F, or G?

Administration: Let us have our supporters answer that.

Democratic Partisans: Waaah! Seven investigations aren't enough? It's a witch hunt I tell you.
 
RandFan said:
If there were "numerous smoking guns" there would not be a republican led report clearing the administration.

House Intel Panel Debunks Benghazi Lies, Clears Rice

Republican-Led House Clears Obama Administration
Click to expand...

You obviously have read only the partisan spin (contained in those articles) and not the actual report as I have. The report is focused solely on the performance of the CIA, not the administration as a whole, and certainly not the State Department and the White House. In fact, to the extent that the report exonerates the CIA, it actually adds to the blame that must be assigned to the State Department for inadequate security. The report does assign some responsibility to the CIA for the talking points mess, but it's clear that the State Department and the White House were eager to cherry pick those points which deflected blame from them.
 
RandFan said:
If there were "numerous smoking guns" there would not be a republican led report clearing the administration.

House Intel Panel Debunks Benghazi Lies, Clears Rice

Republican-Led House Clears Obama Administration
Click to expand...

house intelligence committee gave the intelligence community a pass, but under no circumstances gave State or the Administration, over which they had NO JURISDICTION, a pass.

Plus that report was issued before it was discovered that the administration and Hillary were fraudulently withholding evidence.

You posted the senate intelligence committee report earlier, by mistake no doubt because it roasted Obama. :D
 
sunmaster14 said:
You obviously have read only the partisan spin (contained in those articles) and not the actual report as I have. The report is focused solely on the performance of the CIA, not the administration as a whole, and certainly not the State Department and the White House. In fact, to the extent that the report exonerates the CIA, it actually adds to the blame that must be assigned to the State Department for inadequate security. The report does assign some responsibility to the CIA for the talking points mess, but it's clear that the State Department and the White House were eager to cherry pick those points which deflected blame from them.
Click to expand...
The State Department and the White House did not write the report. The GOP led house wrote the report. I've never claimed that the administration is without blame. I'm claiming that errors of the administration do not demonstrate criminal behavior. I don't even think the gross incompetence of the Bush administration before, and during 9/11 rise to such levels. We need to know what the failures were and move on.

I'm glad we had investigations. I think it's unfortunate that the investigations must be indefinite for political purposes.
 
I looked up some of the just-released Hillary Clinton emails from 11-Sep-2012, and found this interesting one:

From: H <hrod17@clintoneniail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 11:38 PM
To: 'sulliyanij@state.goy'; 'millscd@state.goy'; 'nulandyj@state.goy'
Subject: Chris Smith


Cheryl told me the Libyans confirmed his death. Should we announce tonight or wait until morning?
Click to expand...

Note that Hillary mixed together Ambassador Chris Stevens' and Sean Smith's names in the subject line, and in the body of the email, she is clearly referring to one person. My best guess is that she only vaguely knew who her ambassador to Libya was, and so was easily confused when the names of the dead were reported to her. It's not the biggest deal in the world of course, but I think it is an indication that either she's not that engaged or not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Her husband would have known Ambassador Stevens' full name and probably where he went to school.
 
93_56_1.gif


CIA’s #2 Debunks Fox News And The Benghazisteria Once And For All

In a scathing article for Politico, Morell takes the Benghazi boneheads to the woodshed, offering the real-world view of what so many have distorted for political gain:
“Like clockwork, every several weeks, someone discovers a new document that, to their minds, “proves” that what the administration and the intelligence community have been saying about Benghazi is a bunch of lies. But time and again these documents don’t add up. They don’t show what the pundits think they show—and the Benghazi broadsides miss their mark anew.”
​
 
Mike Morell's Book Tour 2015 Continues

I understand that "addictinginfo" :rolleyes: claims that Mike Morrell has laid the Benghazi scandal to rest! Who is Mike Morrell?

He's the guy who wrote the final draft of the utterly discredited talking points memo, after the meeting with Ben Rhodes, who wanted everyone to know that the attack was not a failure of "policy."

He's the guy who ignored his own station chief's repeated notifications that it was "not/NOT" the result of an escalation of protests.

Mike's whitewash continues:

What those who focus on the questions of the amount of pre-planning and the role of the YouTube seem to miss is that the answers to those questions make no difference to the bottom line: That the attacks were terrorism and that the terrorists murdered four Americans.
Click to expand...

