Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Profiling is not ok...Follow

#52 May 15 2013 at 8:09 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.

#53 May 15 2013 at 10:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,445 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?
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#54 May 16 2013 at 4:10 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 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
******
49,907 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
******
49,907 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 **** 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
******
49,907 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 **** 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
******
27,272 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
*****
13,440 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
******
49,907 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!
*****
16,938 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
******
49,907 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
*****
13,440 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
*****
13,440 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!
*****
16,938 posts
This fits. NSFW Language, probably.

____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 53 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (53)