New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

"We don't want to give our opponents any ammunition in our own talking points that they can use against us politically" is also not "we want to deflect all responsibility for the deaths of 4 Americans".

 

[The Big Dog]

You're wrong. I'm not making up arguments for you. I've quoted your words several times now. If the plain meaning isn't what they mean, then what is the meaning?
Again, you said, "Some of us feel the government telling overt lies to deflect responsibility about the deaths of 4 Americans is bad."

It's a good rule of thumb that when someone directly quotes your own words (or at least words you quoted without attribution as if they were your own), they're not arguing against a strawman. Since you have failed to answer repeated requests for evidence that the administration was trying to deflect responsibility for these deaths, I can only assume you think there can be no other explanation. I made this assumption as an assumption and asked if that's what you're doing.

Is it? If not, where's your evidence?



So you have no evidence that they lied to deflect their responsibility for the deaths? No evidence that they are responsible for the deaths? No evidence that they lied to deflect responsibility from those who were responsible for the deaths?

The reason they lied is that they did not want Congress to ask any pesky questions about why they ignored the threats in order to deflect responsibility for the deaths.

Better?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ok ok, she just insulted the president of Libya.

If you take disagreement on a preliminary assessment as insult (most of us don't), how do you know the President of Libya didn't insult her?

Remember, she didn't say we knew anything for certain. That the President of Libya turned out to be correct in his preliminary assessment doesn't mean he knew anything for certain on the 12th either.

 

[uke2se]

excellent question!

Greg hicks testified extensively about this very subject this week. I urge you to review that testimony.

Why can't you answer me?

It's your assertion, so it's your job to provide evidence.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The reason they lied is that they did not want Congress to ask any pesky questions about why they ignored the threats in order to deflect responsibility for the deaths.?

This still depends on the assumption that they were responsible for the deaths or wanted to protect those who were. Do you have any evidence to support this assumption?

 

[The Big Dog]

If you take disagreement on a preliminary assessment as insult (most of us don't), how do you know the President of Libya didn't insult her?

Remember, she didn't say we knew anything for certain. That the President of Libya turned out to be correct in his preliminary assessment doesn't mean he knew anything for certain on the 12th either.

Well, we know he didn't because he spoke first, and then she came on next and contradicted him.

The shows were on the 16th.

 

[uke2se]

Well, we know he didn't because he spoke first, and then she came on next and contradicted him.

The shows were on the 16th.

And you think her contradicting him is the same as her insulting him?

 

[The Big Dog]

This still depends on the assumption that they were responsible for the deaths or wanted to protect those who were. Do you have any evidence to support this assumption?

Lol wut.

False dichotomy?

 

[The Big Dog]

And you think her contradicting him is the same as her insulting him?

I think? No.

Hicks and the president of Libya?

Yup!

 

[uke2se]

I think? No.

Hicks and the president of Libya?

Yup!

So you disagree with Hicks and the president of Libya on this matter then? Does that mean that you're insulting them?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Lol wut.

False dichotomy?

No. False dichotomy is when you use ruling out one proposition fallaciously as evidence or proof of another proposition.

I'm pointing out that your allegation that the administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths assumes that they were responsible for the deaths or wanted to protect those who were. It's a really extraordinary allegation. I'm still waiting for your evidence.

Assuming the e-mails in question are evidence that the administration wanted to prevent Congress from asking them about why they ignored threats to the embassy (and while I'm not familiar with them, I'm only relying on your word for sake of argument), I would point out that this is not evidence at all that the administration was responsible for the deaths or sought to protect those who were responsible.

In other words wanting to deflect responsibility for ignoring threats is not the same thing as wanting to deflect responsibility for the deaths. You alleged the latter. Assuming your characterization of the e-mails is accurate as evidence, it's only evidence of the former allegation.

 

[The Big Dog]

So you disagree with Hicks and the president of Libya on this matter then? Does that mean that you're insulting them?

Hee hee! I'm sorry, you misunderstood.

I meant that it wasn't what I thought (i mean who cares what i think?), it is what Hicks ANd the President of Libya thought.

