New Disclosures on Benghazi

[RandFan]

Cool. Thanks for your opinion.

The Administrations claims that the attack spontnelously arose out of n anti-video protest, including Obama's on Letterman and others were false.

That is a fact.

Do you dispute that? Do you dispute that the fact that the Administration deleted the reference to Al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia in the 9/14 talking point memo, as already mentioned in this thread?

Yes or No?

None of that is evidence that Obama conspired to mislead the American people or intended to mislead the American people. And this has all been addressed. You are beating a dead horse. Now, about that evidence?

When is Obama's impeachment?

 

[The Big Dog]

I've looked it up and posted the definition dozens of times.

I don't claim that two wrongs make a right. I don't claim that anything Bush did excuses Obama. I do claim that the outrage is demonstrably fake. That's my claim and the proof of that is that there was no outrage before.

YOU look it up.

You think it is fake.

“It matters to me personally and it matters to my colleagues at the Department of State,”

Nordstrom, today

 

[The Big Dog]

None of that is evidence that Obama conspired to mislead the American people or intended to mislead the American people. And this has all been addressed. You are beating a dead horse. Now, about that evidence?

When is Obama's impeachment?

Randfan. Yes or No?

/impeachment? straw man. I thought you were better than that.

 

[RandFan]

You think it is fake.

“It matters to me personally and it matters to my colleagues at the Department of State,”

Nordstrom, today

One more time. This is NOT evidence that Obama conspired to mislead the American public.

 

[The Big Dog]

Does ANYONE dispute these facts?

The Administrations claims that the attack spontnelously arose out of an anti-video protest, including Obama's on Letterman and others were false.

Do you dispute that the fact that the Administration deleted the reference to Al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia in the 9/14 talking point memo, as already mentioned in this thread?

Yes or No?

 

[RandFan]

Randfan. Yes or No?

Yes or no what?

/impeachment? straw man. I thought you were better than that.

Do you think that what Obama ostensibly did warrants impeachment?

 

[The Big Dog]

One more time. This is NOT evidence that Obama conspired to mislead the American public.

I was referring to your fairly offensive claim about it being "fake."

The witnesses today disagreed.

Obama mislead the American public.

Facts, rand fan.

 

[The Big Dog]

Cool. Thanks for your opinion.

The Administrations claims that the attack spontnelously arose out of n anti-video protest, including Obama's on Letterman and others were false.

That is a fact.

Do you dispute that? Do you dispute that the fact that the Administration deleted the reference to Al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia in the 9/14 talking point memo, as already mentioned in this thread?

Yes or No?

Yes or no what?

Do you think that what Obama ostensibly did warrants impeachment?

Yes or no, Rand Fan.

 

[RandFan]

Does ANYONE dispute these facts?

The Administrations claims that the attack spontnelously arose out of an anti-video protest, including Obama's on Letterman and others were false.

Do you dispute that the fact that the Administration deleted the reference to Al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia in the 9/14 talking point memo, as already mentioned in this thread?

Yes or No?

None of this proves that Obama conspired to mislead the American people. All of this has been addressed. It's not a black and white issue. I don't know what Obama knew and when he knew it exactly. I know that it was supposed to be the killer argument for Romney to win the election. As mikedenk and other conservatives on this forum have said, there is no "there" there.

 

[The Big Dog]

None of this proves that Obama conspired to mislead the American people. All of this has been addressed. It's not a black and white issue. I don't know what Obama knew and when he knew it exactly. I know that it was supposed to be the killer argument for Romney to win the election. As mikedenk and other conservatives on this forum have said, there is no "there" there.

Rand Fan? Yes or no.

Pretty simple.

/by the way, impressive although transparent moving of the goal posts.

 

[RandFan]

Yes or no, Rand Fan.

There is no "yes" and "no". I don't know what Obama knew and when he knew it and I know that it wasn't a simple issue though you would like it to be. But you are beating a long dead horse.

 

[The Big Dog]

There is no "yes" and "no". I don't know what Obama knew and when he knew it and I know that it wasn't a simple issue though you would like it to be. But you are beating a long dead horse.

BzzzT! Wrong.

The Administrations claims that the attack spontnelously arose out of an anti-video protest, including Obama's on Letterman and others, were false.

The Administration deleted the reference to Al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia in the 9/14 talking point memo.

It is OK, you can admit it.

by the way, if you don't know the facts, why are you arguing? Do some research yourself.

 

[RandFan]

/by the way, impressive although transparent moving of the goal posts.

What "goal posts"? You are the one that keeps trying to throw mud against the wall and trying to get something to stick. We keep asking you for evidence and you ask questions and throw out vague claims. I've no idea why anyone deleted anything and neither do you. You are speculating about what was known by Obama and when.

I've got to go to bed. I'll take this up in the morning.

 

[The Big Dog]

What "goal posts"? You are the one that keeps trying to throw mud against the wall and trying to get something to stick. We keep asking you for evidence and you ask questions and throw out vague claims. I've no idea why anyone deleted anything and neither do you. You are speculating about what was known by Obama and when.

I've got to go to bed. I'll take this up in the morning.

I don't? Hmm, I've read the initial 9/14 memo, the changes, and the final version.

Haven't you?

 

[The Big Dog]

I've looked it up and posted the definition dozens of times.

I don't claim that two wrongs make a right. I don't claim that anything Bush did excuses Obama. I do claim that the outrage is demonstrably fake. That's my claim and the proof of that is that there was no outrage before.

YOU look it up.

By the way, I find it fascinating that you claimed to know what a tu quoque fallacy is, and linked to a web site containing fallacies, yet linked to ad hominem and two wrongs make a right, but curiously DID NOT link to that same websites definition of a tu quoque fallacy.

Here it is:

Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge.

It is a fallacious appeal to hypocrisy. You are quite adept at using thm in this thread.

The more you know!

 

[jj]

It's not a tu quoque to point out inequitable treatment.

 

[tyr_13]

Please explain how this:

The fact that the Administration deleted the reference to Al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia in the 9/14 talking point memo, as already mentioned in this thread.

Is nothing of substance. C'mon, I'm fascinated by your response.

As soon as you explain why Chewbaca lives on Endor.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

As soon as you explain why Chewbaca lives on Endor.

So you got nothing except a South Park reference. Got it.

You are aware that that particular reference was pointed at the obfuscation of the facts right? Kinda like what the Obama administration did. Fitting I suppose.

 

[jj]

So you got nothing except a South Park reference. Got it.

Yep, you're shifting the burden of proving your conspiracy theory to the other side, and asking the logically impossible, that RandFan prove the absolute negative.

How about some actual evidence for a conspiracy theory? How about some clear explanation why this is so IMPORTANT when it wasn't at all important that W/Cheney lied about WMD? Why the sudden complete, absolute reversal of position, even in the face of zero point zero zero evidence, even from a sweetheart witness coached by a conspiracy-theorist monger?

How about some evidence for YOUR OWN extraordinary assertion? I don't even see ordinary evidence, let alone extraordinary. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof to the skeptic here.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Yep, you're shifting the burden of proving your conspiracy theory to the other side, and asking the logically impossible, that RandFan prove the absolute negative.

How about some actual evidence for a conspiracy theory? How about some clear explanation why this is so IMPORTANT when it wasn't at all important that W/Cheney lied about WMD? Why the sudden complete, absolute reversal of position, even in the face of zero point zero zero evidence, even from a sweetheart witness coached by a conspiracy-theorist monger?

How about some evidence for YOUR OWN extraordinary assertion? I don't even see ordinary evidence, let alone extraordinary. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof to the skeptic here.

1) That comment wasn't directed at RandFan so I have no idea what you're talking about.

2) Shifting the comments to WMD claims by a previous administration without knowing my opinions on that. Hint, it's not what you think that they are.

3) The evidence is that the White House's statements on what happened and (more importantly) why, are in complete opposition to the statements made by the people who were there. Statements first made within the initial hours and days of the attacks and pushed even after it was clear that they were not reflecting what actually happened. Statements that were based upon a document that they had ordered be altered by the CIA in order to point to a video that had nothing to do with the actual attacks.

The Obama administration blatantly strained to tie the attacks to the right wing loons video instead of telling the American public what the real reason was (a preplanned AQ attack, reason: "They are AQ and that's what they do. It's their thing"). Administrations don't fall because of bad things happening under their watch. Adults know that no matter what you do things that you don't want or like will happen from time to time no matter how diligent you may be in preventing them from happening. Administrations fall when they lie and try to hide their failures instead of owning up to them (see Nixon and Clinton, neither one was because of their initial acts but the covering up of those acts after the fact).

By any reasonable measure the Obama administration lied about what happened for at least a week, longer if you want to get picky about it. In my opinion the lie was for purely political reasons as I've stated earlier. You are of course free to have a different take on why the lie was given repeatedly and I welcome you to offer that reason here. If it is more plausible than mine then I will take on that opinion instead.