New Disclosures on Benghazi - Part II

[tyr_13]

Yes, rebuke is an appropriate goal. Remember, Obama et al dishonestly spun the Benghazi situation in order to prevent damage to their immediate, and extraordinarily important, political goal of maximizing their vote totals in the election coming up in less than 2 months. Unless you want all future administrations to do the same thing, the opposition party must administer some sort of punishment to act as a deterrent. I think they've done that.

No, they did not. You keep saying this, but they didn't do that.

It has actually, and quite obviously, been the reverse of those trying to spin it to hurt them worse than their actual missteps would have for political goals. This, ironically, has led to it having less of a political impact.

Keep trying though, it's only helping the Democrats at this point.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, rebuke is an appropriate goal. Remember, Obama et al dishonestly spun the Benghazi situation in order to prevent damage to their immediate, and extraordinarily important, political goal of maximizing their vote totals in the election coming up in less than 2 months. Unless you want all future administrations to do the same thing, the opposition party must administer some sort of punishment to act as a deterrent. I think they've done that.

I don't know why you bother with Mead's apologies for "gloating" over Benghazi, no one seriously argued that Hillary's incompetence in Benghazi was going to lead to an indictment.

 

[DavidJames]

Yes, rebuke is an appropriate goal. Remember, Obama et al dishonestly spun the Benghazi situation in order to prevent damage to their immediate, and extraordinarily important, political goal of maximizing their vote totals in the election coming up in less than 2 months. Unless you want all future administrations to do the same thing, the opposition party must administer some sort of punishment to act as a deterrent. I think they've done that.

None of that has been proven. Once again, failed mind reading. Unbecoming of a critical thinking forum.

 

[sunmaster14]

None of that has been proven. Once again, failed mind reading. Unbecoming of a critical thinking forum.

It has been proven to my satisfaction. Whether you or Meadmaker or tyr_13 agree with me or not, is irrelevant to my opinion.

 

[wareyin]

It has been proven to my satisfaction. Whether you or Meadmaker or tyr_13 agree with me or not, is irrelevant to my opinion.

This is an excellent example of assuming the conclusion. Thank you.

 

[ZirconBlue]

6. On the other hand, there is little doubt that Hillary Clinton herself, and certain administration officials, made contradictory statements. After looking at some of them, I think what was really going on is that they wanted to make public statements that made themselves look confident and in control, and they said whatever they happened to think at that moment in time, but said it with more confidence than was warranted by their actual knowledge. A lot of people don't like to admit that they don't know answers to questions. A lot of people don't like to admit that they were wrong in the past, even when it is clear they were. That's my take on things, anyway. They ended up looking stupid.

More to the point, I think, is that the American people want their leaders to look confident and in control. The general public does not want to hear "I don't know", and in our 24/7 news atmosphere, few people seem willing to wait for more accurate information.

 

[Fitter]

It has been proven to my satisfaction. Whether you or Meadmaker or tyr_13 agree with me or not, is irrelevant to my opinion.

It was probably proven to your satisfaction the moment you heard "Obama..."

 

[thaiboxerken]

Benghazi is a dead fabricated scandal. The new fabricated scandal is about emails. Why is this thread still alive?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Benghazi is a dead fabricated scandal. The new fabricated scandal is about emails. Why is this thread still alive?

Because the Pubbies are trying to reopen it again in the hopes they can go after Clinton now for perjury.

 

[Meadmaker]

I was listening to the news last night, and something amusing struck me. In discussing the Benghazi affair, the "lies" of the Obama administration that have been so roundly condemned by the right wing are basically contained in the story that Susan Rice spun on the Sunday shows, and that Hillary and, to some extent, the President, made in some statements. What Rice said, and what the administration said, was that terrorists took advantage of spontaneous demonstrations in order to launch an attack.

That story came from what the CIA was telling them, and it was wrong, and the administration looked stupid. Somehow, this has been spun into "lies" by the anti-Obama/Hillary crowd, even though the story that they used to "cover up" the truth was more damning than the truth. Be that as it may, that isn't what I found amusing.

What I found amusing is that opponents of the administration are raking them over the coals because the administration repeated bad data from the intelligence community.

I vaguely recall some other administration using a similar claim. The did something or another, and made some sort of claim to justify it. It turned out that the claim was wrong, and when the opponents said that the administration had lied, the administration said the intelligence community had led them astray.

Well, it's not all that important, I guess. I just couldn't help mentally comparing the two situations and seeing which one seemed more significant, and which claim of being misled by bad intelligence seemed more credible.

 

[pgwenthold]

I was listening to the news last night, and something amusing struck me. In discussing the Benghazi affair, the "lies" of the Obama administration that have been so roundly condemned by the right wing are basically contained in the story that Susan Rice spun on the Sunday shows, and that Hillary and, to some extent, the President, made in some statements. What Rice said, and what the administration said, was that terrorists took advantage of spontaneous demonstrations in order to launch an attack.

That story came from what the CIA was telling them, and it was wrong, and the administration looked stupid. Somehow, this has been spun into "lies" by the anti-Obama/Hillary crowd, even though the story that they used to "cover up" the truth was more damning than the truth. Be that as it may, that isn't what I found amusing.

