New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

And, again, why do you think that's relevant?

Determining when the discussion was over and that the version of the talking points that State/CIA had worked out would be the version released to the public was the NSS' call. The White House, as the email chain clearly states, had already given their own approvals to the early pre-edited draft.

On what basis are you claiming that the people involved in the email discussion about the memo were not at the meeting about the memo? The White House did not share State's concerns (else they wouldn't have signed off on the earlier draft), but they were interested in making sure that all the other agencies signed off on it. So why wouldn't the meeting involve the people that still had issues with the memo (which didn't include the White House)?

They doctored the emails that they released, not that the White House released...that's what Jon Karl was reporting on and quoting, what he was told were the actual emails. The White House had shown the emails to Republicans in Congress back during the Brennan confirmation hearings, and Republicans in Congress then made false claims to the press about what those emails said.

Uh, the NSS referred to in the Petreaus email is the White House National Security Staff. So you claim that the White House didn't have problems with it, but not only do we not know what happened at the deputies meeting, we don't even know who was there, and the White House won't say. Petreaus appears to disagree with your suggestion, doesn't he?

 

[RandFan]

JAQ'ing off? Lolz.

• People who make claims are required to provide proof of their claims.
• Trying to persuade using rhetorical questions is sophistry.
• People who ask questions of people making claims ARE NOT JAQ'ING OFF.

This has been explained to you before. Here, let me post the wiki article on Burden of Proof one more time. Do me a favor, this time read it.

The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

It's the skeptics job to ask questions of those making claims. You are making claims.

I would like to know if there is a coherent narrative that takes into account the contradictory nature of the preliminary data. Oh, I would also like an honest admission that it was preliminary. I would also like to know if you have evidence that demonstrates what was known when Rice provided the talking points?

 

[RandFan]

Uh, the NSS referred to in the Petreaus email is the White House National Security Staff. So you claim that the White House didn't have problems with it, but not only do we not know what happened at the deputies meeting, we don't even know who was there, and the White House won't say. Petreaus appears to disagree with your suggestion, doesn't he?

So, you are making an argument from ignorance? Or are you just JAQ'ing off in an attempt to persuade through sophistry?

 

[RandFan]

Lolz.

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule - The Nizkor Project

"Lolz" will not make your argument correct. It will not falsify other people's arguments. It's fine from time to time when someone says something funny or ironic. It's fallacy to rely on it in an attempt to persuade through ridicule. It's also, IMO, rather childish.

Since you are the one making the claim that something serious and "pretty important" happened it's your responsibility to answer questions and not treat the questions as though they are ironic. That's fallacious.

 

[A'isha]

Uh, the NSS referred to in the Petreaus email is the White House National Security Staff.

Yes, I know.

So you claim that the White House didn't have problems with it, but not only do we not know what happened at the deputies meeting, we don't even know who was there, and the White House won't say.

We know the White House didn't have problems with it, because there's an email specifically saying that the White House cleared a draft, but that State still had concerns.

And, again, why is that relevant? Why do you think all the people that had been trading revisions to the memo back and forth in the email chain (which weren't White House staffers) were not at the meeting?

We know, at least, that Ben Rhodes (the one you call "Obama's speechwriter") was not at the meeting, because the email chain contains the post-meeting memo being emailed to him with a note saying "let me know what you think", and his response that it was "good by me". We know that Jacob Sullivan wasn't there either, since he was copied on that same email, and made two additional minor changes to the post-meeting memo.

Petreaus appears to disagree with your suggestion, doesn't he?

No, because he specifically says that it's NSS's call whether to use the final version of the memo. Which it was.

It says nothing at all about NSS's participating in modifying the content of the memo to reach that final version.

EDIT: Petraus' email also says "thx for the great work", too, you know. And the email he's replying to only mentions that State had concerns, not anything about the White House or NSS having concerns.

 

[The Big Dog]

We know, at least, that Ben Rhodes (the one you call "Obama's speechwriter") was not at the meeting, because the email chain contains the post-meeting memo being emailed to him with a note saying "let me know what you think", and his response that it was "good by me". We know that Jacob Sullivan wasn't there either, since he was copied on that same email, and made two additional minor changes to the post-meeting memo.

EDIT: Petraus' email also says "thx for the great work", too, you know. And the email he's replying to only mentions that State had concerns, not anything about the White House or NSS having concerns.

The fact that it was sent to Rhodes for final approval does not mean he wasn't there, of course.

I think the reference to great work was for his guys at the CIA and not the knuckleheads who gutted the talking points.

Great issue spotting though, it appears Congress has work to do!

