Jump to content


John Schindler: Ground Truth About Benghazi


77 replies to this topic

#21 drdredel

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2419 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 06:45 PM

View Postdsp, on 05 May 2014 - 04:48 PM, said:

Direct orders from the WH to focus on the video and only the video knowing full well Rice was going up to talk about Benghazi. The new information is the email from Rhodes. I would ask what else does anyone need to begin to suspect this WH on point 4, but when claims from Carney and the WH are always instantly embraced as true, there is probably no point, even though this info is NEW.

Maybe somewhere folded into the Dark Matter, or embedded in the fabric of the known universe between the most distant quasar and the Higgs Boson particles, we will one day find grounds for suspecting this admin here at TRS.

Suspecting them of what, precisely? Trying to appear like they knew what was going on when they clearly didn't? Trusting the CIA (yet again) when they have proved over and over that they're largely incompetent and frequently responsible for making matters worse for us all over the globe? I mean... the difference between 9/11 and Benghazi isn't that 9/11 was a Government fumbling of resources and itel and Benghazi wasn't. In both cases the Government had multiple opportunities to prevent the situation and dropped the ball... but in the second example the number of casualties that resulted from the incident was... 4? (Forgive me if I don't have that number right... but it's something like that).

What's the problem?
The Blind have lost their sense of "sight";
The Deaf have lost their sense of "hearing";
Republicans have lost their sense of "common".

#22 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 07:05 PM

Lying by omission about pre-planned terrorism being a real possibility.

#23 J-CA

    Probably in one of my drunken stupors..

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4768 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 07:06 PM

To me the "smoking gun" that is required here for this to be a story is evidence that the WH substantially altered what originally came out of the CIA before they issued it, getting caught messing with "the facts" in a partisan way, as it were. All we have right now is more evidence that they specifically didn't do that. Did the CIA talking points say that it was likely pre-planned terrorism?
I am the burrito until someone hands me to a philosopher.

#24 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 07:11 PM

But how is anyone supposed to get that if it exists without depositions, subpoenas, testimony under oath and more investigation?

#25 J-CA

    Probably in one of my drunken stupors..

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4768 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 07:21 PM

You feel pretty comfortable making the accusation without any evidence, I think that is the way most of the people asking for an investigation are approaching things - oblivious to the fact that it undermines their case for an investigation by making them look like raving lunatics.
I am the burrito until someone hands me to a philosopher.

#26 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 07:33 PM

I dunno. The CIA didn't say anything definite about the video factor, did they? A WH staffer told Rice to focus on the video.

So Schindler's a lunatic now too? Sure he is.

#27 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31119 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 05 May 2014 - 07:44 PM

Obama said it was likely a terrorist attack within 24-48 hours of the Susan Rice statement. W ... T ... F, DSP? If the White House was still digging in their heels and saying the video was to blame, you'd actually have something to talk about. As it is you are desperately trying to bend inconvenient facts into your predetermined narrative. Funny how the level of evidence you demand of others is vastly higher than the level you require of yourself.

But hey, you just "know" that Obama must have been trying to do something ... what was the word you used oh so long ago ... sleazy?
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#28 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 07:45 PM

Shady

#29 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 07:54 PM

Having read Schindler's comments, I note he gets a very important distinction: what the intelligence community thought was going on in Benghazi versus what the WH claims and says the intelligence community thought was going on. Smart guy.

#30 J-CA

    Probably in one of my drunken stupors..

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4768 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:16 PM

Again, the CIA memo said, from the very first draft, that they thought the Bengazi attack was inspired by the Cairo protest and that protest was because of the video. The emails and Mr. Schindler offer no evidence otherwise.
I am the burrito until someone hands me to a philosopher.

#31 cmk

    Chief Cook and Bottle Washer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 7540 posts
  • LocationBennington, VT, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe

Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:26 PM

View Postdsp, on 05 May 2014 - 04:48 PM, said:

Maybe somewhere folded into the Dark Matter, or embedded in the fabric of the known universe between the most distant quasar and the Higgs Boson particles, we will one day find grounds for suspecting this admin here at TRS.

It should be located right next to a thread started by yourself that contains an actual worthwhile subject, reasonable evidence and rational argumentation.
Charles M. Kozierok - Administrator, TalkRadioSucks.com

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." -- Herbert Spencer

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." -- Bill Maher


"Our new Government['s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition." -- Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy

#32 Rich T Bikkies

    Trainee Basil Fawlty. Practising Victor Meldrew

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4534 posts
  • LocationBirmingham, UK

Posted 06 May 2014 - 03:30 AM

I’m getting the idea; my brain works slowly but surely. All the rest of you TRSers put up with dsp as long as you can regard, or force yourselves to regard, his rants and other unedifying verbal extrusions as a good whetstone to keep your individual debating skills sharp. When your patience (or willpower) run out, as they regularly do, you temporarily drop debate and smack his head. Of course some of you crack quicker than others.

