Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Benghazi - Just the Facts, Ma'am (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  23  24  25   
Author Topic: Benghazi - Just the Facts, Ma'am
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Tom has nailed the essence of it.

He has NOT nailed the essences of it. The question is not about whether someone has lied, virtually everyone has, it's about why they lied and how they were held accountable.

Tom's answer is a diversion, an attempt at false equivalence, nothing more.

If you buy into it, you're just making it clear that your answer to those questions is that lieing for convenience or to gain power is legitimate and acceptable to you, and that you don't deserve a leader who doesn't lie to you if you won't hold them accountable.
quote:
And this lie was "corrected" about a week after it was made. A week. Sure, they didn't admit that they knew they were lying, but they didn't continue to lie after that. After a week.
It wasn't corrected by them. They were caught in the lie. That's like saying if I catch my six year in lie he's corrected it.
quote:
How many millions of dollars have been spent over trying to prove that they lied for a week?
None. We already no they lied. The millions have been spent trying to hold them accountable for it, cause they have no honor and won't hold themselves accountable for it.
quote:
You know, the more I think about this, the more outraged I get over the Republican hacks who have been milking this for the past two years with our money for a lie that was no longer used after a week and didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. [Mad]
You're mad because the only other choice is to realize you've internalized an acceptance that its okay to lie in naked self interest.
quote:
Why didn't they have hearings about who knew that Iraq didn't have WMD instead? At least that lie mattered.
Lol. The false meme rears its head. They didn't have hearings cause they knew it wasn't a lie, it was an error. Distinguishable specifically from this event where they knew what they said was a lie.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How long are you going to sit around and tolerate dishonesty and corruption with the lame excuse of past politicians have used them so we should expect it for all time? Even if it were true that every politician in the history of the country were all guilty, which it may or may not be, that itself is argument enough to punish such behavior as strongly as possible when it surfaces to ward off worse recidivism.
I applaud you gentlemen's ethics and idealism. And I agree that it would great if we held our politicians to the highest standards.

But let's be practical. Do you really believe that this will be the new norm to what we hold our politicans to? Do you seriously believe that we are going to verify every utterance from our leaders in the future?

I brought up Iraq and the WMD because it is obvious that when Colin Powell uttered the immortal words, "We know they have them and we know where they are," that somebody was lying through his teeth, because we never found them and they almost certainly never had them. But how long did the hearings about the Bush Administration's lie that led us into a war go on? How many e-mails did they read?

But that's right. Bush didn't realize he was being lied to. And when it was all over, he gave the head of the CIA a medal. [Roll Eyes]

Sure, we know it wasn't a lie.

We've seen what whoppers have been given a pass in Washington before. Lies that have lead us into wars. Lies about the President and where he was born. Lies about his religion. Lies about his actions. Lies about his loyalty and his ethics and just about everything about him. It is the Republican and Conservative strategy to throw out as many lies as possible to discredit the President and his Administration, in hopes that some of the lies will be believed. Why aren't you outraged about those lies??

You're right, Seriati, what it's all about is why they lied and how they are held accountable. But not the way you think.

Why they lied is probably because they had an excuse. They had the memo from the CIA, just like Bush had his report. They figured that they could save some embarassment. So they went with it. After all, it was the #1 reason on the memo for the attack. Do you think Bush would have done anything different?

But how they are held accountable is the real point. They are held to this high standard--a standard that no other politician in Washington will be held to--because the Republicans want anything they can find to nail Obama and Clinton with. It's a witch hunt. A kangaroo court. Because in the end, they want to destroy Obama and Clinton's careers, and they hope the entire Democratic Party, over something that didn't do much harm.

Meanwhile, over things that have done enormous harm, we hear nothing.

If all politicians will be held to the same standards, then I agree that we should hold them to it. But you know that other politicians will not be. Once this is over, it will be back to normal, where lies that did little harm will be overlooked, or lies that did much harm if they are too embarassing. These high standards are only for Obama and Clinton. Once they are gone, so will the new ethical standards.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They didn't have hearings cause they knew it wasn't a lie, it was an error.
No, we know this isn't true. We have heard this now from several people in the administration: they knew it was not true, but did not contradict the story.

Let us point out that this particular lie, unlike anything said about Benghazi after the fact, actually directly resulted in dozens of American deaths and thousands of Iraqi deaths, and destabilized an entire country.

I am curious, however: who here believes they have voted for a national-level candidate who has not lied? Hell, Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich have both arguably lied, and they immediately stand out as two of the most principled Congresspeople in living memory.

[ May 22, 2015, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
They didn't have hearings cause they knew it wasn't a lie, it was an error.
No, we know this isn't true. We have heard this now from several people in the administration: they knew it was not true, but did not contradict the story.

Let us point out that this particular lie, unlike anything said about Benghazi after the fact, actually directly resulted in dozens of American deaths and thousands of Iraqi deaths, and destabilized an entire country.

Damn right about this. However as has been mentioned on this site from time to time, pointing out one side's major faults shouldn't serve to diffuse or make light of faults on the other side. Even if the Republicans did things that were blatantly worse, for instance, it seems to me that the more important thing to look at isn't who wins the prize at worst lie told, but rather to examine how the party system itself is used to prevent real change. Each lie and scandal uncovered about the other side only adds fuel to the partisan fire to rally each side to their own party with more blind determination. These scandals, collectively, help both parties, rather than hurt them. I think that focusing too much on 'which side is worse' plays into their hands. The better course might be to treat both parties with utter suspicion (notwithstanding one's belief that one party really is worse than the other).
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
These high standards are only for Obama and Clinton. Once they are gone, so will the new ethical standards.
I have to disagree with you here. If Republicans can go so far as to fund sleazy attacks against a decorated veteran wounded in combat when he chooses to run as the Democratic nominee for President, I am sure that they will roll out different standards and different attacks for whoever is the Democratic nominee.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think that focusing too much on 'which side is worse' plays into their hands.
I don't think this is so much a case of "Republicans have done worse" as one of "appropriate response."

Lying about selling weapons to enemies to fund counterinsurgencies that have been forbidden by Congress is much more important than lying about having sex with an intern.

Lying about a nation having weapons of mass destruction to justify an attack is much more important than lying about using cocaine or grass as a college student.

What's left of the Benghazi "scandal" is how much the Administration knew about the reason for attack when they said that the attack was motivated by a video. A stance that was "corrected" a week after it was made. A purported lie that was revealed well before the election, so that those who felt that Obama and Clinton lied had time to act on that belief. And those who felt they hadn't lied, or that it simply didn't matter, had time to act on those beliefs, too. And that is about the extent of the harm.

So why is this scandal taking so much more time and resources to thoroughly "investigate" than the other aforementioned scandals??

It is way out of proportion.

It's not that Republican scandals are worse than Democrat scandals. It's not that any particular Republican scandal means we should ignore any particular Democratic scandal, or vice versa. It's that a relatively minor scandal, that had very little repercussions, is being treated like a major scandal of national importance.

So when Benghazi is compared to Iraq's WMD or Iran-Contra, it's not to excuse bad behavior. It's to point out that all this time and money is being used to investigate a relatively minor lie. One that doesn't have much import.

Which then bring up the question, exactly why is the time and money being spent? [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
I think that focusing too much on 'which side is worse' plays into their hands.
I don't think this is so much a case of "Republicans have done worse" as one of "appropriate response."

Lying about selling weapons to enemies to fund counterinsurgencies that have been forbidden by Congress is much more important than lying about having sex with an intern.

Lying about a nation having weapons of mass destruction to justify an attack is much more important than lying about using cocaine or grass as a college student.

What's left of the Benghazi "scandal" is how much the Administration knew about the reason for attack when they said that the attack was motivated by a video. A stance that was "corrected" a week after it was made. A purported lie that was revealed well before the election, so that those who felt that Obama and Clinton lied had time to act on that belief. And those who felt they hadn't lied, or that it simply didn't matter, had time to act on those beliefs, too. And that is about the extent of the harm.

So why is this scandal taking so much more time and resources to thoroughly "investigate" than the other aforementioned scandals??

It is way out of proportion.

It's not that Republican scandals are worse than Democrat scandals. It's not that any particular Republican scandal means we should ignore any particular Democratic scandal, or vice versa. It's that a relatively minor scandal, that had very little repercussions, is being treated like a major scandal of national importance.

So when Benghazi is compared to Iraq's WMD or Iran-Contra, it's not to excuse bad behavior. It's to point out that all this time and money is being used to investigate a relatively minor lie. One that doesn't have much import.

Which then bring up the question, exactly why is the time and money being spent? [Wink]

It reeks of desperation that Obama's and Hillary's defenders are now arguing about how bad their lies are compared to previous administrations.

Lets play this game for a moment.
The Benghazi lie was dangerous and awful because it showed our enemies that our own government was willing to lie and cover up our enemies attacks because it might not be politically-expedient to acknowledge how they happened, or even if they happened at all.

Imagine if Obama and Hillary had gotten away with this lie, and because of it, none of the resources put into finding that terrorist cell would have been allocated because why would Obama waste them if it wasn't a coordinated terrorist attack. Then imagine those terrorists being emboldened to attack and kill even more Americans, this time on a larger scale.

It's easy to see that even on the "lie scale" that Wayward would have us use that this is near the top. When our President lies about enemies slaughtering Americans because he's worried about electoral defeat, it's hard to imagine much worse than that.

[ May 29, 2015, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
God, I am so incredibly tired of people bloviating endlessly about things that they pretend they believe might "embolden terrorists."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's go along with the premise that the lies political figures tell are significant. That lying itself is morally wrong, independent of the relative impact that different lies have on people's lives. For a moment I want to explore the principle that we are talking about here, not scoring one side vs. the other.

Can we define the moral code of behavior regarding truth-telling that we would find respectable? Is someone okay merely if they never speak words that are literally false? Is someone acting appropriately if they mislead through a statement that is literally true, but structured to convey a point that is false, such as:

quote:
The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud

Is someone obligated to make a correction if they learn something that they said turns out to be false?

And does our answer change if we ourselves would also be judged against the same moral code that we use for political figures?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When was the last time that a previous president largely ignored a terrorist group? Right before 9-11.

If Obama had his way he'd be unwittingly setting us up for another attack, just like his predecessor. We know from different sources inside the Bush administration that they actively ignored several warnings and events prior to 9-11 because they had other policy goals they preferred to pursue instead. After Binghazi it was clear that Obama and Hillary didn't want to acknowledge that it was an organized Al Qaeda attack because that didn't fit the narrative of them being "on the run" right before Obama's reelection.

What that shows is that both Obama and Hillary are willing to lie and let Americans die if it is politically expedient to do so.

[ May 29, 2015, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
When was the last time that a previous president largely ignored a terrorist group? Right before 9-11.
Which terrorist group? Because I can easily make the case that every president in living memory has "largely ignored" one to an extent far exceeding the degree to which Obama "ignored" those responsible for Benghazi.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The funny thing is that terrorists depend on publicity as much as elected officials. The people behind Benghazi probably would have been pissed if became widely believed it was just another riot.

Also, it's absurd to believe whatever reaction there was to the attack depended on what story was being sold to the media. If the administration knew it wasn't a riot but was actively lying about it, they'd have more reasons to stuff the responsible parties in a shallow grave, not less.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Imagine if Obama and Hillary had gotten away with this lie, and because of it, none of the resources put into finding that terrorist cell would have been allocated because why would Obama waste them if it wasn't a coordinated terrorist attack. Then imagine those terrorists being emboldened to attack and kill even more Americans, this time on a larger scale.
You mean the terrorist cell that would have vanished into the woodwork if it became clear that we were onto them and reformed later once the heat was off, rather than being complacent for a few days while the administration followed the CIA's request to mislead them into thinking that they weren't already being tracked down?

SPeculative? Sure, no less than your unfounded hypothetical was. But at least it actually aligns to the known facts (that the CIA was already in the process of tracking down the cell, and the video protest talking point came directly from the talking points that the CIS requested the administration use)

I mean the entire context of this current conversation invalidates your speculation, because the detail revealed was that the CIA was already aware of and tracking the terroristic nature of the attack, proving that the resources had already been put in, even as the misleading story was being circulated.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
How long are you going to sit around and tolerate dishonesty and corruption with the lame excuse of past politicians have used them so we should expect it for all time? Even if it were true that every politician in the history of the country were all guilty, which it may or may not be, that itself is argument enough to punish such behavior as strongly as possible when it surfaces to ward off worse recidivism.
I applaud you gentlemen's ethics and idealism. And I agree that it would great if we held our politicians to the highest standards.
Lol, and by so saying your absolve yourself of any intent or obligation to do so.
quote:
But let's be practical. Do you really believe that this will be the new norm to what we hold our politicans to? Do you seriously believe that we are going to verify every utterance from our leaders in the future?
Don't we now? At least if they have a Republican after their name? Why has Ted Cruz, for example, been asked at least 100 times about his stance on gay marriage? Is it likely that he's undergoing an evolution, or is it just to get a sound bite?

Why is it that during every general election, the media trolls through local elections across the country to find the small fry politician that gave them a sound bite (often retracted) that they can use to tar and feather a whole side?

We're already in a world where virtually everything is recorded, and where you can say the correct thing 99 times out of 100 and the 1 still gets air time for years.

What basis are you proferring for how we should elect our leaders? Is it literally just party?
quote:
I brought up Iraq and the WMD because it is obvious that when Colin Powell uttered the immortal words, "We know they have them and we know where they are," that somebody was lying through his teeth, because we never found them and they almost certainly never had them.
Maybe, maybe not. Definitely evidence that someone was wrong (by intent, negligence or accident).

I tend to think Powell was put out there to make the strongest case possible. That he was probably briefed to believe things were rock solid. I've said before though that its very unlikely the admin didn't believe the case themselves. They wouldn't have cared about overstating what they could prove, because that's how intelligence ALWAYS works, because they thought they'd be able to prove it after the fact.

Again, starkly different from what this Administration did, where they thought it wouldn't be disprovable.
quote:
But how long did the hearings about the Bush Administration's lie that led us into a war go on?
The lie claim is false. Can you guys make a good faith argument or not?
quote:
You're right, Seriati, what it's all about is why they lied and how they are held accountable. But not the way you think.
I've cut a bunch of your claims. Frankly, I think its a waste of time to keep arguing against claims that have been the next thing to refuted.

It's become a tenant of faith on the left that Bush lied, no questioning it, no proving it needed.

And in cases like this pretending actually lies should be excused because of the "worse" lies in the past.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati, I'm fascinated by your stubborn refusal to acknowledge that the Bush Administration has openly lied, despite the fact that several administration officials have since admitted this was the case. Why are you so emotionally invested in that issue?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Show me the specific claims to which you are referring. I've yet to follow up on such a claim and find anything like what you are asserting.

For it to be a lie of Bush or his administration, they are the ones who have to know its a lie. After the fact flunky's selling books by claiming they never believed it are hardly persuasive (unless you already wanted to believe their self serving claims).

Be specific Tom. I'm tired of you're hand-waving at the concept of evidence for your claims.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
For it to be a lie of Bush or his administration, they are the ones who have to know its a lie.
That's a rather remarkable claim on its face, isn't it? Because if that's the standard, no one lied about Benghazi; one can simply assert that they were mistaken, or misinterpreted what they were told, etc. Are you really going to hold out for some kind of explicitly smoking gun -- like an email from Cheney to Bush saying something like, "Look, we're all lying about this, so just shut up and say what we tell you?" Or are you going to demand a different standard of proof for your team?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can I try one more time to ask a few questions that I am sincerely interested in?

(1) Can we define the moral code of behavior regarding truth-telling that we would find respectable?
(2) Is someone okay merely if they never speak words that are literally false?
(3) Is someone acting appropriately if they mislead through a statement that is literally true, but structured to convey a point that is false?
(4)Is someone obligated to make a correction if they learn something that they said turns out to be false?
(5) And does our answer change if we ourselves would also be judged against the same moral code that we use for political figures?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. No.
4. Yes.
5. No.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(1) is the hardest to answer because it depends entirely on what we see as the function and purpose of government. If we see it as entirely representing the people and serving the wishes of the populace then truth-telling is not enough. The government would have an obligation not only to tell the truth when it speaks but also to provide maximal transparency in what it chooses to disclose and to disclose a maximal amount of information to public scrutiny, in both cases only so long as it doesn't directly compromise national security. This latter clause is also hard to define, since a government of this sort would have to decline to include the political careers of its personnel in 'national security', i.e. protecting us from foreign nations would be a good reason to avoid disclosing information, while avoiding political scandals and serving needs of the two parties and of various bureaucrats would not be a good reason.

On the other hand, if someone views government as "the people we elect to be our parents and take care of us for four years" then there would be far less of reason to require transparency and disclosure. "We'll tell you only what you need to know" would be a probable policy of such a type of government with regards to the public.

Then, of course, there's what we have now, which is a bureaucracy that serves itself frequently at the expense of the nation, and so not only is disclosure declined for private reasons, but it is also to distance the populace from the process of governing. Instead of only telling the public what it needs to know, this type of establishment goes further and frequently does not tell the populace what it needs to know, and in addition often tells the populace what it doesn't need to know (or what is untrue) in order to further its objectives or divert focus.

So Greg, which of these scenarios should we be addressing with regards to your (1)? I think not everyone believes my first option is even desirable, and so this would greatly affect what they think the moral code of truth-telling (and disclosure) for the government should be. I don't think you'll find consensus on this point.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was first and foremost interested in the set of rules that we would hold ourselves to as we participate in Ornery. I really appreciate Seneca's five answers, and I agree with him on every one - that should be our moral ideal. I'd like to hear from anyone who disagrees with the answers that Seneca gave.

I believe that we should hold ourselves at least to the same standard that we wish to hold government officials to.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
I believe that we should hold ourselves at least to the same standard that we wish to hold government officials to.

I was preemptively addressing this point. What I was trying to say is that your standards for Ornery discussion are almost certainly higher than many people would suggest should be required for politicians. It depends on how they define what a politician's job is. I know your intent was the avoid a double standard whereby people micro-criticize elected officials but use all kinds of rhetorical devices here. Seneca's answers (which are in theory obvious even though in practice many people would have a hard time following them) actually way overshoot what we would ever expect from politicians, and in this sense I would say if we accept them for here then it isn't us adopting the same standard we would hold elected officials to; it would just be a new high standard that was as of yet not in place anywhere.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are many ways that public officials should not be held to those strict standards - not just national security, but any issue in which confidentiality is important (would you want the FBI or even the Social Security Administration to publish all of their information?)

In political speech, particularly if you track anyone who makes thousands of speeches, there are bound to be some mis-statements. There are also simplifications - as an audience for political speech, most people tend to prefer simple declarative statements over convoluted and nuanced discussion of detail even if that is considerably more accurate to the complex truth.

And then there is political gamesmanship where the opposition will take a phrase, in or out of context, and use it to send an adverse message about a candidate - protecting against this can lead to a certain defensive style of political speech.

I guess my preferred standard would be a little less about specific wording, and more about the major actions taken and whether they were consistent with the meaning and intent of their speech. All of which is subject to human interpretation, and ultimately our decisions on politicians are based on a vote that attempts to identify their merit in the aggregate (not just on the accuracy of their speech). But politicians have multiple influences on our lives - on a discussion forum such as Ornery the only influence we have on each other is through discussion, and that elevates the relative premium on accuracy in our writing.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
For it to be a lie of Bush or his administration, they are the ones who have to know its a lie.
That's a rather remarkable claim on its face, isn't it?
No, just the definition of what a lie is.
quote:
Because if that's the standard, no one lied about Benghazi; one can simply assert that they were mistaken, or misinterpreted what they were told, etc.
Lol. What evidence was there that the video caused the situation? They knew same day it wasn't the cause. There is no grounds for your false equivalence, when they went out and claimed a cause they knew was discredited.

That is not the case in the Bush situation, where even in the Chris Matthews "gotcha" the CIA guy clearly said they told the administration that Saddam had chemical weapons, possibly biological and was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program. Remarkably similar to what the administration actually repeated back to us.
quote:
Are you really going to hold out for some kind of explicitly smoking gun -- like an email from Cheney to Bush saying something like, "Look, we're all lying about this, so just shut up and say what we tell you?"
So again, are you saying that you can not in fact back up your claim (as per usual)?

If so retract your rather strong claim.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Can I try one more time to ask a few questions that I am sincerely interested in?

(1) Can we define the moral code of behavior regarding truth-telling that we would find respectable?

If people are being honest, then for the left its acceptable if its a Democrat and not if its a Republican.

For the Right its acceptable if it's for claimed national security, and not if it relates to any claimed moral impropriety. They are also heavily persuaded by political affiliation.
quote:
(2) Is someone okay merely if they never speak words that are literally false?
In what world do people trust the Aes Sedai?

Why would it be okay to deceive through application of literal truth? Third question repeats.
quote:
(4)Is someone obligated to make a correction if they learn something that they said turns out to be false?
Depends on context now doesn't it?
quote:
(5) And does our answer change if we ourselves would also be judged against the same moral code that we use for political figures?
I think you need to think through why you're asking the question.

In my view, this whole debate is about how in a representative government we can actually be certain that the representatives will represent us. If you accept lieing - in one's self interest - as legitimate there's no way for a representative government to actually function.

There certainly are arguments that might require a government official to lie in service of the people or the government, but even that is a trade off in principals that could go either way.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So again, are you saying that you can not in fact back up your claim (as per usual)?
That's sort of a stupid question, since it's a response to my question re: what sort of thing you'd consider proof. I think there's ample evidence out there. Obviously you don't. So obviously you're looking for some sort of criterion to be met that you don't believe has been met, and based on your statements seem to only be willing to accept either an outright admission of guilt from one of the chief architects of the administration or some publicly leaked memo -- other than the ones we already have -- to the same effect.

quote:
If people are being honest, then for the left its acceptable if its a Democrat and not if its a Republican.
Can I just say that I really sort of miss the old Seriati, the one that at least pretended to be a little intellectually honest? What happened to you, man?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No Tom, I'm just referring to your repeated claims that this has been proven as, 'admitted by several administration officials.' If you can prove this claim please do so, otherwise, I'm reaching the conclusion that you're using the tactic of pretending that something has been proven in hopes that it won't be challenged because ideologically a number of people want it to be true, believe it to be true and won't actually want to see evidence that it isn't.

I doubt that you could provide adequate proof on the point. I think the read is crystal clear that intelligence agencies and governments all over the world believed Iraq had weapons and was seeking more. Like I said, I think the claim to the contrary is the next thing to refuted at this point.

On my intellectual honesty. I admit I get frustrated on this site. I'm tired of people making assertions on this site without proof. Heck, we have a whole thread now to "pretend" a war crime occurred and explain what we'd do about it. My current level of snarkiness will go away if we can revert to good faith discussions of facts.

On this, there is tons of reasonable grounds to disagree with 20/20 hindsight about whether the administration should have believed the Iraqi intel, or missed signs it was overstated, it's false history though to claim they intentionally lied. Same on Benghazi there was no reasonable basis for their claim about the video, and it has been shown that the claim was discredited internally on the same day. You're free to make a claim about why it was okay to lie about it, but you keep declining to do so.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Didn't take hindsight to disagree with what the Bush administration was claiming was intel.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati, if your real beef with my thread was the phrase "war crime" then you might have suggested that it might be some other kind of crime (you even invoked the word "treason" as a possible alternative, albeit in passing). But instead it sounded like you were waving away the entire idea that we have evidence the Bush admin lied. I myself didn't even believe in that 'evidence' until semi-recently, by the way. At the time of Iraq 2.0 I was in favor of it to a fair extent, assuming the truth was being told. I have recently come to conclude I don't think that's the case, but I don't think it's productive for you to write off anyone with a beef against one party as being partisan for the other party or lacking intellectual honesty. I am no fan of the Democratic Party, just so you know.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Didn't take hindsight to disagree with what the Bush administration was claiming was intel.

There are people who disagreed real time. I tend to think they objected to war out of principal, though, and I doubt they would have deemed any evidence satisfactory.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Seriati, if your real beef with my thread...

Apologies Fenring, that was overly snarky of me. I'll take it back to your thread, rather than continue passive aggressively.
quote:
...was the phrase "war crime" then you might have suggested that it might be some other kind of crime (you even invoked the word "treason" as a possible alternative, albeit in passing).
Because, I'm struggling to construct an argument for you. You can't argue in the language of law (ie war crimes) and then demand we ignore the law and the facts. If you want to make a purely moral judgement then keep the language moral, right and wrong.
quote:
But instead it sounded like you were waving away the entire idea that we have evidence the Bush admin lied.
Present some evidence.
quote:
...but I don't think it's productive for you to write off anyone with a beef against one party as being partisan for the other party or lacking intellectual honesty.
And I don't. There are partisans, I'm one, and then there are PARTISANS, of which we have a couple. As long as you keep your logic sound I've got no beef. Generally I think you do, on this topic you seem to be surprisingly prone to sentimentalism.
quote:
I am no fan of the Democratic Party, just so you know.
I can read.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In my view, this whole debate is about how in a representative government we can actually be certain that the representatives will represent us. If you accept lieing - in one's self interest - as legitimate there's no way for a representative government to actually function.
I don't think that you can be "certain" that your representatives truly represent you - our system is set up so that every 2, 4, or 6 years the voters would get to make a decision about their representatives, and which of several choices that they preferred going forward.

The political process is a market process of a sort, where politicians gain the maximum number of votes if they can craft a message that appeals to the widest number of people. The majority of voters a candidate needs may have substantial difference of opinions, and yet the Darwinian process of of elections will favor those who can pull in as large (and thus diverse) coalition as possible.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that it is far better for politicians to speak the truth than to lie. And there are differentials in the nature and extent of the lies that they will tell. On one end of the scale, they might say how Iowa or New Hampshire are their favorite states, or how they just love the peach cobbler at a State Fair even if they don't actually love it. At a middle level are lies like those of Bill Clinton with respect to having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky - clearly political, clearly self-serving, and harming another person (and yet at the same time in the context of a political game of political lies, hypocrisy and false other accusations that the Clintons faced, I certainly understand why they were evasive for so long on so many topics, particularly those regarding their personal lives). The most morally significant lies for a politician are those that relate to policies that affect many people, and that's what matters the most to those of us who do not know the politicians personally.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are also lies intended for a foreign audience. Usually, governments not in the habit of lying to their electorate try not to make public statements about things they don't want foreign powers to know, but it's not always possible.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And just for the record: U.S. Select Committee on Intelligence reports from June 5, 2008.

quote:
The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

> Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

> Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

> Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

> Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

> The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

> The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.


Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Didn't take hindsight to disagree with what the Bush administration was claiming was intel.

