New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
That might have been a more credible attack had you likewise called out your invisible buddy's spamming of far left wing blogs even once in this thread.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know from experience that you put people on ignore rather than actually read and address their posts. If you have a problem with what RandFan cites, take it up with him.

Just like I'm doing with you about what you cite. Now, we should care about Woodward's opinion because why, again?

Here is a good summary of why Benghazi matters:

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/op_ed/2013/05/pc_mentality_at_core_of_benghazi
Click to expand...

"That the administration told our military to “stand down” when our consulate was under attack is more than a scandal. It’s shameful."

Stopped-reading-there_zpse3b50084.jpg
 
ANTPogo said:
Yes, I know from experience that you put people on ignore rather than actually read and address their posts. If you have a problem with what RandFan cites, take it up with him.

Just like I'm doing with you about what you cite. Now, we should care about Woodward's opinion because why, again?



"That the administration told our military to “stand down” when our consulate was under attack is more than a scandal. It’s shameful."

[qimg]http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr157/antpogo/Stopped-reading-there_zpse3b50084.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

"stopped reading there."

And you want me to respond to your posts, why? hee hee!
 
16.5 said:
"stopped reading there."

And you want me to respond to your posts, why? hee hee!
Click to expand...

If you don't know that the "stand down order" thing is pure unmitigated ******** by now (the Administration ordered two Marine teams from Spain, a Green Beret team from the US, and a special forces team in Croatia to deploy to Libya within a few hours of the first attack and long before the second attack), then I'm wondering why I want you to respond to my posts too.
 
ANTPogo said:
If you don't know that the "stand down order" thing is pure unmitigated ******** by now (the Administration ordered two Marine teams from Spain, a Green Beret team from the US, and a special forces team in Croatia to deploy to Libya within a few hours of the first attack and long before the second attack), then I'm wondering why I want you to respond to my posts too.
Click to expand...

I've explained this a dozen times: they decided to stand down FEST.
 
16.5 said:
I've explained this a dozen times: they decided to stand down FEST.

ANTPogo said:
FEST is not "the military". It's not even a military force. It's not even a combat force.

Try again.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm on ignore with 16.5 but is there an expense expert who disagrees with Gates? Where are the experts who provide facts and evidence to demonstrate that we could have or should have acted differently?

Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, "send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous."

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," he said. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
I'm on ignore with 16.5 but is there an expense expert who disagrees with Gates? Where are the experts who provide facts and evidence to demonstrate that we could have or should have acted differently?
Click to expand...

Good question. All the information I've seen from actual military experts is pretty much the same as what Gates said.
 
SCHIEFFER: But Mr. Pfeiffer, and I don't mean to be argumentative here, but the President is in charge of the executive branch of the government. It’s my, I'll just make this as an assertion: when the executive branch does things right, there doesn't seem to be any hesitancy of the White House to take credit for that. When Osama bin Laden was killed, the President didn't waste any time getting out there and telling people about it.

But with all of these things, when these things happen, you seem to send out officials many times who don't even seem to know what has happened. And I use as an example of that Susan Rice who had no connection whatsoever to the events that took place in Benghazi, and yet she was sent out, appeared on this broadcast, and other Sunday broadcasts, five days after it happens, and I'm not here to get in an argument with you about who changed which word in the talking points and all that. The bottom line is what she told the American people that day bore no resemblance to what had happened on the ground in an incident where four Americans were killed.

CBS
 
16.5 said:
SCHIEFFER: But Mr. Pfeiffer, and I don't mean to be argumentative here, but the President is in charge of the executive branch of the government. It’s my, I'll just make this as an assertion: when the executive branch does things right, there doesn't seem to be any hesitancy of the White House to take credit for that. When Osama bin Laden was killed, the President didn't waste any time getting out there and telling people about it.
Click to expand...

Since the mission to kill Bin Laden was entirely planned by us from start to finish, I wonder why he (and you) thinks that reporting on the aftermath of that operation is in any way like reporting on a chaotic surprise attack.

But with all of these things, when these things happen, you seem to send out officials many times who don't even seem to know what has happened. And I use as an example of that Susan Rice who had no connection whatsoever to the events that took place in Benghazi, and yet she was sent out, appeared on this broadcast, and other Sunday broadcasts, five days after it happens, and I'm not here to get in an argument with you about who changed which word in the talking points and all that. The bottom line is what she told the American people that day bore no resemblance to what had happened on the ground in an incident where four Americans were killed.
Click to expand...

