New Disclosures on Benghazi

[Regnad Kcin]

But keep right on defending your hero & heroine. Nothing to see here; just move along.

My hero and heroine are Aex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

 

[Travis]

I've yet to see why I should care even if all the ugly accusations were true.

Anyone want to take a stab at explaining how any of this actually matters?

 

[elbe]

And of course nobody would never ever exploit a situation to keep themselves from looking not innocent. Ever. I mean intentionally killing a US Diplomat might be a death sentence but if just being a protester might only get a $100 ticket it might work. Why not try that first?

Aww screw that. GITMO sounds like a vacation spot. Cuba and sun? Hell yeah!Lets go!

But, for the purposes of the conversation, it is irrelevant if they lied (though I certainly have no problem if some people joined even though it wasn't what they may have thought it was), it was still conflicting intelligence that had to be considered and processed.

 

[marplots]

I've yet to see why I should care even if all the ugly accusations were true.

Anyone want to take a stab at explaining how any of this actually matters?

Although I disagree, the story we are asked to accept is that the whole thing boils down to Obama winning the election by concealing/spinning what happened. That if he hadn't, he would have lost.

That seems like a pretty big stretch to me, but that's what I've read in this thread.

 

[elbe]

Although I disagree, the story we are asked to accept is that the whole thing boils down to Obama winning the election by concealing/spinning what happened. That if he hadn't, he would have lost.

That seems like a pretty big stretch to me, but that's what I've read in this thread.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I only really recall one post mentioning the election and that was as a timestamp.

 

[marplots]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I only really recall one post mentioning the election and that was as a timestamp.

Here's the best one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9215710#post9215710

But, I admit I've been seeing the same outline in other sources and may have read more into the other posts here than was warranted.

And just in case it slips by, I disagree with the meaning and import advanced. I see this pretty much like a combination of not having all the facts and inter-agency spin with no larger significance at all.

ETA: I should have said, "No significance proven so far," being a skeptic and all, I'll reserve final judgement with the possibility of new info changing the story. I'm still holding out for a scandal to emerge around what might have been going on at the CIA annex - cause I'm a fan of black ops and CIA shenanigans.

 

[eeyore1954]

Yes and no. There are many objective journalists that are sincerely interested in the truth. They may be biased but most don't get into the business to advance political goals.

I guess I agree but I also believe most politicians also are interested in the truth. It may be that bias gets in the way on seeing truth and also sometimes what is truth might be hard to pin down because different people can legitimately disagree on how to interpret circumstances.

 

[spin0]

http://townhall.com/columnists/dian...-us-used-jihadists-to-guard-benghazi-n1592113
The conservative thinking on the matter. Yeah, I know: Townhall!

The person who wrote that piece seems to be gasping over old news, as it seems to contain nothing new (except perhaps Mr. Hicks' asserted certainty of complicits). Even the headline says "Tell me again..." which implies that the writer is aware there's nothing new in to it.

Was there something specific in the article that you wanted to inform me about?

 

[Newtons Bit]

I've yet to see why I should care even if all the ugly accusations were true.

Anyone want to take a stab at explaining how any of this actually matters?

Some of us feel the government telling overt lies to deflect responsibility about the deaths of 4 Americans is bad.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Although I disagree, the story we are asked to accept is that the whole thing boils down to Obama winning the election by concealing/spinning what happened. That if he hadn't, he would have lost.

That seems like a pretty big stretch to me, but that's what I've read in this thread.

IIRC, the story that the attack was actually carried out by an organized terrorist group came out well before the election. Did not Romney even bring it up in one of the debates?

This leaves me wondering what the big fuss is. The delay in attributing the attack to a terrorist group doesn't seem to have affected anything. No wars were started or ended based on false information. No policies were created or eliminated. No prison camps were opened. What would be different if the govt. had come out on 9/12 and said that the attack was done by a terrorist group?

 

[RandFan]

In that case I apologize for that post. I have maintained that my own opinion that the narrative was changed for political reason from my first post on the matter. My very first post on this issue was here in this thread. I simply didn't know enough to have an opinion but the latest revelations have pointed me to the opinion that Obama knowingly lied about what he knew and when he knew it.