 

[A'isha]

The fact that it was sent to Rhodes for final approval does not mean he wasn't there, of course.

It would be odd, since he (and the White House) was just fine with the early drafts that talk about Ansar al-Sharia.

Great issue spotting though, it appears Congress has work to do!

What is it you think they need to be doing?

 

[RandFan]

It's true, it's true.

... it appears Congress has work to do!

You are right. There are many things that are critically important and being ignored by the GOP.

Veterans Wait for Benefits as Claims Pile Up - The New York Times

Hmmmm......

If our soldiers benefits are so important why is this tempest in a tea cup taking up so much of GOP's time and resources? Good question don't you think? Well, there is an answer for that.

Heritage letter to Republicans on Capitol Hill: Don’t legislate, just scandalize Obama

you can read the full letter here.

To that end, we urge you to avoid bringing any legislation to the House Floor that could expose or highlight major schisms within the conference. Legislation such as the Internet sales tax or the FARRM Act which contains nearly $800 billion in food stamp spending, would give the press a reason to shift their attention away from the failures of the Obama administration to write another “circular firing squad” article.

Anyone not thinking the efforts on the part of the GOP aren't political?

 

[The Big Dog]

You are right. There are many things that are critically important and being ignored by the GOP.

Veterans Wait for Benefits as Claims Pile Up - The New York Times

Hmmmm......

If our soldiers benefits are so important why is this tempest in a tea cup taking up so much of GOP's time and resources? Good question don't you think? Well, there is an answer for that.

Heritage letter to Republicans on Capitol Hill: Don’t legislate, just scandalize Obama

Anyone not thinking the efforts on the part of the GOP aren't political?

Spam, thread jacking? Really?

 

[RandFan]

Spam, thread jacking? Really?

It's a legitimate and fair question. I've been trying to understand why this subject warrants so much attention. Why should people care about this when we know there is lots of evidence that the GOP is focusing on scandals and ignoring very important issues.

It's been 33 pages and so far no smoking gun. Tell me again why this is important?

 

[A'isha]

Spam, thread jacking? Really?

No, making the very relevant point that the only reason the Republicans in Congress are pursuing the Benghazi non-scandal is for purely partisan reasons, and they are ignoring far more important things in their single-minded focus on the Benghazi nonsense.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, making the very relevant point that the only reason the Republicans in Congress are pursuing the Benghazi non-scandal is for purely partisan reasons, and they are ignoring far more important things in their single-minded focus on the Benghazi nonsense.

Well, they tried to make the Obamas' "lavish" lifestyle into a scandal. When it turned out that that was just a big fat lie, all they can say in defense of their absurd claims is "Benghazi":



ETA: Of course, what's disgusting is covering one bald faced lie with another. Bachmann actually said that President Obama doesn't care about the 4 people killed in Benghazi.

 

[RandFan]

Just in case I missed it, did 16.5 ever address the fact that the GOP doctored the emails?

That seems rather pertinent.

Young Turks:

 

[Upchurch]

Spam, thread jacking? Really?

For it to be thread jacking, he'd have to change the topic of the thread. In order to change the topic, he'd have to know what is the point you are trying to make.

What point are you trying to make?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just in case I missed it, did 16.5 ever address the fact that the GOP doctored the emails?

Post 1248. He basically denies they did. It's just a lie made up by the liberal media.

On the other hand, the 100 people he says were killed in the Benghazi attacks--that's the gospel truth!

 

[A'isha]

On the other hand, the 100 people he says were killed in the Benghazi attacks--that's the gospel truth!

And he doesn't seem to want to talk about what else the book he cited as his source for that says.

 

[RandFan]

Bachmann actually said that President Obama doesn't care about the 4 people killed in Benghazi.

One of America's biggest embarrassments is that this idiot is on the Senate Intelligence Committee. JMO.

 

[uke2se]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

I wish I could say the same for the GOP critters running this show, but unfortunately, they really are this dumb.

 

[The Big Dog]

Just in case I missed it, did 16.5 ever address the fact that the GOP doctored the emails?

That seems rather pertinent.

Young Turks:h

Yeah, I said that you lied when you said the emails were doctored, because they had not been released yet.

You ever addressed the fact that the Administration admitted they acted like idiots?

 

[A'isha]

Yeah, I said that you lied when you said the emails were doctored, because they had not been released yet.

So? The Republicans had seen the emails long before the White House released them, and the Republicans lied to the press about what those emails said.

You ever addressed the fact that the Administration acted like idiots?

Even if that were true, you haven't established that Congress needs to hold hearings about anything.