I think that I’m pretty much in that position myself, except I have a much smaller reserve of patience, possibly for one or more of the following reasons:

a. I’m British, and so not as accustomed as you all are to the American culture in which a citizen’s right to say any damn thing the citizen wants, no matter how outrageous, is not only constitutional but one of the glories of your constitution. The penny has only recently dropped with me on the significance of this. But, thanks to my lurking in TRS, I’ve learned something and it HAS dropped. We Limeys also believe in free speech, and yelp pretty loud if it’s taken away from us, but traditionally (and temperamentally) we are a bit more exercised than you about “shouting Fire in a crowded theatre”.

b. I’m a liberal (sorry, dsp, LIBRUL),and, what is worse, a BRITISH librul. I’m in a different universe from dsp – not even a parallel universe – and you’d find me seriously weird if you knew me better.

c. I’m middle-aged, and year by year am getting stereotypically more tetchy, querulous, peevish, and convinced that my country, and the world, are going to the dogs. “Sad old git” is the British colloquial description for what I am.

Having at last worked that all out, I feel much better. I read nearly everything that’s posted in TRS (except economics, which I can FEEL destroying my brain cells) and I’ve learned a lot. Keep delivering, folks, and be sure to kick dsp’s arse THOROUGHLY once a month. It’s quite constitutional, you know.

“Let all things be done unto edification”. “Turn back, O Man, forswear thy foolish ways” – that’s YOU, dsp.
Reality is a hallucination caused by alcohol deprivation.

Only Satan can rebuke sin. The righteous don't know enough.

God is not dead. He was merely voted out of office.

You can do anything with anybody if you just save them the trouble of thinking.

#33 gmat

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3391 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 05:54 AM

View PostRich T Bikkies, on 06 May 2014 - 03:30 AM, said:

I’m getting the idea; my brain works slowly but surely. All the rest of you TRSers put up with dsp as long as you can regard, or force yourselves to regard, his rants and other unedifying verbal extrusions as a good whetstone to keep your individual debating skills sharp. When your patience (or willpower) run out, as they regularly do, you temporarily drop debate and smack his head. Of course some of you crack quicker than others.

I think that I’m pretty much in that position myself, except I have a much smaller reserve of patience, possibly for one or more of the following reasons:

a. I’m British, and so not as accustomed as you all are to the American culture in which a citizen’s right to say any damn thing the citizen wants, no matter how outrageous, is not only constitutional but one of the glories of your constitution. The penny has only recently dropped with me on the significance of this. But, thanks to my lurking in TRS, I’ve learned something and it HAS dropped. We Limeys also believe in free speech, and yelp pretty loud if it’s taken away from us, but traditionally (and temperamentally) we are a bit more exercised than you about “shouting Fire in a crowded theatre”.

b. I’m a liberal (sorry, dsp, LIBRUL),and, what is worse, a BRITISH librul. I’m in a different universe from dsp – not even a parallel universe – and you’d find me seriously weird if you knew me better.

c. I’m middle-aged, and year by year am getting stereotypically more tetchy, querulous, peevish, and convinced that my country, and the world, are going to the dogs. “Sad old git” is the British colloquial description for what I am.

Having at last worked that all out, I feel much better. I read nearly everything that’s posted in TRS (except economics, which I can FEEL destroying my brain cells) and I’ve learned a lot. Keep delivering, folks, and be sure to kick dsp’s arse THOROUGHLY once a month. It’s quite constitutional, you know.

“Let all things be done unto edification”. “Turn back, O Man, forswear thy foolish ways” – that’s YOU, dsp.

I used to love listening to the speakers in Hyde park, and some of the hecklers were absolutely brilliant, best one-line rebuttals I ever heard.

#34 Rich T Bikkies

    Trainee Basil Fawlty. Practising Victor Meldrew

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4534 posts
  • LocationBirmingham, UK

Posted 06 May 2014 - 06:56 AM

View Postgmat, on 06 May 2014 - 05:54 AM, said:

I used to love listening to the speakers in Hyde park, and some of the hecklers were absolutely brilliant, best one-line rebuttals I ever heard.

I reckon Charles is best in TRS at one-line rebuttals of dsp. So unfortunate that, despite superficial appearances, dsp is not in the logical-argument business. "Charles - pearls - swine". Charles gets a good ratiocinative work-out and that's all.
Reality is a hallucination caused by alcohol deprivation.

Only Satan can rebuke sin. The righteous don't know enough.

God is not dead. He was merely voted out of office.

You can do anything with anybody if you just save them the trouble of thinking.