If you care, I think that Rice was totally out of line. Completely and totally.

 

[uke2se]

Hee hee! I'm sorry, you misunderstood.

I meant that it wasn't what I thought (i mean who cares what i think?), it is what Hicks ANd the President of Libya thought.

If you care, I think that Rice was totally out of line. Completely and totally.

So you think that Rice's job wasn't to present the information as the CIA and the State Department saw it, but rather to agree with the president of Libya?

I respectfully (without wishing to insult) disagree with that.

 

[The Big Dog]

No. False dichotomy is when you use ruling out one proposition fallaciously as evidence or proof of another proposition.

I'm pointing out that your allegation that the administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths assumes that they were responsible for the deaths or wanted to protect those who were. It's a really extraordinary allegation. I'm still waiting for your evidence.

Assuming the e-mails in question are evidence that the administration wanted to prevent Congress from asking them about why they ignored threats to the embassy (and while I'm not familiar with them, I'm only relying on your word for sake of argument), I would point out that this is not evidence at all that the administration was responsible for the deaths or sought to protect those who were responsible.

In other words wanting to deflect responsibility for ignoring threats is not the same thing as wanting to deflect responsibility for the deaths. You alleged the latter. Assuming your characterization of the e-mails is accurate as evidence, it's only evidence of the former allegation.

The evidence is in the emails.

In other words wanting to deflect responsibility for ignoring threats is not the same thing as wanting to deflect responsibility for the deaths? Really, I'll be damned. If you say so.

Why do you think they deflected responsibility for ignoring the threats?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think? No.

That's not true. You claimed it was an insult. If you don't think that, then you made a claim contrary to what you think.

You even claimed she went out of her way to insult him.

You further claimed that it was an insult based on a lie, even though as I've pointed out there are two problems with this reasoning: 1) she didn't lie since she carefully said that none of this was a definitive assessment at that point, and 2) you're using the assumption that she lied as part of an argument to prove that she lied.

 

[RandFan]

I meant that it wasn't what I thought (i mean who cares what i think?), it is what Hicks ANd the President of Libya thought.

What Hicks and the President of Libya "thought" isn't proof of what Rice knew. If Rice and the state department believed that was the likely scenario then there was no intent to lie and there was no intent to insult. Since we don't have evidence of what Rice and/or the State Department "knew" then I'm afraid we have to dismiss that (Hitchens' razor)

 

[The Big Dog]

So you think that Rice's job wasn't to present the information as the CIA and the State Department saw it, but rather to agree with the president of Libya?

I respectfully (without wishing to insult) disagree with that.

Nope, her job was to act professionally. She did not.

When the President of Libya comes out and completely contradicts what she was about to say, she ought to take that into account. She failed.

But who are we kidding, she was just the administrations cats paw. She had no business being on that idiotic morning show tour.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In other words wanting to deflect responsibility for ignoring threats is not the same thing as wanting to deflect responsibility for the deaths? Really, I'll be damned. If you say so.

So does that mean you retract your allegation that they overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths?

Why do you think they deflected responsibility for ignoring the threats?

I don't think that. If it's true, I could only speculate as to their motivation. (Maybe because it makes them look incompetent? Or because it was an embarrassing mistake?)

I'm pointing out to you that deflecting responsibility for ignoring threats is not the same thing as deflecting responsibility for the deaths.

Because you said:

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

 

[A'isha]

Nope, her job was to act professionally. She did not.

When the President of Libya comes out and completely contradicts what she was about to say, she ought to take that into account. She failed.

Why should she have taken that into account over and above what the State Department and the CIA said? In what way was she answerable to the President of Libya?

 

[uke2se]

Nope, her job was to act professionally. She did not.

When the President of Libya comes out and completely contradicts what she was about to say, she ought to take that into account. She failed.

This means that you think that "acting professionally" entails discarding information given to you by your intelligence services and instead just go with what a foreign dignitary says.

Again, I respectfully disagree.

But who are we kidding, she was just the administrations cats paw. She had no business being on that idiotic morning show tour.

Ok, so now the administration is at fault for not immediately agreeing with a foreign dignitary.

Once again, I disagree.