Hey Mike, how can we prevent terrorism when the intelligence operatives responsible for doing so try to whitewash your own incompetent handling of the event?

By the way, copying "addictinginfo's" summary of a Mike Morrell article is like copying Stormfront's summary of a Josef Goebbels speech.
 
This thread is now off moderated status. Please keep it civil, keep it on topic; the topic is not the other posters.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
RandFan said:
[qimg]http://a.intgr.net/tags/93_56_1.gif[/qimg]

CIA’s #2 Debunks Fox News And The Benghazisteria Once And For All

In a scathing article for Politico, Morell takes the Benghazi boneheads to the woodshed, offering the real-world view of what so many have distorted for political gain:
“Like clockwork, every several weeks, someone discovers a new document that, to their minds, “proves” that what the administration and the intelligence community have been saying about Benghazi is a bunch of lies. But time and again these documents don’t add up. They don’t show what the pundits think they show—and the Benghazi broadsides miss their mark anew.”
​
Click to expand...

I suspect that Mike Morell did not pick the headline "Debunking the Benghazi Myths" himself. The article itself it is far more measured, and frankly it told me nothing I didn't already believe. I do however think that he misses the point in two places.

First, even though the attack was probably opportunistic and not carefully planned ahead of time, it was very misleading for the administration to paint the attack as a protest that turned into a riot. I think the administration did that because they didn't want to have to admit that a US ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack two months before an election in which the "war on terror" figured prominently. I think the administration knew they were being deceptive, but they figured they could confuse, distract, and deflect long enough to dissipate any negative political impact before the election.

Second, even though the Youtube video played a role in the protests in Cairo, and the Cairo protests might have played a role in instigating the attacks in Benghazi, it was absolutely ridiculous, indeed counterproductive, for the administration to identify the video as a cause. Even if it was used as a pretext for the attacks (and that's pretty dubious to say the least), the video was just that - a pretext. Why should the administration play the Islamists' game and lend currency to the idea that a video could reasonably be seen as incitement? It cannot. Even if the video was successfully used by Islamist leaders to whip up their followers to attack US interests, it is still playing into their hands to identify it as a "hateful, disgusting video ..." and try to distance ourselves from it "... that we had nothing to do with."
 
sunmaster14 said:
First, even though the attack was probably opportunistic and not carefully planned ahead of time, it was very misleading for the administration to paint the attack as a protest that turned into a riot. I think the administration did that because they didn't want to have to admit that a US ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack two months before an election in which the "war on terror" figured prominently. I think the administration knew they were being deceptive, but they figured they could confuse, distract, and deflect long enough to dissipate any negative political impact before the election.
Click to expand...

Please proceed, Governor:

President Obama said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please note that this was the transcript of the President's speech the day after the attack.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I suspect that Mike Morell did not pick the headline "Debunking the Benghazi Myths" himself. The article itself it is far more measured, and frankly it told me nothing I didn't already believe. I do however think that he misses the point in two places.

First, even though the attack was probably opportunistic and not carefully planned ahead of time, it was very misleading for the administration to paint the attack as a protest that turned into a riot. I think the administration did that because they didn't want to have to admit that a US ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack two months before an election in which the "war on terror" figured prominently. I think the administration knew they were being deceptive, but they figured they could confuse, distract, and deflect long enough to dissipate any negative political impact before the election.

Second, even though the Youtube video played a role in the protests in Cairo, and the Cairo protests might have played a role in instigating the attacks in Benghazi, it was absolutely ridiculous, indeed counterproductive, for the administration to identify the video as a cause. Even if it was used as a pretext for the attacks (and that's pretty dubious to say the least), the video was just that - a pretext. Why should the administration play the Islamists' game and lend currency to the idea that a video could reasonably be seen as incitement? It cannot. Even if the video was successfully used by Islamist leaders to whip up their followers to attack US interests, it is still playing into their hands to identify it as a "hateful, disgusting video ..." and try to distance ourselves from it "... that we had nothing to do with."
Click to expand...
As opinion goes it's as good as anything. You could be correct but your rhetoric appears to be no more than assertions. What you find "dubious" isn't a valid argument. No one has argued that the administration played a game nor does it follow that there was no confusion early on.

