Jump to content


John Schindler: Ground Truth About Benghazi


77 replies to this topic

#41 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9554 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 05:20 PM

The whole thing seems like a foreign language to me. I watch them talk to each other about it and they seem to be, you know, communicating things to one another. But heck if I can figure out what is being said. It seems like an impenetrable warren of suppositions and innuendo. Normally, I can figure this stuff out but I'm stymied.

#42 Raskolnik

    Brainwashed Bigot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
  • LocationSukhāvatī

Posted 07 May 2014 - 05:35 PM

DSP, I posted in this thread specifically because I don't understand what the "5 points" are attempting to get across.

Point 1 is fairly obvious in hindsight, but it's just that: hindsight. Maybe the ambassador asked for more security, maybe he didn't... maybe, if his request was denied, the reasons were sound. What does this have to do with Obama?

Point 2, as far as I can tell, has never been in dispute except for maybe the first 24 hours after the attack.

Point 3 is again nothing more than hindsight, and in no way connected to Obama. I mean, think this through: what is the claim here? That there were troops stationed nearby, ready to scramble, during a major terrorist attack a month before the election... and Obama somehow told them not to get involved, because reasons?

Point 4 is nonsense because there was a video and even the GOP tinfoil hats in the House acknowledge it was the reason for the spontaneous protests in Cairo.

Which brings us to Point 5, the one that I have the hardest time understanding. WHAT exactly is it that is supposed to have been covered up? And why? Saying "it's a cover-up of the cover-up" is meaningless if you still haven't explained what, in the first instance, is supposed to have been covered up.

#43 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 06:05 PM

I'll try to come back later or tomorrow to address your comment, but in the meantime let me ask this question. In the context of potentially damaging controversies, do you believe this administration's claims should be always be accepted at face value? There is no right or wrong answer here. If it's yes, that's cool. I'm not trying to lawyer you. I just want to know your premise/position on this before going forward. Do you assume that the administration claims should be accepted at face value? Just curious, again, if you apply the same standards of aggressive skepticism toward this admin as you do toward GOP claims.

#44 Raskolnik

    Brainwashed Bigot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
  • LocationSukhāvatī

Posted 07 May 2014 - 06:30 PM

I basically never take anything at face value, especially not anything said by a politician. The problem I'm having with the Benghazi "controversy" is that it has never been clear to me what the "non-face" value of the Obama administration's statements is supposed to be. What is the benefit of the cover-up supposed to have been? What, exactly, did they ever have to gain by lying?

#45 Rue Bella

    Emerging from a state of cryogenic denial

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9109 posts
  • LocationSoCal

Posted 07 May 2014 - 07:34 PM

There is no real controversy. Now that Obamacare seems to be working, the Republicans have nothing else to run on.

Mentions on Fox 'news':


Posted Image
What is wrong with these people? ~ PG

We go low so you don't have to. ~ LP

Person.. woman.. man.. election... vote. ~ Twitter

#46 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36301 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 07 May 2014 - 09:39 PM

Quote

3) more could have been done to rescue U.S. personnel once the attack was underway;

Bulls***. This has been covered multiple times. Flying a team into a city they were not familiar with at night when nobody knew what was happening, how many people were involved, or who were the attackers would be the height of stupidity. It would have been nothing more than a way to increase the body count.
" '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

#47 Rich T Bikkies

    Trainee Basil Fawlty. Practising Victor Meldrew

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5170 posts
  • LocationBirmingham, UK

Posted 08 May 2014 - 03:10 AM

View Postdsp, on 07 May 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

Do you believe this administration's claims should be always be accepted at face value?
My bold.

No regular contributor to this blog believes this administration's claims should always be accepted at face value.

No regular contributor to this blog has EVER believed this administration's claims should always be accepted at face value.

No regular contributor to this blog will ever believe this administration's claims, or any future administration's claims, should always be accepted at face value.

It's the word "always" here that disqualifies you from the community of adult, sane and rational political debate.

You, on the other hand, pretend to believe that this administration's claims should never be accepted at face value. Not "believe" but "pretend to believe". It's the pretence that makes you the lowest form of political life. If you were merely a credulous dolt I'd feel more forgiving.
Reality is a hallucination caused by alcohol deprivation.

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

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.
Rudyard Kipling

People don’t believe in ideas: they believe in people who believe in ideas. Ze’ev Mankowitz

#48 gmat

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3486 posts

Posted 08 May 2014 - 05:43 AM

View PostRaskolnik, on 07 May 2014 - 06:30 PM, said:

I basically never take anything at face value, especially not anything said by a politician. The problem I'm having with the Benghazi "controversy" is that it has never been clear to me what the "non-face" value of the Obama administration's statements is supposed to be. What is the benefit of the cover-up supposed to have been? What, exactly, did they ever have to gain by lying?

As I understand the argument, the benefit was supposed to have been avoiding something that could hurt them in the election.

#49 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9554 posts

Posted 08 May 2014 - 05:56 AM

Which (and again I find it difficult to understand whatever the narrative is here from the right), would imply that the CIA

1. Lied
2. Is a political organization potentially undermining national security for the political gain of the administration
3. Had an intelligence failure

Is there some other potential driver to this whole thing I'm missing?

I have no trouble believing 1 or 3. I find 2 much more problematic.

#50 dsp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3654 posts

Posted 08 May 2014 - 06:27 AM

View PostRich T Bikkies, on 08 May 2014 - 03:10 AM, said:

My bold.

No regular contributor to this blog believes this administration's claims should always be accepted at face value.

No regular contributor to this blog has EVER believed this administration's claims should always be accepted at face value.

No regular contributor to this blog will ever believe this administration's claims, or any future administration's claims, should always be accepted at face value.

It's the word "always" here that disqualifies you from the community of adult, sane and rational political debate.

You, on the other hand, pretend to believe that this administration's claims should never be accepted at face value. Not "believe" but "pretend to believe". It's the pretence that makes you the lowest form of political life. If you were merely a credulous dolt I'd feel more forgiving.

But I never said never.

My question pertains to a specific context: admin claims made in the context of potentially damaging controversies. These are controversies where they might have an incentive not to tell the whole truth just as the Republicans might have one to exaggerate or make up some bullshit -- which they do sometimes.

Is there a particular reason you edited out my qualifier?

Quote

In the context of potentially damaging controversies, do you believe this administration's claims should be always be accepted at face value?

What is an example of an admin claim made in the context of some controversy where you thought to yourself "maybe that's true; maybe it's not. More investigation needs to happen"?

I've no problem reversing myself on a given point.

#51 gmat

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3486 posts

Posted 08 May 2014 - 06:43 AM

View Postindy, on 08 May 2014 - 05:56 AM, said:

Which (and again I find it difficult to understand whatever the narrative is here from the right), would imply that the CIA

1. Lied
2. Is a political organization potentially undermining national security for the political gain of the administration
3. Had an intelligence failure

Is there some other potential driver to this whole thing I'm missing?

I have no trouble believing 1 or 3. I find 2 much more problematic.
I don't have any trouble believing 2. I could also see the CIA lying simply to cover it's own ass as a failing institution

The CIA was politicized in the run-up to Iraq. The CIA Inspector General was then deliberately weakened by both Hayden and Panetta, which thwarts an essential oversight function.

The organization has become militarized, and serious systemic screw-ups are tolerated (Camp Chapman leaps to mind)

#52 Rich T Bikkies

    Trainee Basil Fawlty. Practising Victor Meldrew

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5170 posts
  • LocationBirmingham, UK

Posted 08 May 2014 - 07:03 AM

View Postdsp, on 08 May 2014 - 06:27 AM, said:

But I never said never.
Is there a particular reason you edited out my qualifier?

I didn’t edit it out. That part of my post was my own evaluation of your general attitude to Obama and his administration. It was an allegation. It does not purport to be a verbatim, or even near-verbatim, quote of anything you said. As I used your words I wish to make this clear. (Relevant portion follows)

View PostRich T Bikkies, on 08 May 2014 - 03:10 AM, said:

You, on the other hand, pretend to believe that this administration's claims should never be accepted at face value.

“Never” (my bold, again) is my word; I expected, and expect, that you would reject it in particular and my evaluation of you in general. My problem (as you may call it) is that I don’t believe a word you say, because it’s all said for effect, and not for enlightenment. You’re just a stirrer. You use your indisputable articulateness and reasoning powers, much superior to mine, to camouflage this. As a result, I can’t ever read more than two or three paragraphs of your long posts, and after I’ve read your short posts, even those nothing to do with Obama, I think “Oh, dear, how is he going to drag Obama into it this time?” I get the answer pretty quickly; within your next two or three contributions to the thread.
Reality is a hallucination caused by alcohol deprivation.

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

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.
Rudyard Kipling

People don’t believe in ideas: they believe in people who believe in ideas. Ze’ev Mankowitz

#53 HockeyDon

    Mind blown...

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3907 posts
  • LocationNew Britain, CT

Posted 08 May 2014 - 08:09 AM

View PostRue Bella, on 07 May 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

There is no real controversy. Now that Obamacare seems to be working, the Republicans have nothing else to run on.

Mentions on Fox 'news':


Posted Image

That's staggering.
Well, fuck.

How can I be expected to distinguish BS from reality when so much of my reality is utter BS?!

#54 cmk

    Chief Cook and Bottle Washer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 7553 posts
  • LocationBennington, VT, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe

Posted 08 May 2014 - 08:29 AM

I'm not sure it is. There was a specific development, I heard about it on NPR fairly frequently too in the last week or so.
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

#55 Traveler

    Rambling Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13678 posts
  • LocationPhilly Area

Posted 08 May 2014 - 08:31 AM

It was the long email discussing the optics of the attack.
"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

#56 J-CA

    Probably in one of my drunken stupors..

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4768 posts

Posted 08 May 2014 - 09:05 AM

View Postindy, on 08 May 2014 - 05:56 AM, said:

Which (and again I find it difficult to understand whatever the narrative is here from the right), would imply that the CIA
1. Lied
2. Is a political organization potentially undermining national security for the political gain of the administration
3. Had an intelligence failure

Is there some other potential driver to this whole thing I'm missing?

I have no trouble believing 1 or 3. I find 2 much more problematic.
And the thing about #2 is that there is literally no evidence in favour of it, even the "new evidence" is still about spinning information that came out of the CIA, not about tampering with the CIA analysis process or output. That is the problem I have understanding it. It is like someone finding evidence that you poisoned a bucket of water that came out of the well and on that basis accusing you of poisoning the well. It does not mean it is not possible that you poisoned the well, but it provides no evidence that you did and sure seems to indicate that if you had poisoned the well you would not have needed to poison the water in the bucket.

View Postgmat, on 08 May 2014 - 06:43 AM, said:

I don't have any trouble believing 2. I could also see the CIA lying simply to cover it's own ass as a failing institution
But that is something fundamentally different than #2, it is a fourth option.
I think if the CIA is engaging in self-censorship in anticipation of what the administration wants that would be a very, very bad thing. If it is trying to cover its own ass, that is also a bad thing, but every institution is guilty of that, at least in its outwardly-facing behaviour.
I am the burrito until someone hands me to a philosopher.

#57 J-CA

    Probably in one of my drunken stupors..

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4768 posts

Posted 08 May 2014 - 09:07 AM

I think the staggering thing about the "mentions" graph is that Obamacare had declined so steadily instead of just dropping off a cliff.
I am the burrito until someone hands me to a philosopher.

#58 baw1064

    formerly of the public sector

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5672 posts
  • LocationEarthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanos--oh my!

Posted 08 May 2014 - 09:22 AM

I'm sure it will soon come to light that if elected President, Hillary Clinton will allocate Obamacare money to Planned Parenthood to open an abortion clinic in Benghazi.
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” --Dr. Seuss

#59 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9554 posts

Posted 08 May 2014 - 09:57 AM

Do the Republicans believe there is an issue with the CIA?

One would expect that if that were the case, they'd be focused on that, and their investigation would reveal that focus.

What is revealed by the focus of the house investigation (if I were to be so liberal as to label it an investigation) is obviously a fishing expedition intended to pin something on the administration for political gain.

I would approve of an investigation that revealed a desire to use their oversight ability to improve the performance of the CIA. That's why I know it won't ever happen.

#60 gmat

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3486 posts

Posted 08 May 2014 - 10:12 AM

View Postindy, on 08 May 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

Do the Republicans believe there is an issue with the CIA?

One would expect that if that were the case, they'd be focused on that, and their investigation would reveal that focus.

What is revealed by the focus of the house investigation (if I were to be so liberal as to label it an investigation) is obviously a fishing expedition intended to pin something on the administration for political gain.

I would approve of an investigation that revealed a desire to use their oversight ability to improve the performance of the CIA. That's why I know it won't ever happen.

I wouldn't know what the GOP is into (if you're replying to me)

I was just commenting on your 1-2-3 about the CIA






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users