CNN and the latest on Benghazi

[Endus]

They knew and the military knew from the onset it was a terrorist attack and not some protest turned violent.

Not only is this false, I've already linked the relevant documents and on-the-ground reports that prove this to be false.

- - - Updated - - -

you know... you would have a point if they did it for 3 hours.

They stretched it out until election day.

You're back to assuming omniscience and infallibility, for some reason. It's perfectly plausible for intel to be wrong without that being an example of malfeasance or incompetence.

[Merkava]

It was deceptive to call what he knew to be a terrorist attack an act of terror .

Painting Obama into a corner in this is easy. But you're going about in the wrong way. The issue isn't between the difference between act of terror and terrorist act, the issue is the way Obama went back and forth, even in the same day. Obama says he called it terrorism on Sept 12th in the Rose Garden, yet the same day admits that he went out of his way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.

[NineSpine]

Painting Obama into a corner in this is easy. But you're going about in the wrong way. The issue isn't between the difference between act of terror and terrorist act, the issue is the way Obama went back and forth, even in the same day. Obama says he called it terrorism on Sept 12th in the Rose Garden, yet the same day admits that he went out of his way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.

The issue is: Who really gives a shit? This is just language games of "gotchya!" It has no actual bearing on the attack itself.

[oblivionx]

You're back to assuming omniscience and infallibility, for some reason. It's perfectly plausible for intel to be wrong without that being an example of malfeasance or incompetence.

It odd how when Bush was president that response meant nothing to the left, but now it's "the official excuse".

[NineSpine]

It odd how when Bush was president that response meant nothing to the left, but now it's "the official excuse".

Because that response made little to no sense at that time, and in hindsight it looks even worse. There sources for Iraq having WMDs were pathetic, including a guy who only gave the information when we were pretending to bury him alive. I, and the rest of the community of real Middle East experts, knew it was bullshit and bogus from minute one.

[NYC17]

Painting Obama into a corner in this is easy. But you're going about in the wrong way. The issue isn't between the difference between act of terror and terrorist act, the issue is the way Obama went back and forth, even in the same day. Obama says he called it terrorism on Sept 12th in the Rose Garden, yet the same day admits that he went out of his way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.

The obvious fallacy being that Obama should be painted into a corner regarding semantics.

[smelltheglove]

It odd how when Bush was president that response meant nothing to the left, but now it's "the official excuse".

there is the minor difference of one being used to start a war, while with the other... not much happened with the other, apart from conspiracy theories

[oblivionx]

Because that response made little to no sense at that time, and in hindsight it looks even worse. There sources for Iraq having WMDs were pathetic, including a guy who only gave the information when we were pretending to bury him alive. I, and the rest of the community of real Middle East experts, knew it was bullshit and bogus from minute one.

So now you're a middle east expert.

Do protesters tend to show up with rocket propelled grenades there or do they typically just bring a flag and some gasoline?

Just wondering.

[NineSpine]

So now you're a middle east expert.

Do protesters tend to show up with rocket propelled grenades there or do they typically just bring a flag and some gasoline?

Just wondering.

Go to the Middle East and see the number of people walking the streets with heavy weaponry. It's downright common. Even in Israel it isn't uncommon for people to be carrying around semi-automatic weapons in residential areas.

[Merkava]

What "origin"? There was never any origin except "I don't want a damned black man as my President. I bet he's not even really an American."

You think the idea just sprang collectively and simultaneously from the minds of republicans all over the country? At least google it. Make an effort.

- - - Updated - - -

The obvious fallacy being that Obama should be painted into a corner regarding semantics.

Absolutely nothing to do with semantics. In fact my post should be clear, that doing it through semantics is the wrong way.

Obama did waver back and forth on calling it terrorism. That's undeniable.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue is: Who really gives a shit? This is just language games of "gotchya!" It has no actual bearing on the attack itself.

The person I was replying to probably does. Which is why I didn't direct the comment at you. There are plenty of other threads to occupy your time if this one doesn't interest you.

[NineSpine]

You think the idea just sprang collectively and simultaneously from the minds of republicans all over the country? At least google it. Make an effort.

- - - Updated - - -



I didn't say that he should be painted in a corner. Only that If you wanted to it's easy.

Obama did waver back and forth on calling it terrorism. That's undeniable.

He was forced into playing word games by people trying to paint him into a corner. It's a little bit circular to then use that to justify more corner painting.

[Endus]

It odd how when Bush was president that response meant nothing to the left, but now it's "the official excuse".

1> Did Obama use this information to launch a multi-year war costing the American people trillions of dollars? That was the issue people had with the "Saddamn has WMDs" thing. What Bush did based on that intel, not the intel itself.

2> That intel was pretty obviously drummed up, once they examined it, without any real justification. Meanwhile, there were people in the crowd of attackers at Benghazi who were telling journalists that the video was the reason for the attack. Whether they were lying to hide their motivations, or they were actual protesters swept up into the violence, the fact remains there was good reason to consider the video.

3> The administration amended their statements, once they'd gotten more information. Bush's administration never did, despite growing evidence that there had never been WMDs.

In short; the two are entirely incomparable, and you entirely missed the reasons people took issues with Bush's administration on certain issues. People didn't want to tear own Bush because he was Republican. They wanted to tear him down because he'd gotten the US into a costly war over what amounted to nothing. In fact, many Americans initially supported the war in Iraq, believing that original intel, and it's only after the flaws in that intel were revealed, and the Bush administration stuck by them regardless, that people changed their tune.

[Sunseeker]

You can use the military to do international policing, but you don't want to use ARMIES to do it. I was trying to draw the distinction there. For example, it's one thing to raid bin Laden's home with a SEAL team. It's another to occupy a nation.

Well yes and I've been in favor of altering our military to do just that for a long time.

[Endus]

You think the idea just sprang collectively and simultaneously from the minds of republicans all over the country? At least google it. Make an effort.

No, I think the idea was aggressively marketed and encouraged by a few racist right-wingers, and it took off among other racists. It was never widely supported by all Republicans, because a lot of Republicans are not racists. I'm not anti-Republican, or anti-Conservative.

There was never even a ghost of a suggestion that there might be something to it. There was more evidence McCain wasn't an American. And I mean that literally; of the two candidates, McCain was the one who actually wasn't born in the USA.

[Merkava]

He was forced into playing word games by people trying to paint him into a corner. It's a little bit circular to then use that to justify more corner painting.

Again, maybe you have difficulty reading. I never said Obama played word games. I said that he changed his position. Which he did. Undeniably. Obama said that he called it terrorism in the Rose Garden speach, and then hours later agreed that he went out of his way not to call it terrorism.

If you researched this a just a little you'd save everyone a lot of time.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I think the idea was aggressively marketed and encouraged by a few racist right-wingers, and it took off among other racists.

There was never even a ghost of a suggestion that there might be something to it. There was more evidence McCain wasn't an American. And I mean that literally; of the two candidates, McCain was the one who actually wasn't born in the USA.

From Wikipedia

Origins of the claims

During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced that questioned Obama's citizenship in an attempt to revive Clinton's faltering primary election campaign. These and numerous other chain e-mails during the subsequent presidential election circulated false rumors about Obama's origin, religion and birth certificate.

[Grizzly Willy]

Ah so it was the republicans to blame.

Thanks for the insight, is there anything they aren't to blame for exactly?

Find this kinda funny, considering how you act like democrats are to blame for everything.

[Endus]

From Wikipedia

Yes, you've successfully proven that some supporters of Clinton were also quite possibly racist. They never got anywhere, though, and it wasn't until it was picked up by Republicans that "birtherism" really took off as a movement.

- - - Updated - - -

From Wikipedia

Yes, you've successfully proven that some supporters of Clinton were also quite possibly racist. They never got anywhere, though, and it wasn't until it was picked up by Republicans that "birtherism" really took off as a movement.

[Merkava]

Yes, you've successfully proven that some supporters of Clinton were also quite possibly racist. They never got anywhere, though, and it wasn't until it was picked up by Republicans that "birtherism" really took off as a movement.

You said (my bolding)

The issue is that some Republican-supporting elements are trying to pin that blame on Obama and Clinton, with absolutely no evidence. It is simply Birtherism 2.0;

And Birtherism itself is why they have no credibility; they have already proven that they are willing to hand-craft "controversy" for an attempt at political gain.

If your last sentence had read "Birtherism itself is why some republican supporting elements have no credibility" I would have had no problem with that. But you attempted to paint the entire party with the same brush.

I don't think all of Hilliary's supporters are racists. But the Clintons have played the race card in both directions over the years. Why Obama would want anything to do with her still amazes me.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I think the idea was aggressively marketed and encouraged by a few racist right-wingers, and it took off among other racists. It was never widely supported by all Republicans, because a lot of Republicans are not racists. I'm not anti-Republican, or anti-Conservative.
.

Edit, just went back and read this post. Sorry I missed it. You've already addressed that you weren't charging the entire party with institutional racism. Apologies.

[Endus]

Edit, just went back and read this post. Sorry I missed it. You've already addressed that you weren't charging the entire party with institutional racism. Apologies.

Right, and I just want to clarify; with regards to these issues, I'm making an argument about what a specific subculture of Republicans are doing. They may not consider themselves a "subculture", but it amounts to that; they are pushing to manufacture a scandal to pin on Obama or his administration either because they are racist and cannot stand that a black man is President (alternatively and/or additionally; sexist, applied to Hillary in her position as Secretary of State). This doesn't mean all Republicans are acting like this, or support it, or even that it is only Republicans who do, but these movements have been almost entirely Republican, in practice.

It bothers me primarily because, at heart, I'm a fiscal conservative (and social liberal, though that's neither here nor there). I have a lot of hope for past and future candidates like Jon Huntsman and Chris Christie. I may disagree with them on social policies, but I wouldn't have any opposition to seeing them win the Presidency. I take issue with other candidates who seem to appeal to the racist subcultures within the Republican Party, a presence that exists primarily due to the Southern Strategy of years past, where the Republicans deliberately shifted away from their roots of egalitarianism (they were the party of Lincoln, after all), to deliberately appeal to racists in the South, a move which gained them considerable support among that group, at the cost of the votes of African-Americans. It was a net political gain for the party, in terms of support, but I believe it was at a cost, and that cost is coming to the fore these past few years. That is the root of my issues with the Republican Party. It doesn't extend to all Republicans, but they're often the ones holding the banners, these days.

I don't mean to de-rail the thread, I just want to clarify that even though I'm often coming off as pretty anti-Right, I'm not. I'm a small-government social-liberty libertarian. The Republican Party ethics prior to Nixon are closer to my ideals than that of either modern party.

And that's why BS like Benghazi so infuriates me. Because the "scandal" is rooted in that same mess. If you look at it objectively, without considering party affiliations, there's nothing there. Unfortunate and tragic events, sure. Foreign policy that, in that particular case, failed in a way that should be reviewed, with an eye to fixing said policies. But not misinformation and lies on the part of the administration. Not a deliberate malfeasance or accidental incompetence that allowed for the situation to occur. The fact is, bad shit happens. It sucks, and it's tragic. We do what we can (speaking as people) to mitigate them, but they cannot be entirely prevented. That's beyond the scope of reality. You need to accept that, and work to minimize it as much as possible.

That is what Clinton meant when she said "what difference does it make?" Because in the end, the important issue is not whether it was spurred by a video, or it was a concerted attack by a terrorist group. What's important is that four Americans died as a result of a failure in policy. It doesn't, and shouldn't, matter that it took weeks to establish who was truly at fault; what matters is that it was established. The focus should be on fixing policies, not trying to tear down someone's career by any means necessary.

[NYC17]

Absolutely nothing to do with semantics. In fact my post should be clear, that doing it through semantics is the wrong way.

Obama did waver back and forth on calling it terrorism. That's undeniable.

Well NineSpine answered this perfectly so I'll refer you to his post...directly below yours.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, and I just want to clarify; with regards to these issues, I'm making an argument about what a specific subculture of Republicans are doing. They may not consider themselves a "subculture", but it amounts to that; they are pushing to manufacture a scandal to pin on Obama or his administration either because they are racist and cannot stand that a black man is President (alternatively and/or additionally; sexist, applied to Hillary in her position as Secretary of State). This doesn't mean all Republicans are acting like this, or support it, or even that it is only Republicans who do, but these movements have been almost entirely Republican, in practice.

It bothers me primarily because, at heart, I'm a fiscal conservative (and social liberal, though that's neither here nor there). I have a lot of hope for past and future candidates like Jon Huntsman and Chris Christie. I may disagree with them on social policies, but I wouldn't have any opposition to seeing them win the Presidency. I take issue with other candidates who seem to appeal to the racist subcultures within the Republican Party, a presence that exists primarily due to the Southern Strategy of years past, where the Republicans deliberately shifted away from their roots of egalitarianism (they were the party of Lincoln, after all), to deliberately appeal to racists in the South, a move which gained them considerable support among that group, at the cost of the votes of African-Americans. It was a net political gain for the party, in terms of support, but I believe it was at a cost, and that cost is coming to the fore these past few years. That is the root of my issues with the Republican Party. It doesn't extend to all Republicans, but they're often the ones holding the banners, these days.

I don't mean to de-rail the thread, I just want to clarify that even though I'm often coming off as pretty anti-Right, I'm not. I'm a small-government social-liberty libertarian. The Republican Party ethics prior to Nixon are closer to my ideals than that of either modern party.

You know who else I wouldn't have had too much of an issue with as president? Mitt Romney....circa 2003-2007. Wonder what happened tot that guy? Oh right...it's shit like a party forcing him to play games with Benghazi, and birtherism, and Obamacare, and on and on and on...

I actually felt bad for Romney at one point. The guy wanted to be president so badly, and the one time he gets the nomination his own party made it impossible for him to win. It's almost Shakespearean.

But hey, it's allowed "true conservatives" to cling to their belief that if only one of their own could get nominated, they'd fix it all! Afterall, belief is all they have left.