What I found amusing is that opponents of the administration are raking them over the coals because the administration repeated bad data from the intelligence community.

I vaguely recall some other administration using a similar claim. The did something or another, and made some sort of claim to justify it. It turned out that the claim was wrong, and when the opponents said that the administration had lied, the administration said the intelligence community had led them astray.

Well, it's not all that important, I guess. I just couldn't help mentally comparing the two situations and seeing which one seemed more significant, and which claim of being misled by bad intelligence seemed more credible.

While there are some similarities in concept, the consequences are severely different. The consequences of the Obama administration relying on faulty intelligence is....what exactly?

I know there are those that claim that it helped them win the election, but as you have conceded, those dots don't connect.

So the State Dept relied on faulty intelligence for an issue of little consequence. Bush relied on faulty intelligence and went to war over it. Even given the superficial similarity, that's worlds apart.

 

[The Big Dog]

That story came from what the CIA was telling them, and it was wrong, and the administration looked stupid. Somehow, this has been spun into "lies" by the anti-Obama/Hillary crowd, even though the story that they used to "cover up" the truth was more damning than the truth. Be that as it may, that isn't what I found amusing.

What I found amusing is that opponents of the administration are raking them over the coals because the administration repeated bad data from the intelligence community.

No surprise, but as usual that is wrong. A senior political hack in the CIA wrote some politically comforting cover that State and the actual field agents in the CIA knew was false, but State repeated it anyway because the administration did not want it to appear that the attack was the result of the failure of policy.

Again, if Hillary knows the CIA is wrong and she repeated their error, that makes Hillary a liar.

Check it out, she knew it was false, she told the Egyptians.

Do some homework

 

[DavidJames]

I was listening to the news last night, and something amusing struck me. In discussing the Benghazi affair, the "lies" of the Obama administration that have been so roundly condemned by the right wing are basically contained in the story that Susan Rice spun on the Sunday shows, and that Hillary and, to some extent, the President, made in some statements. What Rice said, and what the administration said, was that terrorists took advantage of spontaneous demonstrations in order to launch an attack.

That story came from what the CIA was telling them, and it was wrong, and the administration looked stupid. Somehow, this has been spun into "lies" by the anti-Obama/Hillary crowd, even though the story that they used to "cover up" the truth was more damning than the truth. Be that as it may, that isn't what I found amusing.

What I found amusing is that opponents of the administration are raking them over the coals because the administration repeated bad data from the intelligence community.

I vaguely recall some other administration using a similar claim. The did something or another, and made some sort of claim to justify it. It turned out that the claim was wrong, and when the opponents said that the administration had lied, the administration said the intelligence community had led them astray.

Well, it's not all that important, I guess. I just couldn't help mentally comparing the two situations and seeing which one seemed more significant, and which claim of being misled by bad intelligence seemed more credible.

Well said, thanks.

Means nothing to them (or half the nation) though.

 

[Meadmaker]

No surprise, but as usual that is wrong. A senior political hack in the CIA wrote some politically comforting cover that State and the actual field agents in the CIA knew was false, but State repeated it anyway because the administration did not want it to appear that the attack was the result of the failure of policy.

Hmmm....that part, also, seems like it was part of the other story.

 

[C_Felix]

Time to let this thread die.

 

[The Big Dog]

Time to let this thread die.

Like Hillary did to the ambassador ?

 

[DavidJames]

Time to let this thread die.

This and the email threads. HRC is no saint, not perfect and admits it and agrees she's made some mistakes. No crimes, no scandals (from non HDS'ers). All that's left with the HDS team is to assume a conspiracy between FBI, Justice Department, State Department, etc. etc. etc. 9/11 was moved to it's on sub forum under conspiracies, perhaps HDS can have it's own sub forum as well.

Don't worry HDS afflicted, in the near certain event another Congressional Witch Hunt Investigation is created, a new thread can be started.

Baabye.

 

[The Big Dog]

This and the email threads. HRC is no saint, not perfect and admits it and agrees she's made some mistakes. No crimes, no scandals (from non HDS'ers). All that's left with the HDS team is to assume a conspiracy between FBI, Justice Department, State Department, etc. etc. etc. 9/11 was moved to it's on sub forum under conspiracies, perhaps HDS can have it's own sub forum as well.

Don't worry HDS afflicted, in the near certain event another Congressional Witch Hunt Investigation is created, a new thread can be started.

Baabye.

gaze upon what passes for skepticism on i skep, calling members who dare to criticize Corrupt Hillary "HDS afflicted."

Hillary 2016! Leave Hillary Alone!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Like Hillary did to the ambassador ?

I guess you didn't read the report.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well said, thanks.

Means nothing to them (or [less than] half the nation) though.

ftfy

Pretty sure the majority of people in this country are not impressed by the contrived scandal of Obama's faux cover-up that Benghazi was a terrorist attack and not spontaneous.

It boggles the mind that the right wing thinks this is an actual scandal and cover up.