New Disclosures on Benghazi

[RandFan]

lets take a look at who President Obama thinks makes a good NSA:

Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance.

Directly after that statement on the same show Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest.

Right after the show, on the very same day, Magariaf says in an interview with NPR: “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.”

Unfounded and preposterous. And Obama wants to promote her.

“Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy.”

Rice said what the State Department believed at the time. The Ambasador, based on your own info (see highlighted) also said what he believed at the time. And some of what he said was wrong. This has been explained over and over to you. The State Department acted in good faith based on what they believed and were told by the CIA. The CIA had reason to think that it was, in part, spontaneous and a result of the anti-Muslim video. Again, this has been explained over and over and over.

Reasserting your assertions and refusing to admit to what was known as opposed to what was believed is dishonest and it's an attempt to score political points by using the deaths of Americans that did not die as a result of lies on the part of the State Department. Mistakes were made. That's been admitted to from the beginning.

 

[The Big Dog]

The story, and the scandal will apparently keep changing until Obama is impeached. Or something.

I've been reading this thread from the beginning, and I find it hilarious over what some people will do to prove a scandal ,just because they don't agree with the politics.

And I think it is hilarious that people will ignore their government lying to them, gross incompetence and dereliction of duty just because they agree with the politics.

 

[RandFan]

FYI:

These guys don't think the lack of progress on the murders of Benghazi is a "joke."

Straw man and blatantly dishonest and an appeal to emotion. I've said over and over that what happened to these Americans was tragic.

The joke is this thread and the attempt to scandalize by dishonestly casting aspersions.

From yesterday's Stars and Stripes.

http://www.stripes.com/it-s-imperative-we-get-full-story-on-benghazi-1.224270

I'm interested in material facts. Do you have any? Can you demonstrate an ethical breach? Can you demonstrate lies and/or a cover up?

 

[Shalamar]

And I think it is hilarious that people will ignore their government lying to them, gross incompetence and dereliction of duty just because they agree with the politics.

So when will Obama get impeached, and replaced with a conservative only government?

Because despite your attempts, I've seen no lying, no gross incompetence, and no dereliction of duty. Just a horrible event that people on the right are trying to use for political gain.

 

[RandFan]

And I think it is hilarious that people will ignore their government lying to them, gross incompetence and dereliction of duty just because they agree with the politics.

I don't ignore when my government lies to me. Though I voted for Bush twice I admitted when his lies led to the deaths of Americans. I've no problem with that at all.

What I find blameworthy in this thread is trying to turn the death of Americans into a scandal for political purposes. Those deaths were tragic and do not deserve this.

 

[A'isha]

Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance.

And how did he know? The State Department certainly didn't tell him that.

Directly after that statement on the same show Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest.

Which was...exactly the CIA's own assessment at the time.

Right after the show, on the very same day, Magariaf says in an interview with NPR: “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.”

Unfounded and preposterous. And Obama wants to promote her.

Because everyone knows that the NSA should be taking the unsupported word of the president of a country where the US ambassador to that country has just been killed, instead of listening to what the US' own intelligence agency says on the matter.

FYI:

These guys don't think the lack of progress on the murders of Benghazi is a "joke."

From yesterday's Stars and Stripes.

http://www.stripes.com/it-s-imperative-we-get-full-story-on-benghazi-1.224270

William Boykin?!

You're citing something written by the vice-president of the lunatic fundamentalist Family Research Council, who thinks that George Soros secretly caused the 2008 economic crisis to get Obama elected, asserted that Petraus was "blackmailed" by Obama into going along with the Benghazi cover-up, believes that Republican anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist is a secret Muslim working for the Muslim Brotherhood, and who wants all the Jews to be converted to Christianity?

That's your go-to guy on the importance of the Benghazi investigation?

 

[The Big Dog]

So when will Obama get impeached, and replaced with a conservative only government?

Because despite your attempts, I've seen no lying, no gross incompetence, and no dereliction of duty. Just a horrible event that people on the right are trying to use for political gain.

I'll ignore the ridiculous straw man at the beginning.

You've seen nothing because you are not objective.

Lying: Relying on the debunked talking points after admitting they were wrong.
Lying/Incompetence: the claim that there was a protest outside the consulate despite the fact that there was no protest outside the consulate and they ignored the people who knew it.
Dereliction: Ignoring the Embassies repeated request for additional security.

 

[Upchurch]

This is completely off-topic and I apologize for that.

I just discovered in "Thread Tools" that the forum grants the ability to "Ignore Thread", which removes it from the thread list! Which is AWESOME!

Normally, I'm not a fan of ignoring anything, but this thread keeps bouncing to the top of the stack. I've followed* this long and I feel obliged to keep going. This solves that problem. I highly recommend this feature to any lurkers, like myself, who've been wishing the forum had a "mute conversation" button like in gmail.




* to be generous. Mostly, I open it long enough to skim what's been said and then roll my eyes at the time I had just wasted doing even that much.

 

[Shalamar]

I'll ignore the ridiculous straw man at the beginning.

You've seen nothing because you are not objective.

Lying: Relying on the debunked talking points after admitting they were wrong.
Lying/Incompetence: the claim that there was a protest outside the consulate despite the fact that there was no protest outside the consulate and they ignored the people who knew it.
Dereliction: Ignoring the Embassies repeated request for additional security.

I am objective. You've just shown nothing that others haven't pointed out are wrong.