I appreciate the response but I was hoping for a substantive response to the article not someone telling me that there was nothing "new". It doesn't need to be new. It just needs to expose the silliness for what it is. Which it does.
 
RandFan said:
As opinion goes it's as good as anything. You could be correct but your rhetoric appears to be no more than assertions. What you find "dubious" isn't a valid argument. No one has argued that the administration played a game nor does it follow that there was no confusion early on.

I appreciate the response but I was hoping for a substantive response to the article not someone telling me that there was nothing "new". It doesn't need to be new. It just needs to expose the silliness for what it is. Which it does.
Click to expand...

Sunmasters post was all substance, and you just hand waved it away..

beyond the fact that you ignored my post showing that Morrell is engaging in self interested revisionist history, if you need articles to confirm what you already believe....
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Then you can highlight it. Quote it. Explain how it is substantive. No argument by assertion. No fallacy.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

You appear to be suffering from the fallacy fallacy and appear to have lost track of your claim that his post was not substantive.

Given that you copied the headline from addicting info and uncritically accepted morrell's whitewash of HIS OWN CONDUCT AND ACTIVITIES, I have no idea why sunmaster bothered given you such a detailed response.

Morrell wrote the final draft of the freaking talking points that were utterly useless and wrong, why don't you try to explain why anyone should take him seriously at this point?

Protip, if you want people to take you seriously, drop any citation to ADDICTINGINFO or similar garbage websites.
 
16.5 said:
You appear to be suffering from the fallacy fallacy and appear to have lost track of your claim that his post was not substantive.

Given that you copied the headline from addicting info and uncritically accepted morrell's whitewash of HIS OWN CONDUCT AND ACTIVITIES, I have no idea why sunmaster bothered given you such a detailed response.

Morrell wrote the final draft of the freaking talking points that were utterly useless and wrong, why don't you try to explain why anyone should take him seriously at this point?

Protip, if you want people to take you seriously, drop any citation to ADDICTINGINFO or similar garbage websites.
Click to expand...
Either these are empty assertions or your citations are missing.

A substantive argument is one in which premises are either axiomatic or they are sourced and the premises lead via inference to a conclusion. I'm more than happy to have a discussion with you but it's a waste of everyone's time if you and sunmaster cannot avoid bald assertions.

I will extend to you a debt of gratitude for doing so. Thanks. :)
 
RandFan said:
Either these are empty assertions or your citations are missing.

A substantive argument is one in which premises are either axiomatic or they are sourced and the premises lead via inference to a conclusion. I'm more than happy to have a discussion with you but it's a waste of everyone's time if you and sunmaster cannot avoid bald assertions.

I will extend to you a debt of gratitude for doing so. Thanks. :)
Click to expand...

You're simply making baseless assertions that we are making baseless assertions. Where is your evidence that we are making baseless assertions? Where are your sources?

By the way, it would be nice if you provided an accurate summary of the relevant parts of an article when you provide a link to it as evidence. Note that this might require that you understand the article. Or actually read it.
 
RandFan said:
Either these are empty assertions or your citations are missing.

A substantive argument is one in which premises are either axiomatic or they are sourced and the premises lead via inference to a conclusion. I'm more than happy to have a discussion with you but it's a waste of everyone's time if you and sunmaster cannot avoid bald assertions.

I will extend to you a debt of gratitude for doing so. Thanks. :)
Click to expand...

You did nothing but link an article, ignored my comprehensive destruction of it, and have done nothing but hand wave away sunmaster's post with hypocritical claims that it is bald assertions.

Not sure why you bother. You have any questions about Morrell's role in the talking points, let me know. Don't bother making frivolous claims abut "baseless assertions," we get that you would rather do that than address his points.
 
sunmaster14 said:
You're simply making baseless assertions that we are making baseless assertions. Where is your evidence that we are making baseless assertions? Where are your sources?

By the way, it would be nice if you provided an accurate summary of the relevant parts of an article when you provide a link to it as evidence. Note that this might require that you understand the article. Or actually read it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response. By substantive I mean axiomatic premises or premises that can be demonstrated empirically. Also, those premises need to lead via inference to your conclusion.

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. --Monty Python.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom