Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Profiling is not ok...Follow

#52 May 15 2013 at 8:09 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Except that The money had nothing to do with security for our embassy or consulate in Libya. This is so relevant I had to say it twice.


And complaining about the situation is counterproductive i.e., contradictory. That's equivalent to a mayor cutting the police force and criticizing another mayor for not caring for the security of his city because a crime occurred. That doesn't make any sense.

The point being is that Republicans made it EASIER and MORE likely for those same outcomes to occur. So, if Republicans really cared that much, they wouldn't have voted as such. They would have voted to maintain that money. You can't vote to cut it, then criticize the Democrats as "Not listening and/or not caring" because something happened. At a minimum, the Republicans did exactly what they are accusing the Dems for.

Gbaji wrote:

Count as what? An excuse for the Obama administration to blame the deaths of our embassy personnel on a film rather than a planned attack by existing terrorist organizations? No. It doesn't count.


Count as being at minimum equivalent.

Gbaji wrote:
If it was so irrelevant, then why lie about it? Why change the language in the intelligence reports to match one while downplaying the other? Why then send Rice out on the Sunday shows to say directly that it was one and not the other? Clearly someone in the Obama administration thought it mattered a great deal.


No one lied about the deaths of those people, which is what is important.

You're intertwining truth with conspiracy. Just because the information was incorrect, doesn't mean it was a huge cover up. You don't have to be a politician to understand crowd control. "Everything is under control" means "If I told you what really were going on, you would freak out". That's true in EVERY case. That doesn't excuse lying, you just have to smart enough to differentiate "the need to know" vs "lying". Anyone with a clearance understands "need to know".

Gbaji wrote:
The decision to try to claim this was an outgrowth of protests over a film was politically driven as well. Obviously, any response to that will also be politically driven. I'm not sure how that somehow nullifies the accusations present though. So the Obama administration can lie to the American people for political reasons, and we should dismiss any criticism of this on the grounds that the criticism is political? You've just justified our government getting away with anything it wants. You get that any criticism of actions taken by the government can be called political, right?


Read above. Were you this outraged about WMD and the two previous wars?

Gbaji wrote:
That's a monumentally stupid reason to dismiss something like this. Argue that it didn't happen. Or that the decisions that were made were not as bad as they seemed. Or that they honestly thought it was what they said. Anything like that is legitimate. Saying "it's politically driven" isn't a good counter argument at all. Show that it's *only* driven by politics, and you might have a point.


That's not the reason. Either address the point that matters or drop it. It's really that simple. Republicans are taking a valid concern and spinning it for their political gain. That's the problem.

Gbaji wrote:
Wait? So it's a conspiracy to say that somewhere between the intelligence reports from the field to the official intelligence briefing, key information was removed which resulted in downplaying the planned nature of the attack? It's not. It's a fact. It's also a fact that several drafts were written and rejected until said changes were made. This is not some "what if" scenario here. The intelligence was "fixed" to match the agenda of the Obama administration. They wanted to sell the whole "We killed OBL and Al Queda is on the run" story to the American people for the election. The attack in Libya made that difficult to do. Surely you can see how if they could convince people that it wasn't a planned terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11, but just a protest that got out of hand, then they could protect their foreign policy narrative.

There was a clear and obvious political motivation for lying. What's so strange is how many people are insisting there's nothing to this even with all the facts that are present now. At this point, it's not really a question of whether someone lied, or even why they did. It's a question of who lied, and how far up the chain it goes. Was it just some mid level folks at State acting on their own? Was Clinton involved directly? Was someone on Obama's staff involved? Someone told someone else to downplay the "planned terrorist attack" side of this. Who?


Read above.

Gbaji wrote:
Except that it wasn't that the information was wrong. The information was correct. Someone changed the information which ended out in the official briefing so that it said something different. That was not an accident. It's not like every intelligence report from the field said X, but it turned out to be Y instead. In this case, every intelligence report said Y, the briefing draft said Y, but then it was changed to say X instead. And X just happened to be more beneficial to a president engaged in a re-election campaign at the time than Y.

Is it really so hard to connect those dots?


Again. It's a legitimate concern, but when you focus on the aftermath instead on the prevention, it becomes blatantly obvious that you are playing on the deaths of innocent people to push your political gain. The same exact claim Republicans made on the President with Newtown. The difference being that the President focused on PREVENTION and not just the aftermath. Until Republicans admit fault in the overall failure of security, then it is purely political.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#53 May 15 2013 at 10:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
5,587 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kuwoobie wrote:
Saw this today.

Quote:
The PPP poll also notes some alarming news. Though Republican voters are in near hysteria over Benghazi, over 40 percent can't even name the country that it's in.

"One interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history is that 39% of them don't actually know where it is. 10% think it's in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess."


The other 60% had fast access to Google.


Really? The response to a laundry list of scandals and abuse of political power is "republicans are dumb!"?


Have you talked to any Republicans lately?
____________________________
my Tumblr
Pixelmon Server Info
#54 May 16 2013 at 4:10 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,664 posts
Every morning when he looks into the mirror
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#55 May 16 2013 at 7:01 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,122 posts
gbaji wrote:
Does it occur to you that I disagree with her because I disagree with her?
About as likely as varus.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#56 May 16 2013 at 8:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Five Things We Learned From the Benghazi E-mail Dump
The Week wrote:
1. The CIA drove the talking points process
The emails — dating from Friday, Sept. 14, just before noon to Saturday, Sept. 15, just before 8 p.m. — indicate that there was input from the CIA, FBI, State Department, White House, and other intelligence agencies, but it's clear that the talking points began and ended with the CIA.[...]

2. The incorrect pre-attack protest detail was the CIA, too
A major GOP point of criticism of the Obama team's response to the attack was the erroneous claim that the siege was preceded by a spontaneous protest, inspired by a similar protest outside the U.S. embassy in Cairo. That claim — which senior U.S. officials say reflects the best intelligence at the time — was part of the original CIA talking points, and CIA officials steered the talking points more explicitly toward highlighting a demonstration. [...] [T]he protest in Cairo, which all versions of the talking points say inspired the mythical Benghazi protest, were explicitly in reaction to the YouTube video.[...]

3. Most of the objections did come from the State Department
[...]That the State Department — which wasn't roped into the discussion until the fourth draft — would raise the most objections to the CIA's talking points isn't surprising, say Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung at The Washington Post. "The two agencies had the most at stake in the Benghazi aftermath," and their main dispute was "whether previous CIA warnings of attacks in the Benghazi area should be included in those initial public statements." [...]

4. The White House changed more than one word
After Morell made the final changes to the talking points, whittling them down from five to three and stripping out much of the interesting stuff, Rhodes offered "one edit, for accuracy": Change "consulate" to "diplomatic post." That fits with White House press secretary Jay Carney's contention the the White House changed only one word, "consulate." But on Friday evening, Tommy Vietor — then NSA spokesman — also asked that the CIA add the word "Cairo" to the talking point about the previous protests in Egypt.[...]

5. David Petraeus didn't care for the final talking points
In the mess of emails, there are a few informing Petraeus about the status of the talking points, but only one from Petraeus himself. At 12:51 p.m. on Saturday, a CIA staffer emailed the final draft to Petraeus for his approval. He didn't much approve.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57gbaji, Posted: May 16 2013 at 11:41 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Do you? I'll repeat:
#58 May 16 2013 at 11:46 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,122 posts
gbaji wrote:
There is no evidence that spending cuts had *anything* to do with security levels at our embassy or consulate in Libya. None at all.
You mean besides Jason Chaffetz and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa both voting to cut State Department's embassy security budget, right? I mean, I guess if you want to jump up and down and scream "BUT NOT DIRECTLY LIBYA!" then I guess you'd have a point, but that's such a weak argument that it's almost embarrassing you'd make it. But then again, I guess that is what a conspiracy theorist does.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#59gbaji, Posted: May 16 2013 at 11:57 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) How the hell do you prevent the next attack if you wont honestly acknowledge why this one happened? You can't learn from past mistakes if you pretend that you didn't make any at all, and it happened for unrelated reasons. Do you understand that the entire purpose of changing that intelligence was so that the Obama administration could pretend that the attack was unrelated to anything having to do with foreign policy? It's specifically about ensuring that they take no blame for what happened, but some guy in Hollywood takes it instead.
#60 May 16 2013 at 11:59 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,122 posts
gbaji wrote:
Bush took a terrorist attack and spun it for political gain.
Or are you a laughable hypocrite?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#61 May 16 2013 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
How the hell do you prevent the next attack if you wont honestly acknowledge why this one happened? You can't learn from past mistakes if you pretend that you didn't make any at all, and it happened for unrelated reasons. Do you understand that the entire purpose of changing that intelligence was so that the Obama administration could pretend that the attack was unrelated to anything having to do with foreign policy?

Even if this were true, the argument wouldn't logically follow. What the Sunday show talking points said would make zero difference to the CIA and State Dept's internal ability to identify and fix whatever issues were going on. You could publicly claim the outpost was attacked by robot bees and still change your operational behavior regarding security from extremist groups.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 May 16 2013 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timeline of Talking Points edits and changes based on the e-mail dump.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 May 16 2013 at 1:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,664 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Bush took a terrorist attack and spun it for political gain.
Or are you a laughable hypocrite?
Do you really need to ask that?
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#64 May 16 2013 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Yay group think. Smiley: rolleyes

That was an interesting give and take, nothing like having 20 people writing a document. You end up with a conservative compromise that offends none of them too greatly, and of course strips out any useful information in the process. It feels like they didn't really want to say anything at all, and tried to release the vaguest summary they felt like they could get away with.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#65 May 16 2013 at 2:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
It feels like they didn't really want to say anything at all, and tried to release the vaguest summary they felt like they could get away with.

Well, yeah. They were still investigating, didn't want to prejudice the going investigation and didn't want to call attention to the CIA involvement. That and the usual jostling between departments (CIA & State) where neither wants to get thrown under the bus for what happened.

Noteworthy that the video protest line was in from the very first CIA draft and no remarks were made to get rid of it. Sort of goes against the whole "Obama made them say that for political reasons" storyline, not that it'll make any difference for those invested in believing it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66gbaji, Posted: May 16 2013 at 4:24 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) They cut the budget item identified as "Worldwide Security Protection and Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance". Not "security in Libya". That budget is a huge catch-all which includes construction costs (it's right in the name) as well as security and other sundry costs related to maintaining diplomatic posts around the world. The specific cuts were to unnecessary construction proposals that were utterly unrelated to security in Libya.
#67 May 16 2013 at 4:32 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,122 posts
I like how your argument here is "Since there is no direct connection, it's proof that there was no wrong doing, therefore my side is innocent", when the Planned Parenthood argument was "Just because there isn't any direct proof doesn't mean it isn't happening, therefore it should be cut!" Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#68gbaji, Posted: May 16 2013 at 4:36 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Based on the email dump of emails selected by the White House. Do you understand that this is also still just about the actual briefing document? There were (are) significant differences between that document (even in the initial draft) and the actual intelligence reports coming from the field. The entire concept that this had anything at all to do with the demonstrations in Cairo, for example. That magically appeared out of nowhere in this document. The argument is that pressure was applied by the State Department and the White House to spin the attack in a given way before even the first draft was written. They told CIA what they wanted to be in the briefing. Then CIA handed them their drafts, then they made the minor edits that these emails are discussing.
#69 May 16 2013 at 4:39 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,592 posts
Doesn't matter what you give them, they'll still believe what they want to believe. Didn't the Birthers teach you guys anything?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#70 May 16 2013 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Based on the email dump of emails selected by the White House.

Smiley: laugh

Quote:
Do you understand that this is also still just about the actual briefing document?

Oh, I understand what it's about. Which is why you need to keep waving your arms around and hollering and insisting that there's terrible, terrible wrongdoings.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71gbaji, Posted: May 16 2013 at 4:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Are we done yet? You can point to conspiracy theory spouting opinion articles spinning half truths and speculation all day long. But the testimony from the person who actually made the decision to not increase security in the location in question kinda trumps that.
#72 May 16 2013 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,122 posts
gbaji wrote:
You can point to conspiracy theory spouting opinion articles spinning half truths and speculation all day long.
So your irrefutable proof against two senior congress critters, is an assistant secretary to a midlevel congress critter? That's so adorable. It's like you're actively trying to dismantle your own hypocritical arguments.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#73 May 16 2013 at 4:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
gbaji wrote:
Do you understand that this is also still just about the actual briefing document? There were (are) significant differences between that document (even in the initial draft) and the actual intelligence reports coming from the field.


Just curious, because curious.

Are those reports out in the open (i.e. linky if possible), or still classified/unreleased/whatever? It'd be nice to see them and all. If not seems like this is going to become a 'he said, she said' thing pretty fast.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#74 May 16 2013 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
If not seems like this is going to become a 'he said, she said' thing pretty fast.

Well, when the response to releasing all these documents the GOP was demanding is "Well, sure.. but BEFORE that you just KNOW Obama made them make that list different!" you've already strayed into "I said a wizard did it and you can't prove a wizard never did it so I'm right" territory.

And it's true: You can't prove a wizard didn't do it just as you can't prove Obama didn't beat CIA agents with wet noodles until they made talking points he liked. And this is apparently good enough evidence if you're a conservative.

Edited, May 16th 2013 5:54pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#75 May 16 2013 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You can't prove a wizard didn't do it just as you can't prove Obama didn't beat CIA agents with wet noodles until they made talking points he liked. And this is apparently good enough evidence if you're a conservative.

No marks! Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#76 May 16 2013 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,592 posts
This fits. NSFW Language, probably.

____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#77 May 16 2013 at 4:57 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,122 posts
I found gbaji's source.
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#78 May 16 2013 at 4:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That said, the entire document dump is available online. Not all documents on Benghazi of course but rather the chain of communication during the crafting of the talking points Gbaji is having conniptions about.

Edited, May 16th 2013 5:58pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#79gbaji, Posted: May 16 2013 at 5:15 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Huh? Did you read what I quoted? She's not an assistant to a member of congress. She's the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security. In other words, she's the person who made the decisions regarding security in Libya (and other diplomatic posts). She's one level below the Secretary of State (that was Hillary Clinton at the time). Yes. She trumps the opinions of a couple of random members of congress.
#80 May 16 2013 at 5:19 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,592 posts
Well, Deputy Assistant, meaning under the Assistant.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#81 May 16 2013 at 5:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That said, the entire document dump is available online. Not all documents on Benghazi of course but rather the chain of communication during the crafting of the talking points Gbaji is having conniptions about.


That's meaningless when the "entire document dump" consists of about 100 emails selected out of an estimated 25,000. And even those are being selectively read and reported by the sources you keep relying on for information. Many of the edits made by CIA were done at the behest of the State Department. And not because they were factually incorrect, but because they were concerned that it would make it look like they hadn't listened to the intelligence agencies that warned them about security risks in Libya.

It was CYA all the way around.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 May 16 2013 at 5:24 PM Rating: Good
******
43,122 posts
gbaji wrote:
You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Says the guy that didn't even read his own article. But then again, considering how bad a writer you are it really doesn't surprise me reading is just as difficult. Either way, you're still two senior:one junior in the hole. I know you don't want to focus on facts and numbers since those have, well pretty much always, proved you wrong, so you're going to conspiracy theory the hell out of it and hope no one notices. Being a hypocrite like you must suck. Smiley: frown
TirithRR wrote:
Well, Deputy Assistant, meaning under the Assistant.
Don't bring your facts into this discussion young man.

Edited, May 16th 2013 7:25pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#83 May 16 2013 at 5:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Well, Deputy Assistant, meaning under the Assistant.


Sorry. You are correct. Deputy Assistant. Damn word wrap in the original article got me. We're still talking about one level below the Secretary of State and a fairly high level position of responsibility. As stated earlier, she is the person who made the decision regarding security in Libya. She says that she did not base that decision on budget restrictions. So any claims that budget cuts had any effect on security in Libya are patently false.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#84 May 16 2013 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good
******
43,122 posts
gbaji wrote:
We're still talking about one level below the Secretary of State and a fairly high level position of responsibility.
We're actually not, but boy do you wish we were!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#85gbaji, Posted: May 16 2013 at 5:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Uh... It doesn't work that way. She made the decision in question. They did not. She says that her decision was not affected by budget concerns. End of story. Why the hell are you still trying to argue this?
#86 May 16 2013 at 5:33 PM Rating: Good
******
43,122 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why the hell are you still trying to argue this?
Argument implies you actually have a leg to stand on. I'm just pointing out the faults in your party rhetoric that you're parroting, and watching you spin in the web of hypocrisy. Like for insistence right now you're saying it's "end of story" because the assistant to an assistant to a committee head said so. Using your new logic of "you don't have to prove it for it to be true," then I'll say they were told to say more money wouldn't have helped and that less money was the correct choice. Prove me wrong.

Edited, May 16th 2013 7:34pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#87 May 16 2013 at 5:34 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,592 posts
According to lolWiki (because I'll admit I didn't know their hierarchy)
It goes:
Secretary of State
Deputy Secretary of State
Under Secretary of State for Management
Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security

So she's not really one level under Secretary of State.
But I guess they aren't really Congress Critters are they, since these are all Executive branch positions, right?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#88 May 16 2013 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It was CYA all the way around.

Well, it's nice that you think so.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#89 May 16 2013 at 5:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
We're still talking about one level below the Secretary of State and a fairly high level position of responsibility.
We're actually not, but boy do you wish we were!


Ok. Two levels. I missed the whole "Undersecretary of Management" layer in the State Department org chart. Sue me. You're still wrong though. She made the decision. She says the decision had nothing to do with budget. Ergo, it had nothing to do with budget. Literally no one else on the planet is a better expert on that particular question than she is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#90 May 16 2013 at 5:39 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,122 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ok. Two levels. I missed the whole "Undersecretary of Management" layer in the State Department org chart.
Five levels. Smiley: laugh

Edit: Please, don't let your "missed word" here and "missed layer" there stop you from explaining how you understand all this and just how important your source is. I notice graphs and charts throw you off. Don't let it get you down. Continue, continue.

Edited, May 16th 2013 7:45pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#91gbaji, Posted: May 16 2013 at 5:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Correct. She's not a part of Congress, or working for anyone in Congress. She works for the State Department. Specifically the part that made decisions regarding diplomatic security. Her testimony vastly outweighs a member of congress's speculation.
#92 May 16 2013 at 5:52 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ok. Two levels. I missed the whole "Undersecretary of Management" layer in the State Department org chart.
Five levels. Smiley: laugh


I love how you've latched onto the least relevant part of this whole conversation. Ultimately, none of this matters. She's the one who made the decision. She says it had nothing to do with budget. Thus, you are wrong. End of story.

Edited, May 16th 2013 4:53pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 May 16 2013 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,122 posts
gbaji wrote:
I love how you've latched onto the least relevant part of this whole conversation. .
You must love it, you spent half a dozen posts trying to prove just how relevant her rank was until even you couldn't spin your way out of not reading it right. It really does matter that you're using someone low on the totem to disprove two people much higher than her. It shows how tightly you're grasping at straws trying to keep from drowning. But hey, if you want to pretend that the equivalent of a Specialist is in charge of all Republican budget decisions, you keep on keeping on. That wizard is mighty.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#94 May 16 2013 at 5:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It was CYA all the way around.

Well, it's nice that you think so.


Do you honestly believe it was something else? I'm kinda curious what you think that was? I mean, it's awfully convenient that the incorrect talking points in the final briefing document just happened to tie into the narrative the Obama administration wanted. It's like getting into a car crash in your Honda and having your car happen to smash into the shape of a functioning Lamborghini. I'm sure that was just a random occurrence though!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 May 16 2013 at 6:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I love how you've latched onto the least relevant part of this whole conversation. .
You must love it, you spent half a dozen posts trying to prove just how relevant her rank was until even you couldn't spin your way out of not reading it right. It really does matter that you're using someone low on the totem to disprove two people much higher than her. It shows how tightly you're grasping at straws trying to keep from drowning. But hey, if you want to pretend that the equivalent of a Specialist is in charge of all Republican budget decisions, you keep on keeping on. That wizard is mighty.


Really? Honestly I'm just posting this stuff cause I'm bored and have some time to kill. I proved you wrong like 8 posts ago. You just don't seem to have figured it out yet. The rest of this is just for amusement factor and to see just how desperately you'll cling to the slightest thing. I'll give you a hint: You're the only person who thinks her rank/level/whatever actually matters. The rest of us got that the fact that she's the one who denied requests for more security was the end of the actual debate on this issue.

What are you arguing now? Tell you what. I'll accidentally misspell her name next and you can spend 5 posts insisting that since I can't spell her name, the GOP cuts must have been to blame for lack of security in Libya. Cause that's the level of logic I've come to expect from you.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#96 May 16 2013 at 6:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Do you honestly believe it was something else?

Yes. As mentioned in previous threads on the topic. Heck, I even quoted a column by a former Bush-era CIA analyst discussing exactly why it was not only plausible but extremely likely that the talking points reflected what was thought to be accurate at the time. You just said "Nuh UH! No one would EVER think that!"

I mean, nice work on saying "honestly" as though no one could ever think differently than you and anyone claiming to must be lying. That was pretty ninja. But, yeah, I think the whole GOP "It was a trick!" line is nothing more than politics. Certainly they haven't shown anything yet to the contrary. Did a great job of revealing CIA assets in the region though during the course of their little witch hunt. So nice work there, Issa.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 May 16 2013 at 6:07 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,122 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're the only person who thinks her rank/level/whatever actually matters
I've seen ferrets that were less cute than you are when you know you can't dig yourself out of holes like this. Smiley: inlove

You're the one that brought in your little friend. Not my fault you can't defend your argument.

Edited, May 16th 2013 8:10pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#98 May 16 2013 at 6:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do you honestly believe it was something else?

Yes. As mentioned in previous threads on the topic. Heck, I even quoted a column by a former Bush-era CIA analyst discussing exactly why it was not only plausible but extremely likely that the talking points reflected what was thought to be accurate at the time.


Sure. And in the absence of a mountain of evidence that nearly everyone in the intelligence community knew that this was a planned attack and didn't derive spontaneously from some protests over a film, you'd have a great point. Which I seem to recall was more or less my response back then.


And even if we accept that someone actually believed that this was a result of the protests, it still does not explain why days later, after it was clearly known that this wasn't the case, the false story was being repeated. It also doesn't explain why weeks later Obama himself was still repeating the same false story either when he spoke to the UN. The whole thing smacks of this being the story they wanted more than the story they got. If it had just been the story that came from the intelligence, then they would not have been so incredibly resistant to changing it as the facts became clearer. But they clearly did cling to that version of events long after it was abundantly clear that it wasn't true.


So yeah. In the face of that, it's hard to swallow the idea that they had nothing to do with that story being created in the first place. They had every reason to invent it, and no one else did.

Edited, May 16th 2013 5:26pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 May 16 2013 at 6:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The whole thing smacks of this being the story they wanted more than the story they got.

As I previously said, it's nice that you think so. I've no real interest in re-litigating the prior threads at this point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 May 16 2013 at 6:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The whole thing smacks of this being the story they wanted more than the story they got.

As I previously said, it's nice that you think so. I've no real interest in re-litigating the prior threads at this point.


Prior threads where it was established (by you of course) that there was nothing to this story. Yet here we are months later with the story. Hmmmm...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#101 May 16 2013 at 7:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
643 posts
To Gbaji:

Help me, a layman, understand the scandal in simple yes or no answers to the following questions.

1) Is this the first time a US embassy was attacked on foreign soil which resulted in the deaths of US citizens?

2) If the answer to 1 is no, is the problem that there wasn't full disclosure to the public a few hours after the incident, thereby a different response to similar situations in the past?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 62 All times are in CDT
Aethien, LockeColeMA, lolgaxe, Anonymous Guests (59)