You're entire argument seems to point to 'We know what we know because we know what we know that they knew at the time, and they lied because they said they knew what they knew when we now know what we know was wrong at the time because hindsight is 20/20.

You're not objective. Stop the witch hunt.

 

[Shalamar]

This is completely off-topic and I apologize for that.

I just discovered in "Thread Tools" that the forum grants the ability to "Ignore Thread", which removes it from the thread list! Which is AWESOME!

Normally, I'm not a fan of ignoring anything, but this thread keeps bouncing to the top of the stack. I've followed* this long and I feel obliged to keep going. This solves that problem. I highly recommend this feature to any lurkers, like myself, who've been wishing the forum had a "mute conversation" button like in gmail.


* to be generous. Mostly, I open it long enough to skim what's been said and then roll my eyes at the time I had just wasted doing even that much.

Probably a good idea. Then 16.5 can continue to have a conversation with himself about how the administration should have said then what we know now, though they didn't know it at the time.

 

[elbe]

I'm digging how any allegation of wrong doing on the administrations part is met with automatic promotion to "scandal" but allegations that certain right wing officials may have altered their own evidence gets the maximum amount of scepticism. But that's really to be expected, isn't it?

 

[The Big Dog]

Lets take a closer look at the Rice situation:

Megarif claims evidence shows that some elements of Ansar al-Sharia, an extremist group in eastern Benghazi, were used as tools by foreign citizens with ties to al-Qaida to attack the consulate and threaten Libya's stability.

Ansar al-Sharia rejects the democratic process in Libya, and does not recognize the new Libyan government. Only God's law rules, it says.

And how in the hell did he know that (beyond the fact the he himself was in Benghazi?) Because the United states of America in the person of Asst Sec of State Liz Jones told Libya!

And then the Administration sends Rice on the dog and pony show, who then doubles down by not only contradicting Jones' communications, but then openly disagrees with the President of Libya based on non-existent information!

And this is who Obama wants as the NSA?

Wow.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm digging how wrong doing on the administrations part is met with the maximum amount of "skepticism" but allegations that certain right wing officials may have altered their own evidence automatic taken bad notes is promoted to "scandal." But that's really to be expected, isn't it?

Great point Elbe!

 

[RandFan]

I am objective. You've just shown nothing that others haven't pointed out are wrong.

You're entire argument seems to point to 'We know what we know because we know what we know that they knew at the time, and they lied because they said they knew what they knew when we now know what we know was wrong at the time because hindsight is 20/20.
You're not objective. Stop the witch hunt.

Which is to ignore the fact that they knew the report was preliminary.


BTW: If the administration lied, that wouldn't be a good thing. It wouldn't be the worst thing. Lying is part of politics (see below). In context, compared to the lies about Katrina and the thousands that died, the lies about Iraq and the thousands that lied, such a lie would be small potatoes.

Study: Media Fact-Checker Says Republicans Lie More

No tu quoque. No red herring. Benghazi deserved a hearing and an investigation. We got that and those who made mistakes ought to be disciplined. But there was no lie by the Administration. They acted on good faith. They might have chosen the evidence that best suited them but there was a plausible explanation given by the CIA for a riot. There were riots and the anti-Islam video was causing a lot of problems at the time.

 

[RandFan]

I'm digging how wrong doing on the administrations part is met with the maximum amount of "skepticism" but allegations that certain right wing officials may have altered their own evidence automatic taken bad notes is promoted to "scandal." But that's really to be expected, isn't it?

Great point Elbe!

Odd that the "bad notes" just happened to be "bad" in a way to make the administration look bad.

 

[elbe]

I'm digging how wrong doing on the administrations part is met with the maximum amount of "skepticism" but allegations that certain right wing officials may have altered their own evidence automatic taken bad notes is promoted to "scandal." But that's really to be expected, isn't it?

Great point Elbe!

I haven't raised the gops notes to "scandal" but I do question their motivations. It would be nice if you understood your opponents positions before trying to attack them.

 

[RandFan]

Probably a good idea. Then 16.5 can continue to have a conversation with himself about how the administration should have said then what we know now, though they didn't know it at the time.

Yeah, I think the thread deserves to die. I'm out of here.

The vet says the horse is dead.



Adios.

 

[The Big Dog]

Q: Fast forward, Mr. Hicks, to the Sunday talk shows with Ambassador Susan Rice. She blamed this attack on a video. In fact, she did it five different times. What is your reaction to that?

Hicks: I was stunned. My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed.

Q: Did she talk to you before she went on the five Sunday talk shows?

A: No, sir.

Q: You were the highest ranking official in Libya at the time, correct?

Hicks: Yes.

Q: And she did not bother to have a conversation with you before she went on national television?

Hicks: No, sir.

/but she'll take one for the team, huh?

 

[elbe]

Yeah, I think the thread deserves to die. I'm out of here.

The vet says the horse is dead.



Adios.

As long as the primary poster is willing to argue with himself this thread can never die.

 

[The Big Dog]

I haven't raised the gops notes to "scandal" but I do question their motivations. It would be nice if you understood your opponents positions before trying to attack them.

And I have attempted to avoid the use of the word scandal, because I believe it is a dismissive label slapped on the real issues in an attempt to disrupt serious discussion. In fact it is frequently used as the exact type of fallacy mentioned in my sig.

It would be nice if you understood your opponents positions before trying to attack them