My opinion on the possible motive have always been stated as being to alter public opinion on the administrations failures and actions regarding what happened on Benghazi in order to win an election. Nothing more. For evidence of this are my observations that:

a) Obama slammed Romney on his statements of not being adept at foreign policy even though Romneys statement were closer to reality than Obamas. (done)

b) The State Dept. and White House altered the CIA assessment (12 times) to keep the state dept. from getting hit by calls of incompetence. (done)

c) It allowed the administration to point at a right wing video (and to subtly lay the blame at the right wing as a whole) as the cause of the attacks while shunting any reference of AQ away from it. (done)

The combined total of these can be seen as lying to the voters less than two months before an election in order to win an election. The American public in general hates a cheater that wins (see Lance Armstrong for a recent example). There is going to be 47% that will feel like their vote was taken away from them and another unknowable number of swing voters that feel the same way due to their not knowing what was going on and relying on the president to give them accurate information.

Bill Clinton got impeached by saying "I did not have sex with that woman" and repeating it over and over again in some form. His whole scandal was started by that one statement. Obamas scandal will be about his saying that the video was the cause of the attacks as he did repeatedly in some form for almost 2 weeks.

Impeachable? I don't think so although the House may go through with the political theater causing limitations on what he can do. Keeping Hillary from running in 2016? Absolutely as this happened under her watch with her people doing the dirty work.

Thanks. I find it hard to think that this is a serious issue compared to Katrina which was an unmitigated disaster and exposed cronyism and lies on the part of Bush. People died in Katrina as a direct result of malfeasance and lies. Now, that doesn't excuse anything that Obama has done. I've said time and again that if there was serious malfeasance that led to people's death then I'm all for doing something about it. As it is I don't give a damn that Clinton lied. BTW: That's not when the scandal started. That was the result of a fishing expedition by Ken Star.

I just don't see why this is so serious even if I grant you all of your premises. I don't mind that it's investigated. I don't mind that there is an opposition party to criticize Obama. I just think this is politically motivated gotcha.

 

[RandFan]

I guess I agree but I also believe most politicians also are interested in the truth. It may be that bias gets in the way on seeing truth and also sometimes what is truth might be hard to pin down because different people can legitimately disagree on how to interpret circumstances.

I'll agree. I don't have an opinion that all politicians are evil and are only self serving. IMO: The political dynamics are more likely to obscure the truth than objective journalists. The pundits on the other hand, perhaps worse than the politicians. Who knows.

 

[RandFan]

Some of us feel the government telling overt lies to deflect responsibility about the deaths of 4 Americans is bad.

I think it bad. I don't think it warrants 50 weeks of hearings as Issa has said he wants (I'm not claiming they are all for Benghazi). I don't think it is historical in the way Katrina was (for comparison). I didn't say a peep during the first two hearing. Congress has a responsibility of oversight. I believe that there absolutely should have been an investigation and hearings and congress should do its best to get at the truth. But given that there is no evidence that anyone committed a crime to cover up the story and given that there was legitimate confusion at the beginning (the CIA's first draft mentions protestors) I don't see a major incident here.

 

[The Big Dog]

IIRC, the story that the attack was actually carried out by an organized terrorist group came out well before the election. Did not Romney even bring it up in one of the debates?

This leaves me wondering what the big fuss is. The delay in attributing the attack to a terrorist group doesn't seem to have affected anything. No wars were started or ended based on false information. No policies were created or eliminated. No prison camps were opened. What would be different if the govt. had come out on 9/12 and said that the attack was done by a terrorist group?

Some of us feel the government telling overt lies to deflect responsibility about the deaths of 4 Americans is bad.

The false story also embarrassed the President of Libya and may have impeded the subsequent investigation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Some of us feel the government telling overt lies to deflect responsibility about the deaths of 4 Americans is bad.

So you're saying the government is responsible for the deaths of the 4 people at Benghazi?

Sounds like a CT to me.

ETA: So what is your evidence that the government was responsible for these deaths other than the circular argument that the motivation for them not correctly reporting it as a terrorist attack as early as you would have liked was done for the purpose of deflecting their responsibility for the deaths?