If there was incorrect information that remained in the memo after other information was taken out, it's because the CIA wanted that information in there. And Petraeus wanted even more information about the protests over the video to be in the memo than actually appeared in the final version!

Again, what's the scandal here? What is worthy of repeated Congressional hearings over months and months and months?
 
ANTPogo said:
Since the mission to kill Bin Laden was entirely planned by us from start to finish, I wonder why he (and you) thinks that reporting on the aftermath of that operation is in any way like reporting on a chaotic surprise attack.



If there was incorrect information that remained in the memo after other information was taken out, it's because the CIA wanted that information in there. And Petraeus wanted even more information about the protests over the video to be in the memo than actually appeared in the final version!

Again, what's the scandal here? What is worthy of repeated Congressional hearings over months and months and months?
Click to expand...

BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: You know, I don’t want to compare this in any way to Watergate. I do not think this is Watergate by any stretch. But you weren't born then I would guess, but I have to tell you that is exactly the approach that the Nixon administration took. They said, “These are all second-rate things. We don't have time for this. We have to devote our time to the people's business.” You’re taking exactly the same line they did.
 
Really. 16.5 would you expect the Chief Executive to know more about an action he planned and ordered than he would about an action planned and executed by terrorists?

:confused:

Do you consider the taking of OBL to be a terrorist attack on a diplomatic facility? Or are you comparing apples and oranges plutonium?
 
16.5 said:
BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: You know, I don’t want to compare this in any way to Watergate. I do not think this is Watergate by any stretch. But you weren't born then I would guess, but I have to tell you that is exactly the approach that the Nixon administration took. They said, “These are all second-rate things. We don't have time for this. We have to devote our time to the people's business.” You’re taking exactly the same line they did.
Click to expand...

This is the rhetorical device called apophasis.

It might be a persuasive technique, but it has no logical connection to anything. It's not an argument at all.

A person who is innocent of a crime might well make the same statement* as someone who is guilty of a crime. It's not relevant.

*BTW, I think this made up Nixon administration quote originated with Schieffer. It's not a real quote. I'm not sure what this does for Schieffer's non-argument, but thought it was worthy of mention.

ETA: Further, I note that you posted this in response to the post asking the question, "Again, what's the scandal here? What is worthy of repeated Congressional hearings over months and months and months?" Are you saying that the scandal is that the Obama administration has made statements similar to the imaginary statement made by the Nixon administration? Is that really what the scandal is?

There was a shoe exhibit here a few years ago, and I noted that I wore exactly the same style of dress shoe that Nixon did. Is that scandalous too?
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: You know, I don’t want to compare this in any way to Watergate. I do not think this is Watergate by any stretch. But you weren't born then I would guess, but I have to tell you that is exactly the approach that the Nixon administration took. They said, “These are all second-rate things. We don't have time for this. We have to devote our time to the people's business.” You’re taking exactly the same line they did.
Click to expand...

Just because the Republicans had a scandal where the perpetrators said "there's no actual scandal here" doesn't mean that every time someone says "there's no actual scandal here" there's actually a scandal.

Looks like the Galileo gambit is making its entrance into partisan politics.
 
16.5 said:
"stopped reading there."
Click to expand...

Because the reasoning was based on a falsehood.

"That the administration told our military to “stand down” when our consulate was under attack is more than a scandal. It’s shameful."

No. . .it's a lie.
 
The awesome part of the "scandal" (dismissive labeling again) is that every post i make does not draw the partisan hoard to immediately flock to the thread and gainsay whatever is posted.

Say, the Obama administration should have done a better job communicating to the American Public:
 
16.5 said:
Say, the Obama administration should have done a better job communicating to the American Public:
Click to expand...
A.) I've agreed with you in the past. B.) I've no problem with your premise. C.) I've condemned the president for quite a number of things. I'm no sycophant.

Your making this into you vs the world is just playing the victim. And your personal attacks against me are just ad hominem poisoning the well.
 
16.5 said:
BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: You know, I don’t want to compare this in any way to Watergate. I do not think this is Watergate by any stretch. But you weren't born then I would guess, but I have to tell you that is exactly the approach that the Nixon administration took. They said, “These are all second-rate things. We don't have time for this. We have to devote our time to the people's business.” You’re taking exactly the same line they did.
Click to expand...
Hitler had a mustache. Charley Chaplin had the exact same mustache. OMG!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom