Benghazi: What's the Charge Again?

[Heywood]

The lie was sending Rice out to spin this as a spontaneous act of an angry mob. The evidence this is a lie is the fact that there was no evidence this was a spontaneous act of an angry mob and lots of evidence this was a pre-planed attack.

That's pretty weak. Can you provide any evidence that Rice was directed to spin the attack as an act by a mob in a conspiracy to mislead the public? It needs to be strong evidence since you can't even think of a motive, even by conjecture.

Emails prepping Rice for the Sunday Morning Talk shows.

The emails in the link are more than just the ones about Rice being prepped for the Sunday Morning talk shows. Some of the emails are from the day of the attack. Kinda interesting to see how the Washington Machine works.

[DeistPaladin]

The emails in the link are more than just the ones about Rice being prepped for the Sunday Morning talk shows. Some of the emails are from the day of the attack. Kinda interesting to see how the Washington Machine works.

It says "that the attacks were a result of a riot, not a failure of foreign policy."

Kinda mixed, as far as I can see. An Al Qaida attack would also not be a "failure of foreign policy", since you really can't stop them from ever launching an attack. I probably don't need to mention that a disorganized collection of terror cells that can operate on a shoe-string budget by sending fanatics on suicide attacks is nearly impossible to completely vanquish.

They might have, on the day of the attack, actually believed that the attack was because of a riot. Much of our media reflected this assessment, given the coincidental timing of the attack with worldwide Islamic outrage.

Weak stuff.

[Heywood]

It says "that the attacks were a result of a riot, not a failure of foreign policy."

Kinda mixed, as far as I can see. An Al Qaida attack would also not be a "failure of foreign policy", since you really can't stop them from ever launching an attack. I probably don't need to mention that a disorganized collection of terror cells that can operate on a shoe-string budget by sending fanatics on suicide attacks is nearly impossible to completely vanquish.

They might have, on the day of the attack, actually believed that the attack was because of a riot. Much of our media reflected this assessment, given the coincidental timing of the attack with worldwide Islamic outrage.

Weak stuff.

Lets assume on the day of the attack, they might have believed it was because of a riot even though they knew on the day of the attack that it was coordinated and involved the use of heavy weapons.

8 days later Rice goes Sunday morning stump told to sell the story this was a spontaneous act of a mob when 1 day after we knew or had very good reason to believe the attack was orchestrated by the a militant group Ansar al-Sharia.

Obama didn't want to look weak on foreign policy at the height of an election, so he sent a minion out to spin a lie. Now if the administration truly did believe....eight days later....that these murders were the result of a spontaneous mob...then the Obama administration may not be guilty of lying....but they would certainly then be guilty of being incompetent boobs. Either way...you shouldn't be shocked stunned or amazed they are being called out for it....and they should.

[DeistPaladin]

Either way...you shouldn't be shocked stunned or amazed they are being called out for it....and they should.

I'm not shocked, stunned or amazed. This is the Clinton playbook, dusted off for a new administration. It is as predictable as it is transparent.

I'm underwhelmed.

If I have to explain why, understand these acts of calling out come from the same people who shushed me throughout the entire W Bush administration regarding W's war in Iraq. Centrists told me I was being "shrill" and "rude" in saying the president lied us into a war. Right wingers shrieked I was being treasonous. "How dare you harshly criticize a sitting president during a time of war?"

The mainstream media in the aftermath of "Mission Accomplished" established a strict moratorium on the words "lie" or "liar". Anyone who used these words was to be immediately marginalized and condemned as a petulant and irresponsible verbal bomb thrower. This banning of the "L" words continued well into the Obama administration, which was a problem dealing with GOP claims of "death panels" and other nonsense. Joe Biden finally came up with a solution to roll his eyes and chuckle when Lyin Ryan spoke. Evidently, your only allowed to call someone a liar when they are have a "D" next to their name.

No amount of evidence of the W administration's lies could compel any serious discussion, never mind investigation, never mind talk of impeachment. Yellow cake, Downing Street memo, Gen. Clark's testimony, none of this was enough evidence to warrant an accusation of dishonesty. We were continually dismissed with "well, maybe he just had bad intelligence."

Such an admission of mistakes due to bad intelligence never came directly from that administration, only its apologists. W Bush got up on the podium at the RNC in 2004, months not days after reports were in that Saddam had neither WMDs nor any links to the attacks on 9/11, and he told the crowd of his anguished decision to invade Iraq, that we had to because we'd been attacked on 9/11. He repeated this lie at a White House press conference in 2006, years afterwards, and said we invaded Iraq because we'd been attacked on 9/11. When he was told Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, he shushed the reporter and moved on to the next question.

The War in Iraq has cost America 5K of the lives of our finest, 2 Trillion in treasure, countless wounded, maimed, brain injured, PTSD cases, our credibility, the dead and wounded our allies suffered, the dead and displaced in Iraq to say nothing of the opportunity costs in resources that could have crushed Al Qaida and captured Bin Laden. These lies had dire consequences for the entire world but were most profitable to businesses linked to the administration. They made a lot of money while the rest of the world suffered.

Let me not mince words here. There are some nasty words for an administration that pursues such aggressive warfare under false pretenses for personal profit. These words are "crimes of war", "crimes of aggression", "conspiracy to commit aggression" and "crimes against humanity." If these terms sound familiar, they were the charges against the Nazis at Nuremberg. The punishments were a little on the stiff side. But of course, American leaders have no need to worry about ever facing such a trial.

More than 10 years later, there have been no investigations, no congressional hearings, no formal accusations or indictments, there was no talk of impeachment except to condemn any discussion of it as "shrill", and there has never been any outrage expressed except among "foul-mouthed vituperative bloggers on the left".

This and the outing of Valerie Plame and the negligence in failing to heed intelligence reports on the coming attacks on 9/11 and the botching of the war in Afghanistan.

After the GOP did all that, they not have the nerve to shriek about and endlessly investigate claims that the Obama administration may have done a little spinning after Benghazi to try to look better. They have no sense of shame and they have no business doing it. And if you voted for W Bush in 2004, neither do you.

[Heywood]

I'm not shocked, stunned or amazed. This is the Clinton playbook, dusted off for a new administration. It is as predictable as it is transparent.

I'm underwhelmed.

If I have to explain why, understand these acts of calling out come from the same people who shushed me throughout the entire W Bush administration regarding W's war in Iraq. Centrists told me I was being "shrill" and "rude" in saying the president lied us into a war. Right wingers shrieked I was being treasonous. "How dare you harshly criticize a sitting president during a time of war?"

The mainstream media in the aftermath of "Mission Accomplished" established a strict moratorium on the words "lie" or "liar". Anyone who used these words was to be immediately marginalized and condemned as a petulant and irresponsible verbal bomb thrower. This banning of the "L" words continued well into the Obama administration, which was a problem dealing with GOP claims of "death panels" and other nonsense. Joe Biden finally came up with a solution to roll his eyes and chuckle when Lyin Ryan spoke. Evidently, your only allowed to call someone a liar when they are have a "D" next to their name.

No amount of evidence of the W administration's lies could compel any serious discussion, never mind investigation, never mind talk of impeachment. Yellow cake, Downing Street memo, Gen. Clark's testimony, none of this was enough evidence to warrant an accusation of dishonesty. We were continually dismissed with "well, maybe he just had bad intelligence."

Such an admission of mistakes due to bad intelligence never came directly from that administration, only its apologists. W Bush got up on the podium at the RNC in 2004, months not days after reports were in that Saddam had neither WMDs nor any links to the attacks on 9/11, and he told the crowd of his anguished decision to invade Iraq, that we had to because we'd been attacked on 9/11. He repeated this lie at a White House press conference in 2006, years afterwards, and said we invaded Iraq because we'd been attacked on 9/11. When he was told Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, he shushed the reporter and moved on to the next question.

The War in Iraq has cost America 5K of the lives of our finest, 2 Trillion in treasure, countless wounded, maimed, brain injured, PTSD cases, our credibility, the dead and wounded our allies suffered, the dead and displaced in Iraq to say nothing of the opportunity costs in resources that could have crushed Al Qaida and captured Bin Laden. These lies had dire consequences for the entire world but were most profitable to businesses linked to the administration. They made a lot of money while the rest of the world suffered.

Let me not mince words here. There are some nasty words for an administration that pursues such aggressive warfare under false pretenses for personal profit. These words are "crimes of war", "crimes of aggression", "conspiracy to commit aggression" and "crimes against humanity." If these terms sound familiar, they were the charges against the Nazis at Nuremberg. The punishments were a little on the stiff side. But of course, American leaders have no need to worry about ever facing such a trial.

More than 10 years later, there have been no investigations, no congressional hearings, no formal accusations or indictments, there was no talk of impeachment except to condemn any discussion of it as "shrill", and there has never been any outrage expressed except among "foul-mouthed vituperative bloggers on the left".

This and the outing of Valerie Plame and the negligence in failing to heed intelligence reports on the coming attacks on 9/11 and the botching of the war in Afghanistan.

After the GOP did all that, they not have the nerve to shriek about and endlessly investigate claims that the Obama administration may have done a little spinning after Benghazi to try to look better. They have no sense of shame and they have no business doing it. And if you voted for W Bush in 2004, neither do you.

You wrote one big long red herring post.

This discussion is about Obama's sins....not Bush's. Here is a pro-tip....if you feel the need to change the subject....you've lost.

[DeistPaladin]

You wrote one big long red herring post.

This discussion is about Obama's sins....not Bush's. Here is a pro-tip....if you feel the need to change the subject....you've lost.

Actually, if you read the post, you'd see that I have explained why the accusation is weak. He's accused of spin. That's it?

On the side, I've exposed you as a hypocrite.

[KUSA]

Benghazi = black president.

No no no, it's because he's Muslim.

[Jackalope]

Nice quote mine you have there.

[Heywood]

You wrote one big long red herring post.

This discussion is about Obama's sins....not Bush's. Here is a pro-tip....if you feel the need to change the subject....you've lost.

Actually, if you read the post, you'd see that I have explained why the accusation is weak. He's accused of spin. That's it?

Spin is when you try to change peoples perspective or feelings about a fact.
- Waiter, there is a fly in my soup!
- Hush, don’t shout, or else the others will want one too!

Lying is knowingly uttering something untrue in order to deceive.
-Waiter, there is a fly in my soup!
-Sir, you're mistaken, that's a raisin not a fly.

The administration said the nature of the attack was one thing when they knew or should have known it was something different. The administration blatantly lied in this incident.

[DeistPaladin]

The administration said the nature of the attack was one thing when they knew or should have known it was something different. The administration blatantly lied in this incident.

There's nothing "blatant" about it. You haven't even provided enough evidence to make case, much less claim it to be "blatant".

And I've exposed your (and the rest of the GOP's) hypocrisy on this issue. Your sanctimonious stance that any-lie-is-intolerable only counts when a Democrat is in office. You wrote in two different posts:

The "What difference does it make" excuse may fly with you....but it doesn't fly with everyone. This was a big deal and trying to down play it only appeals to the locksteppers.

...I don't see a need for a lie. I see a lie.

So, your stance is that any lie, no matter how insignificant or inconsequential is intolerable, correct?

This is why the GOP impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob. Sure, it's a personal matter. Sure, it has nothing to do with his performance as president. That's not the point. The point is he lied! HE LIED! HE LIIIIEEEEEED! Impeach him now!

When Clinton was in office, "even the appearance of impropriety" was to be rigorously investigated. Today, the GOP and supporters like you have dusted off the Clinton playbook and run the program once more.

When a Republican is in office, that high standard goes away and is replaced with "how dare you question the president in a time of war" and "don't say 'lie' you petulant shrill verbal bomb-thrower". People like you couldn't care less that W Bush lied us into a war that cost (long list of costs in lives, fortune and credibility goes here). Investigation was frowned upon. Impeachment was laughed at.

Now a Democrat is in office and the GOP flip flops back to the even-the-appearance-of-impropriety standard without a moment of shame. People like you, in a heartbeat, flip a switch and suddenly you're pretending to be sanctimonious about any alleged lie, no matter that you admit it makes no difference.

This isn't about prosecuting dishonesty. If it were, the same standard would apply to both parties. This is all about politics. But you won't admit that.

You...
Are...
A...
Hypocrite!

And hypocrisy is a form of dishonesty, just to add to your hypocrisy. You hypocritically claim that you can't stand dishonesty. This is hypocrisy squared.

You haven't just broken the ninth commandment, you've shattered it.

Live with that.