There are people who disagreed real time. I tend to think they objected to war out of principal, though, and I doubt they would have deemed any evidence satisfactory.
That would be an incorrect generalization about lots of people against the war. If one wasn't just listening to the biased US news - or even just listened to NPR, there was plenty of information out there at the time that both indicated that Iraq wasn't a threat and that predicted the fallout. Heck, even a decent grasp of history would have been enough for the latter.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I tried to read through much of the thread before asking, but has anyone is this thread or another brought up this point about Hillary?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shirin-sadeghi/hillary-clinton-wants-gad_b_1020705.html

In short, Hillary actively called for the death of Gaddafi, which was on the books as being illegal under U.S. law against assassination.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wishing for someone's death ("We hope he can be captured or killed soon") is not the same as putting in place a policy or plan to kill someone ("No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.") It also isn't actually the much weaker, and not even illegal, 'calling for someone's death'.

What was the context of Clinton's remark?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Didn't take hindsight to disagree with what the Bush administration was claiming was intel.

There are people who disagreed real time. I tend to think they objected to war out of principal, though, and I doubt they would have deemed any evidence satisfactory.
That would be an incorrect generalization about lots of people against the war. If one wasn't just listening to the biased US news - or even just listened to NPR, there was plenty of information out there at the time that both indicated that Iraq wasn't a threat and that predicted the fallout. Heck, even a decent grasp of history would have been enough for the latter.
But that's selection bias you're engaging in there. There is far more information presented by those that were opposed to the war (which by the "lots of people" is a stretch given the overwhelming support at the time), that did not correctly predict the fall out. It's trivially easy to go back and see claims that if we acted it would spark a regional uprising and consolidation of the entire middle east (which to use your own standards about history was never going to happen). I think Michael Moore even made a movie about it.

The fact is, the positions you are putting forward were not widely agreed, even among those opposed to the war initially. And nothing you said, is convincing to me that those opposed to the war at the outset would have changed their position and been pro-war if only there was a little more clarity.

And to be even more out there on my part, I don't agree that the fall out in Iraq was particularly bad. In any conflict there will be negative consequences, but at least until President Obama cleared the way for ISIS to move in unopposed, Iraq was going about as well as you could imagine a conquered Islamic based country will absolutely no history of democracy or even fair government to be going. I mean sure, if you held utopian aspirations (or even standard "American" attitudes that people should thank you and be fully participating western democracies no more than a year after you bomb and conquer them) you'd be disappointed, but if you're pragmatic and realistic the position of Iraq at Bush's exit had to be within the range of good results.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Wishing for someone's death ("We hope he can be captured or killed soon") is not the same as putting in place a policy or plan to kill someone ("No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.") It also isn't actually the much weaker, and not even illegal, 'calling for someone's death'.

What was the context of Clinton's remark?

The beginning of this video seems to have an answer to that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbtWhXeiK6Q

And I think you're being a bit loose with the English meaning of "calling for someone's death." If a guy in a wheelchair is mad at me and calls for my death I'll assume he's issuing an epithet or cursing me or something. If a gun standing in front of me with a gun pointed at my head calls for my death I'm going to interpret that as he means to kill me. 'Calls for' just means desires, and is incomplete without also inspecting what action or position to speaker is in at the time. Since the U.S. was in Libya at the time Hillary spoke and trying to capture or kill Gaddafi, her statement cannot be interpreted in any other way than "we intend to capture or kill Gaddafi". She wasn't just chiming in with some vague hope that 'someone' would achieve that end; her own administration was seeing to it. That's a direct threat, and therefore constitutes conspiracy to assassinate. Not that the U.S. hasn't done this many times before, but I was just asking whether this topic had been brought up here before about Hillary, since she's running. The video I just linked points out that the Obama administration might be thinking that Gaddafi is an ex-leader and is therefore in-bounds for killing, but then again the law against assassination isn't restricted to only the single highest-ranking person in a country.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have to give some props to Carter for pushing for a law that turned out to be so inconveniently good-hearted that every president since has completely ignored it.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  23  24  25   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1