New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

That's a good example of rhetoric. And it's worth pretty much what any other rhetoric is worth. It's like filling your pockets with dirt after failing to find gold.

You mentioned criminals twice in your post. What other explanation should I have come to.

By the way, Miranda does not apply to records generated in the course of governmental activities. Just a protip.

 

[RandFan]

I think you are confused, I was addressing sunmaster14's claim that your accusation of baseless assertions was a baseless assertion. I was basically agreeing with you (although I think 'baseless' might be too strong).

You did a good job of pointing out exactly why quoting his post was the sufficient source to make your accusation supported, and his accusation not.

Damn. I just sent you a PM. Please ignore it.

 

[RandFan]

1. Morrell wrote the final draft of the talking points.

2. Morrell ignore the "not/not" escalation memo from the COS.

I linked a summary of his testimony above.

these are facts which you described as baseless. For these reasons Morrell has zero credibility.

We can debate this later. As it is, it is irrelevant to the subject of the sub thread. That subject is the article.

Is the article wrong? Yes or no?

 

[barehl]

You mentioned criminals twice in your post. What other explanation should I have come to.

Well, the right explanation would be good. I think it is likely that Christie broke the law. But if it can't be proven in court then rhetoric is of no consequence. You might also think that Obama or Clinton broke the law. But, again, if it can't be proven in court then you have little more than a pocket full of dirt.

By the way, Miranda does not apply to records generated in the course of governmental activities.

I don't know how you misread my post that badly. Did you really construe what I said as some kind of blanket immunity from all subpoenas and warrants or were you just overly eager to pretend you were making a point?

 

[barehl]

BTW, the rhetoric has gone through so many contortions over this thread that I'm not sure exactly what the point is.

Diplomatic workers staffed a temporary residential outpost in the Libyan city after the death of dictator Moammar Gadhafi. On a night the U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was visiting from the capital in Tripoli, armed Islamic terrorists attacked, setting a toxic diesel-fueled fire that killed the ambassador and a colleague. Americans then drove, chased by attackers, to a nearby annex, where a mortar attack in the morning killed two security contractors. By noon, hasty scrambling by the American and Libyan governments got U.S. workers to safety in Tripoli, along with their four dead comrades.

Is there something about this summary that is inaccurate? Presumably if it had been known that conditions in Benghazi were that dangerous then no one would have been assigned there. Rice seemed to blame the attack mostly on the video. This is clearly wrong. The attack was too well organized and the date of September 11 was obviously chosen to coincide with the WTC attack. Is there something criminal about being wrong? No, Rice was hardly the first person to say something that turned out not to be true. Just ask Colin Powell about his UN testimony concerning Iraq. Even looking like a fool is not a crime. Just ask Bush about his "you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie," statement.

The Benghazi attack doesn't seem to be fundamentally different than the attack on the Beirut barracks on October 23, 1983. In that attack, 241 were killed. Was Reagan somehow criminally negligent?

I understand the addiction to rhetoric but is that all there is?

 

[davefoc]

BTW, the rhetoric has gone through so many contortions over this thread that I'm not sure exactly what the point is.

Diplomatic workers staffed a temporary residential outpost in the Libyan city after the death of dictator Moammar Gadhafi. On a night the U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was visiting from the capital in Tripoli, armed Islamic terrorists attacked, setting a toxic diesel-fueled fire that killed the ambassador and a colleague. Americans then drove, chased by attackers, to a nearby annex, where a mortar attack in the morning killed two security contractors. By noon, hasty scrambling by the American and Libyan governments got U.S. workers to safety in Tripoli, along with their four dead comrades.

Is there something about this summary that is inaccurate? Presumably if it had been known that conditions in Benghazi were that dangerous then no one would have been assigned there. Rice seemed to blame the attack mostly on the video. This is clearly wrong. The attack was too well organized and the date of September 11 was obviously chosen to coincide with the WTC attack. Is there something criminal about being wrong? No, Rice was hardly the first person to say something that turned out not to be true. Just ask Colin Powell about his UN testimony concerning Iraq. Even looking like a fool is not a crime. Just ask Bush about his "you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie," statement.