#35 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31119 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 07 May 2014 - 09:49 AM

Great quote from Sullivan in his daily wrap:

Quote

You think I’m taking the Lewinsky bait? Glad she’s been able to survive what was a traumatizing experience. But Graydon Carter won’t get a subscription from me. I am, of course, eagerly awaiting Darrell Issa’s inquiry into Lewinsky’s previously concealed role in the Benghazi conspiracy.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#36 Raskolnik

    Brainwashed Bigot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
  • LocationSukhāvatī

Posted 07 May 2014 - 03:50 PM

Will somebody (DSP or anyone) please explain what, exactly, it is that the problem is supposed to be? Because as far as I can tell the only thing that seems like it might be solid is that the Obama administration tried to claim that the Benghazi attack was spontaneous, not pre-meditated, to avoid the perception that it was weak a month before the election.

The trouble I'm having is in understanding why exactly that's such a big deal. I mean, is it underhanded? Sure, I guess, if it's true, although it doesn't appear to be true anyway--but as far as I can tell, even if true it wouldn't actually change much of anything. I mean so what if they spun what they knew? How does that make them responsible for the attack? What does that materially change?

I've been trying to avoid thinking about this too hard, because it's just so stupid, but the more I think about it, the more it seems like what the Republicans really want to find is something like this:

1. Obama knew about the attack ahead of time, but chose not to do anything.

2. Because he is secretly a Muslim and wants America destroyed?

3. Therefore he covered up the real reasons for the attack out of sympathy for al Qaeda.


What am I missing?

#37 Traveler

    Rambling Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13369 posts
  • LocationPhilly Area

Posted 07 May 2014 - 03:54 PM

Those are as good a series of guesses as I have seen. I ignore the whole thing.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."-- Winston Churchill
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" Voltaire

#38 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31119 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 07 May 2014 - 03:58 PM

View PostRaskolnik, on 07 May 2014 - 03:50 PM, said:

What am I missing?

What are you missing? WHAT ARE YOU MISSING???!!! You must be one of the sheeple that just don't get it! I mean ... after all ...

BENGHAAAAAZZZZZZIIIIII!!!!!!!!!


Seriously, I bet this is about as much explanation you could get out of 90+% of the people who think this is a big deal. The rest would give you a story firmly built on conjecture, long since debunked bulls***, and outright lies.

Edited by cmk, 07 May 2014 - 04:03 PM.
Improperly-small font size fixed --ck

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#39 AnBr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13760 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 05:01 PM

View PostRaskolnik, on 07 May 2014 - 03:50 PM, said:

Will somebody (DSP or anyone) please explain what, exactly, it is that the problem is supposed to be? Because as far as I can tell the only thing that seems like it might be solid is that the Obama administration tried to claim that the Benghazi attack was spontaneous, not pre-meditated, to avoid the perception that it was weak a month before the election.

The trouble I'm having is in understanding why exactly that's such a big deal. I mean, is it underhanded? Sure, I guess, if it's true, although it doesn't appear to be true anyway--but as far as I can tell, even if true it wouldn't actually change much of anything. I mean so what if they spun what they knew? How does that make them responsible for the attack? What does that materially change?

I've been trying to avoid thinking about this too hard, because it's just so stupid, but the more I think about it, the more it seems like what the Republicans really want to find is something like this:

1. Obama knew about the attack ahead of time, but chose not to do anything.

2. Because he is secretly a Muslim and wants America destroyed?

3. Therefore he covered up the real reasons for the attack out of sympathy for al Qaeda.


What am I missing?

Those are questions that keep DSP awake at nights.
“Trump’s a stupid man’s idea of a smart person, a poor man’s idea of a rich person & a weak man’s idea of a strong man.”

— Fran Lebowitz


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

— Carl Sagan


Pray for Trump: Psalm 109:8

"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers arc in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

— Carl Sagan
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
1995


“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

— H.L. Mencken
On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe


“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

— Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Second inaugural address January, 1937

#40 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 05:13 PM

View PostRaskolnik, on 07 May 2014 - 03:50 PM, said:

Will somebody (DSP or anyone) please explain what, exactly, it is that the problem is supposed to be? Because as far as I can tell the only thing that seems like it might be solid is that the Obama administration tried to claim that the Benghazi attack was spontaneous, not pre-meditated, to avoid the perception that it was weak a month before the election.

The trouble I'm having is in understanding why exactly that's such a big deal. I mean, is it underhanded? Sure, I guess, if it's true, although it doesn't appear to be true anyway--but as far as I can tell, even if true it wouldn't actually change much of anything. I mean so what if they spun what they knew? How does that make them responsible for the attack? What does that materially change?

I've been trying to avoid thinking about this too hard, because it's just so stupid, but the more I think about it, the more it seems like what the Republicans really want to find is something like this:

1. Obama knew about the attack ahead of time, but chose not to do anything.

2. Because he is secretly a Muslim and wants America destroyed?

3. Therefore he covered up the real reasons for the attack out of sympathy for al Qaeda.


What am I missing?

Schindler's 5 points in the OP summarize what reasonable people who are not reflexive conservatives or Republicans believe to be plausible WRT to Benghazi based on the known facts.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users