I note you didn't say they wanted to deflect their responsibility for the deaths, but instead said they wanted to deflect responsibility "about" the deaths. What does that mean if not the same thing as "for"? Is it possible for them to deflect someone else's responsibility for the deaths? Why would they want to do that?

ETA: And if you're alleging that they wanted to protect the terrorists who caused the deaths from responsibility for the deaths, isn't that an even more bizarre CT? Wouldn't that make them also responsible for the deaths (if they're attempting to protect the killers or anyone else involved in planning or carrying out the attack)? That's quite an extraordinary claim no matter how you parse these words. I'm anxious to see your extraordinary evidence.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I think it bad. I don't think it warrants 50 weeks of hearings as Issa has said he wants (I'm not claiming they are all for Benghazi). I don't think it is historical in the way Katrina was (for comparison). I didn't say a peep during the first two hearing. Congress has a responsibility of oversight. I believe that there absolutely should have been an investigation and hearings and congress should do its best to get at the truth. But given that there is no evidence that anyone committed a crime to cover up the story and given that there was legitimate confusion at the beginning (the CIA's first draft mentions protestors) I don't see a major incident here.

And if Congress discovers the people it providers oversight to were lying after it held the first two hearings it should do what? Shrug its shoulders?

 

[Newtons Bit]

So you're saying the government is responsible for the deaths of the 4 people at Benghazi?

Sounds like a CT to me.

Yea. The government did it on purpose!

By the way, I wrote that. Not 16.5.

 

[elbe]

Clinton remains GOP focus as administration defends Benghazi talking points

After the first edition of talking points referred to an al Qaeda-linked group, Nuland wrote "Why would we want the Hill fingering al Ansar al Sharia when we aren't doing that ourselves until we have an investigation result?"

Regardless of various peoples' complaint I think that's a reasonable position to take. Should we jump the gun just to have a target for the public to unleash their ire on?

Democrats continue to dismiss the complaints as politically motivated.

Former White House senior adviser David Axelrod tweeted Friday that the furor over Benghazi is motivated by those hoping to undercut her presidential chances.

Can't help but feeling that If (former secretary of the interior) Ken Salazar were the front runner for '16, the House GOP be holding hearings on the BP oil spill,” he wrote.

 

[RandFan]

And if Congress discovers the people it providers oversight to were lying after it held the first two hearings it should do what? Shrug its shoulders?

It's a good question but difficult to answer in a vacuum. I need some context. What did we do in the past? Just for comparison purposes: We know that what Bush said about WMD and FEMA's foresight on a direct hurricane hit on New Orleans were factually incorrect. Those are indisputable facts. Those both led to lots and lots of dead people. Again, just for comparison purposes. Tell me what we should have done then and perhaps that will help me decide what we should do now.

If Obama lied and that lie led to people's deaths I'd call for impeachment. If the lie simply upset people and was made by a staffer at the state department then fire the staffer.

 

[The Big Dog]

So you're saying the government is responsible for the deaths of the 4 people at Benghazi?

Sounds like a CT to me.

ETA: So what is your evidence that the government was responsible for these deaths other than the circular argument that the motivation for them not correctly reporting it as a terrorist attack as early as you would have liked was done for the purpose of deflecting their responsibility for the deaths?

I note you didn't say they wanted to deflect their responsibility for the deaths, but instead said they wanted to deflect responsibility "about" the deaths. What does that mean if not the same thing as "for"? Is it possible for them to deflect someone else's responsibility for the deaths? Why would they want to do that?

ETA: And if you're alleging that they wanted to protect the terrorists who caused the deaths from responsibility for the deaths, isn't that an even more bizarre CT? Wouldn't that make them also responsible for the deaths (if they're attempting to protect the killers or anyone else involved in planning or carrying out the attack)? That's quite an extraordinary claim no matter how you parse these words. I'm anxious to see your extraordinary evidence.

THE "so" argument. Here is an excellent rule of thumb, if someone starts out an argument with "so" the chances are very, very good that what will follow is a straw man.