The Benghazi attack doesn't seem to be fundamentally different than the attack on the Beirut barracks on October 23, 1983. In that attack, 241 were killed. Was Reagan somehow criminally negligent?

I understand the addiction to rhetoric but is that all there is?

I'm not sure why I am subscribed to this thread, I have completely forgotten posting in it (I'm going to check what I wrote after I make this post), but I'm sure I didn't write anything this good, or this good a representation of what I think about this. Although, I might have stressed the fact that Rice was more tentative than she is reputed to have been by those making a partisan witch hunt out of the Benghazi tragedy.

ETA: I just searched and this was the only post according to the search results that I've made in this thread. Apparently as a result of the brilliant posts that I was making in a clinton email thread, somebody thought that I could bring some of that brilliance to this thread and subscribed me in it. At least that's my working theory. They may have been wrong though, barehl pretty much summed up everything I have to say about Benghazi and it hard to imagine that I have anything more to say about it except to call it a partisan witch hunt again. I know that 16.5 likes it when I do that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

16.5, after Hillary is elected and the Benghazi investigations are stopped due to not finding any evidence................will you be upset if I say "I told you so?"

 

[sunmaster14]

I think you are confused, I was addressing sunmaster14's claim that your accusation of baseless assertions was a baseless assertion. I was basically agreeing with you (although I think 'baseless' might be too strong).

You did a good job of pointing out exactly why quoting his post was the sufficient source to make your accusation supported, and his accusation not.

Quoting something in its entirety and then claiming it is all baseless assertions is itself a baseless assertion. You have to actually do some analysis. It is of a piece with linking to an article and implying that it means something that it doesn't mean.

As for my post, there are no baseless assertions in there, despite RandFan's attempts to identify any. A baseless assertion would be something akin to what Harry Reid said about Mitt Romney not paying federal taxes for ten years. There was simply no basis for such a claim. My claims are either axiomatic or inferences from available evidence. Of course, some of these axioms or inferences fall under the rubric of opinion. Most interesting statements about political events do. But the right way to respond to an opinion with which you disagree is to provide your own opinion which contrasts with the first in a meaningful way.

For example, if I were to say that Obama is a worse president than Bush was, that is an opinion, but it is not baseless. In order to have a meaningful discussion, the proper way is to respond "What are your reasons?" or "I don't agree with you, and here's an example of how the two handled these issues ..." It is simple bickering to say that the an opinion that Obama is worse than Bush is a baseless assertion.

 

[sunmaster14]

The evidence IS the source.

I've enumerated all of your claims.



Below I've listed why they are all baseless claims.

1.) This is an opinion and no evidence has been offered to support it.

False. This statement is basically a fact. There was no protest, and pretty much everybody in the administration knew that before Susan Rice went on the air. Mike Morell's point is that it wasn't a pre-planned terrorist attack. I agree. It was probably opportunistic in the sense that some bad guys gathered around the facility, maybe to cause some trouble in response to the escalating protests around the world, and then saw that there was very poor security and that they could probably break in and sack the place. It was not a protest that spun out of control due to crowd dynamics, which is the spin the administration gave it.

2.) This is an opinion (see the phrase "I think"). It's a claim with no basis in fact.

It's a pretty solid inference, not just an opinion. I really have no doubt that the administration was looking at the event primarily as a political problem that needed to be mitigated before the election. One way to do this was to make it seem like an unforeseeable event, rather than an intentional terrorist attack. If you disagree, then you shouldn't just call it baseless opinion. You should give your opinion as to the reasons the administration chose to spin things the way it did. The fact that information was preliminary or incomplete is not a good enough explanation. You can always play it straight and say that the cause of the attack was still unknown. But the administration was clearly eager to cherry-pick and highlight bits of information that were consistent with a protest evolving into a riot.

3.) Again, "I think", this is an opinion. No basis in fact.

Same as above. The upcoming election was clearly the administration's main focus, indeed obsession.

4.) Again, an opinion. Also, appeal to ridicule is a fallacy.

Well, I hope it is an opinion that we all share. I have discussed it before in several threads, but I'm happy to discuss it again. It is unthinkable in a modern Western society to use an offensive work of art created by a 3rd person as a justification for a violent attack. Evidently, it is not unthinkable, or even unusual, in more primitive societies. However, and this is a key point, we should not stoop to their level. Aside from the fact that the video was most likely pretext for violence which was "due" in some sense, it undermines our values and lends validity to those of the jihadists even to mention the video as a cause, let alone denounce the video. There are literally millions of offensive videos on Youtube. It is not just craven and immoral to denounce a Youtube video in such a context; it is completely impractical too.

5.) Presumptuous. An opinion.

Same as above.

6.) Non-sequitur.

No, it's not. You simply just missed my point, which I have explained in more detail above.

 

[sunmaster14]

We can debate this later. As it is, it is irrelevant to the subject of the sub thread. That subject is the article.

Is the article wrong? Yes or no?

The article is wrong in the sense that it identifies one point which some media outlets or Benghazi commentators have gotten wrong recently, and it inflates its importance to imply that other criticisms have been wrong. Or perhaps you are the one who is wrong for linking to the article and exaggerating its significance.

You'd have to tell me what conclusions you're drawing from the article before I can tell you if your inferences are wrong. But I suspect they are, especially given the misleading headline.

 

[The Big Dog]

We can debate this later. As it is, it is irrelevant to the subject of the sub thread. That subject is the article.

Is the article wrong? Yes or no?

are you serious? Morrell wrote the article.

Yes it is wrong.

the addictinginfo headline you "borrowed" is utterly wrong.

 

[sunmaster14]

While we play this ad hominem attack game here are some results from PolitiFact.

Fact-checking Benghazi: The rhetoric hasn't matched up with reality

1. Was there a chance to act that the White House didn’t take? False.
2. Was the United States "the last flag flying" in Benghazi when the attacks happened? False.
3. Was the ambassador’s body abused?Pants on Fire.
4. Did budget cuts from Congress play a role in the lack of security? Mostly False
5. Did Hillary Clinton know that more security was needed? Mostly False
6. Did Rice downplay terrorism?Mostly False.

Once again you have misrepresented articles. Your sixth bullet point actually says the exact opposite of what you're implying. Politifact rates as "Mostly False" the claim that Rice didn't downplay terrorism. This is so egregious, that I think you owe this thread a retraction and apology.

Also, the Politifact answer to the 5th question was unjustified, now that we know that all of Hillary's communications had been hidden from the various Benghazi review panels.

 

[plague311]

Once again you have misrepresented articles. Your sixth bullet point actually says the exact opposite of what you're implying. Politifact rates as "Mostly False" the claim that Rice didn't downplay terrorism. This is so egregious, that I think you owe this thread a retraction and apology.
Also, the Politifact answer to the 5th question was unjustified, now that we know that all of Hillary's communications had been hidden from the various Benghazi review panels.

That's a little dramatic, isn't it? Do you retract and apologize if you've posted something that others feel is incorrect? Settle down, it's just an internet forum.

 

[sunmaster14]

That's a little dramatic, isn't it? Do you retract and apologize if you've posted something that others feel is incorrect? Settle down, it's just an internet forum.

I'm just giving that knife an extra little twist because I'm kind of annoyed that's all. Actually RandFan is quite good about apologizing for mistakes, although I would prefer he not apologize if it meant he made fewer.

 

[RandFan]

False. This statement is basically a fact. There was no protest, and pretty much everybody in the administration knew that before Susan Rice went on the air. Mike Morell's point is that it wasn't a pre-planned terrorist attack. I agree. It was probably opportunistic in the sense that some bad guys gathered around the facility, maybe to cause some trouble in response to the escalating protests around the world, and then saw that there was very poor security and that they could probably break in and sack the place. It was not a protest that spun out of control due to crowd dynamics, which is the spin the administration gave it.

It's a pretty solid inference, not just an opinion. I really have no doubt that the administration was looking at the event primarily as a political problem that needed to be mitigated before the election. One way to do this was to make it seem like an unforeseeable event, rather than an intentional terrorist attack. If you disagree, then you shouldn't just call it baseless opinion. You should give your opinion as to the reasons the administration chose to spin things the way it did. The fact that information was preliminary or incomplete is not a good enough explanation. You can always play it straight and say that the cause of the attack was still unknown. But the administration was clearly eager to cherry-pick and highlight bits of information that were consistent with a protest evolving into a riot.

Same as above. The upcoming election was clearly the administration's main focus, indeed obsession.

Well, I hope it is an opinion that we all share. I have discussed it before in several threads, but I'm happy to discuss it again. It is unthinkable in a modern Western society to use an offensive work of art created by a 3rd person as a justification for a violent attack. Evidently, it is not unthinkable, or even unusual, in more primitive societies. However, and this is a key point, we should not stoop to their level. Aside from the fact that the video was most likely pretext for violence which was "due" in some sense, it undermines our values and lends validity to those of the jihadists even to mention the video as a cause, let alone denounce the video. There are literally millions of offensive videos on Youtube. It is not just craven and immoral to denounce a Youtube video in such a context; it is completely impractical too.

Same as above.

No, it's not. You simply just missed my point, which I have explained in more detail above.

No evidence whatsoever for any of your claims.

• Your explanations are not evidence.
• Your assertions are not evidence.
• Asserting that there is a solid inference is not evidence.

 

[RandFan]

are you serious? Morrell wrote the article.

Yes it is wrong.

the addictinginfo headline you "borrowed" is utterly wrong.

Ad hominem. Why is the article wrong. Pro Tip: Ad hominem cannot be why the article is wrong.

 

[RandFan]

¹Once again you have misrepresented articles. Your sixth bullet point actually says the exact opposite of what you're implying. Politifact rates as "Mostly False" the claim that Rice didn't downplay terrorism. This is so egregious, that I think you owe this thread a retraction and apology.

Also, the Politifact answer to the 5th question was unjustified, now that we know that all of Hillary's communications had been hidden from the various Benghazi review panels.

I's called an error. I used the wrong link. Had you bothered to even read the article you would have known I had selected the wrong link. The right link is: Mostly False.

Asserting that point 5 is unjustified is just an assertion.

 

[RandFan]

I'm just giving that knife an extra little twist because I'm kind of annoyed that's all. Actually RandFan is quite good about apologizing for mistakes, although I would prefer he not apologize if it meant he made fewer.

I made a mistake. It was not intentional. The article stands and so does the point about Rice:

FACT: PolitiFact DID find the claim against Rice mostly false.

Bottom line:

• No bad faith on my part.
• No rebuttal to the facts.

 

[RandFan]

The article is wrong in the sense that it identifies ¹one point which some media outlets or Benghazi commentators have gotten wrong recently, and it inflates its importance to imply that other criticisms have been wrong. Or perhaps you are the one who is wrong for linking to the article and exaggerating its significance.

You'd have to tell me what conclusions you're drawing from the article before I can tell you if your inferences are wrong. But I suspect they are, especially given the misleading headline.

1. It would be nice if you could tell us all what that point was.
2. Stating that the headline is misleading is a fallacy known as argument by assertion.
3. I accept the claims made in the article. If you don't then QUOTE THE CLAIM AND DEMONSTRATE WHY IT IS WRONG?

How many times must I have to ask this on a skeptics forum?

 

[sunmaster14]

I made a mistake. It was not intentional. The article stands and so does the point about Rice:

FACT: PolitiFact DID find the claim against Rice mostly false.

Bottom line:

• No bad faith on my part.
• No rebuttal to the facts.

Read the Rice article again.