The Benghazi Lie in Black and White

[Machismo]

The second definition you're providing allows for the use of the word "lie" in a figurative sense rather than a literal sense. If you want to claim that Clinton's statements misled the public, that's fine. But from what I've seen, she didn't actually lie, as in "a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive, and intentional untruth."

But she did lie, by the very definition of the word, since she was clearly trying to convey a false impression.

[Bodakane]

I'm sorry. I really don't know what your arguing. That makes it sound like right wingers were to blame for the attacks, which they tried to argue? Please explain.

Sigh.

You made it sound like the reason they blamed the video was because they tried to make it sound like they had terrorism on the run, which is wholly false. They never implied or said that.

The reason they blamed the video was because they were trying to get people in the US, to stop inciting more hatred between the US and Islam.

[Reeve]

But she did lie, by the very definition of the word, since she was clearly trying to convey a false impression.

How do you know that? Her statement was the truth. People DID try to justify the attack and the Cairo protests by citing the video.

[ControlWarrior]

Sigh.

You made it sound like the reason they blamed the video was because they tried to make it sound like they had terrorism on the run, which is wholly false. They never implied or said that.

The reason they blamed the video was because they were trying to get people in the US, to stop inciting more hatred between the US and Islam.

I could be off, but I do seem to recall them trying to sell the success of their counter terrorism efforts. Been a few years and many semesters ago.

[Machismo]

How do you know that? Her statement was the truth. People DID try to justify the attack and the Cairo protests by citing the video.

If you cannot see how she, as well as Susan Rice, Obama, and the rest of the administration were trying to mislead the public, then you are being willfully ignorant. I have provided plenty to back up that claim. Any more effort is unnecessary, because nothing will get you to believe what you don't want to believe. Enjoy your willful ignorance.

[Wildtree]

The definition of "lie."

noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
Synonyms: prevarication, falsification.
Antonyms: truth.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture:
His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
4.
the charge or accusation of telling a lie:
He flung the lie back at his accusers.

Pay close attention to the second definition.

You, as the common pleb, are not entitled to the truth, when it comes to war actions and national security matters, while they're current.
You're getting a version of some sort told, which is then delegated by the person in charge for such event.
In the events of Benghazi Clinton had such role, since that's literally in her job description as Secretary of State.
And why is that so?
Because any official statement is learned not only by the people, by the friends, but also by the enemy.
If you want to evaluate such things, at least try to be relevant to the circumstances.

[Bodakane]

I could be off, but I do seem to recall them trying to sell the success of their counter terrorism efforts. Been a few years and many semesters ago.

No.

The left has consistently been trying to get people to not make this a religious war. They want people to understand this a war against idiots not an entire religion. To this day, there's a large contingent of people who don't get that and want to blame Muslims in total.

[Reeve]

Sigh.

You made it sound like the reason they blamed the video was because they tried to make it sound like they had terrorism on the run, which is wholly false. They never implied or said that.

The reason they blamed the video was because they were trying to get people in the US, to stop inciting more hatred between the US and Islam.

Yeah, the narrative I remember seeing in the news at the time was about use of art in ways that incited the Muslim community was a good or bad thing. This was all against the backdrop of things like the Danish cartoonist issue, etc.

I think ultimately most of the news and public decided that freedom of expression was more important than trying not to offend the Muslims, but that it's still a shitty thing to do to intentionally incite them.

[ControlWarrior]

No.

The left has consistently been trying to get people to not make this a religious war. They want people to understand this a war against idiots not an entire religion. To this day, there's a large contingent of people who don't get that and want to blame Muslims in total.

That was one side of it, but they also wanted to make themselves look good at their job. Which is understandable, especially if your trying to keep your position as POTUS.
Off topic: Later all! Been a good discussion.

[Reeve]

If you cannot see how she, as well as Susan Rice, Obama, and the rest of the administration were trying to mislead the public, then you are being willfully ignorant. I have provided plenty to back up that claim. Any more effort is unnecessary, because nothing will get you to believe what you don't want to believe. Enjoy your willful ignorance.

So you start by claiming she "lied." When shown that she didn't actually make false statements, you backpedaled to a secondary figurative definition that most people don't use when they talk about lying, preferring instead verbiage like "misled," which more accurately convey the action without providing the connotation that what she said was false.

Jay Carney and Susan Rice very clearly made some false statements. Clinton did not.

Certainly the administration as a whole tried to spin the aftermath of the attack to lower tensions between Muslims and the rest of Americans, but that's not the same thing as Clinton directly lying to cover up their incompetence.

[Felya]

The fact that you broke down everything I said and replied because you somehow got offended makes me happy and know that you got riled up...as predicted. Thank you.

You are assuming way too much about my replies. If something riles me up, I avoid it, not focus on it. I post for my entertainment alone. If I'm not enjoying posting, I'm simply not going to do it. I am not a masochist.

hahahaha so riled up you just had to break down every sentence.

Yeah, and I had fun doing it for every single sentence. You are putting way too much weight into my posting. I'm litteraly on a toilet, with a piece of shit actively coming out my ass. Just sayn'...

[Machismo]

So you start by claiming she "lied." When shown that she didn't actually make false statements, you backpedaled to a secondary figurative definition that most people don't use when they talk about lying, preferring instead verbiage like "misled," which more accurately convey the action without providing the connotation that what she said was false.

Jay Carney and Susan Rice very clearly made some false statements. Clinton did not.

Certainly the administration as a whole tried to spin the aftermath of the attack to lower tensions between Muslims and the rest of Americans, but that's not the same thing as Clinton directly lying to cover up their incompetence.

Do we need to go back to the definition of "lie" again?

2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression;

You'll also notice, I have always pointed my finger at the entire administration. When asked about Hillary in particular, I responded about her in particular.

- - - Updated - - -

So, again, the answer is no?

You should also look up the definition of the word "lie."

- - - Updated - - -

She continuously mentioned the video (which WAS the inspiration for the contemporaneous protests in Cairo), and said that "Some may try to justify the attacks using the video." She didn't continuously point to the video as the cause.

Why mention it at all if the intent was not to mislead? If it had nothing at all to do with the attacks, which she knew it did not, why bring it up? Why focus on that? WHy tell the families of the victims that you would make sure to arrest the maker of the video? If you don't think that's an attempt to mislead, that's on you.

[Reeve]

Do we need to go back to the definition of "lie" again?

You'll also notice, I have always pointed my finger at the entire administration. When asked about Hillary in particular, I responded about her in particular.

You're using the maximum stretch of the definitions of "lie." Most people when they use the word "lie" are specifically referring to an intentional falsehood. The definition you're using can be far more accurately conveyed by using the word "misled."

So by one very niche definition, did Hillary "lie?" Maybe. But even in that situation, "misled" or "made implications" is far more accurate.

[Reeve]

Why mention it at all if the intent was not to mislead? If it had nothing at all to do with the attacks, which she knew it did not, why bring it up? Why focus on that? WHy tell the families of the victims that you would make sure to arrest the maker of the video? If you don't think that's an attempt to mislead, that's on you.

In part because the other Embassy incident that happened the same day in Cairo WAS related to the video, and to try to defuse anger towards Muslims in general, which is very consistent with administration policy all through the Obama presidency.

And we don't know what she told the families of the victims.

[Machismo]

You're using the maximum stretch of the definitions of "lie." Most people when they use the word "lie" are specifically referring to an intentional falsehood. The definition you're using can be far more accurately conveyed by using the word "misled."

So by one very niche definition, did Hillary "lie?" Maybe. But even in that situation, "misled" or "made implications" is far more accurate.

I'm using the definition of the word. It's not my definition, I did not write the dictionary. One of the definitions of that word is to mislead. SO, if you would prefer to use a synonym, feel free to do so.

- - - Updated - - -

So the answer is still no? Just more dodges and insults?

No, I showed exactly how she lied, by the very definition of the word. If you choose to be willfully ignorant, that's on you. If you don't like the definition of the word, go seek out the people who write dictionaries, and take it up with them.

- - - Updated - - -

In part because the other Embassy incident that happened the same day in Cairo WAS related to the video, and to try to defuse anger towards Muslims in general, which is very consistent with administration policy all through the Obama presidency.

And we don't know what she told the families of the victims.

We do have the speech she made as the bodies were arriving, and we have witness accounts of what she told the families.

[Reeve]

I'm using the definition of the word. It's not my definition, I did not write the dictionary. One of the definitions of that word is to mislead. SO, if you would prefer to use a synonym, feel free to do so.

Mislead is a much more accurate synonym, so I will. But even then, it's not misleading to say that people would justify the attack with the video, because people DID do that. And there WERE protests at the embassy in Cairo about the video at the time that had protesters scaling the walls and removing the American flag.

- - - Updated - - -

We do have the speech she made as the bodies were arriving, and we have witness accounts of what she told the families.

Did she say in the speech that the attacks were in retaliation for the video?

[Machismo]

Mislead is a much more accurate synonym, so I will. But even then, it's not misleading to say that people would justify the attack with the video, because people DID do that. And there WERE protests at the embassy in Cairo about the video at the time that had protesters scaling the walls and removing the American flag.

- - - Updated - - -



Did she say in the speech that the attacks were in retaliation for the video?

Did she mislead the public?

Apparently you have an aversion to the word "lie."

[Reeve]

Did she mislead the public?

Apparently you have an aversion to the word "lie."

I have no aversion to the word "lie" when it's appropriately used. Clinton lied about the Bosnian Sniper Fire incident, for example.

I'd say that the administration in general misled the public. I'd say Clinton made true statements that people misinterpreted in the larger context of the administration's talking points (taken from the intelligence community). I'd say there's no actual evidence that Clinton herself was deliberately misleading.

[Lenonis]

I didn't read all 30 pages...mainly because I'm pretty sure what the super dead horse debate is.

But is anyone else rather disgusted by the $7 million dollar price tag of this? Even if you want to assume it isn't a political witch hunt that's still $1.75 million dollars of tax payer money spent for each person who died. That money would have been far far far far far better spent doing just about anything else...or heck, give it to the victim's families.

Stuff like this is why I scoff whenever I hear a conservative or GOP supporter tout themselves as fiscally conservative. This is the very definition of government wasteful spending.

[Auxora]

So the OP is claiming that this huge "lie" is over the semantics of whether the attack was in the definition of a terrorist attack or more of a mob action??? I think you'd have to do way better than that to make an issue of this, especially on the same day that the (witchhunt) investigation #17 into Benghazi yet again announced no wrongdoing.

The State Department can't possibly be expected to share internal unconfirmed discussions with the public. And truly whether it was planned or spontaneous really is completely moot. Who cares, the result is the same. We'll likely never 100% know unless the people who did it say so, and these discussions were just internal subjective debate on whether it was spontaneous or not. It's been the same meaningless debate with San Bernardino and Orlando over whether it was technically in the definition of terrorism or a domestic attack in support of terrorism. That's splitting hairs like lawyers. That why was in the emails was just opinion, and really really stretching to even call that a lie, much less somehow twist that into a scandal.

Plus, this whole discussion is changing the whole original claim on Benghazi, which was that somehow it was Clinton's fault and she could have or should have prevented it, or somehow had the ability to prevent it, and didn't. The problem being there is no proof of that whatsoever that's been found in the years since despite countless investigations. So they try this angle of just changing the original claim of wrongdoing from that to whether it was called terrorism or not.