The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: OrneryMod on December 12, 2015, 12:17:15 AM

Title: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: OrneryMod on December 12, 2015, 12:17:15 AM
Link to the topic on the old forums (http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/16847.html).
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 19, 2016, 01:28:16 PM
Did Hillary Clinton really say this?

Quote
“The fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Hey, maybe they were just out for a pleasure cruise at night through eel infested waters.

If anyone wants to dissuade me from Sanders, show me where he plays Americans for Fools like that.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Wayward Son on February 19, 2016, 05:34:40 PM
Context, Pete, context.

Hillary was chiding Senator Johnson for harping on her for not quizzing the survivors immediately after the attack to ascertain that the attack wasn't the result of a protest.  She wasn't trying to play Americans for fools.  She was trying to get Johnson back to reality, that "once we got our people rescued and out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries."  Finding out what caused the attack wasn't her first priority, and, if you think about it, wasn't her job at the time.  That's what the FBI and other security agencies are for.

Read the exchange here. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/may/08/context-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/)
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: scifibum on February 19, 2016, 05:48:10 PM
Even her very next sentence casts the remark in a much different light:

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 19, 2016, 08:28:13 PM
Thanks for the context.  Seems to me that part of making sure it never happens again, kind of requires us to put people in charge that understand and care why it happened in the first place.  Don't really see the context as redemptive.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: scifibum on February 19, 2016, 10:13:13 PM
It was a remark made in exasperation, and so the wording should be taken with a large grain of salt.  The point she was trying to make seems to be that obsession with who knew what at a given moment in time isn't productive.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 19, 2016, 11:35:19 PM
OK. So somewhere there's a link of her actually saying something informative and intelligent about Benghazi, right?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: yossarian22c on February 20, 2016, 12:15:12 AM
To my knowledge it doesn't exist.  Other than her indignant tone while answering the questions and the inane obviously political nature of the investigation I'm not sure how that answer wasn't lambasted for the political junk it was. 

The republicans are obviously trying to make a scandal out of Benghazi.  The details of security at any particular base should not be designed by the SoS.  If Clinton was actually making the day to day decisions about the security details at each embassy and outpost throughout the world that would be a scandal because she has no business doing anything other than choosing qualified experts to make those decisions.  Now if the person in charge of Embassy/Consulate security most relevant experience was judging horse shows* then would be something to go after her about.

*pointless Bush dig but I just felt like it anyway
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 20, 2016, 09:27:55 AM
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the Secretary to provide a cogent lucid analysis of what went down in Benghazi.  And hail interrogation of an executive officer after such a farce is politics as the Constitution intended it to operate.  Congressional hearings are politics-driven and replete with hot air and exaggerated fury, but they are supposed to bring info to light, and/or identify stonewallers within the government. 
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 20, 2016, 10:42:17 AM
Did you listen to, watch or read the transcript of her appearance?  Seems like your only takeaway is this one snippet of exasperation taken out of context.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 20, 2016, 12:08:27 PM
Am looking, but if you are aware of any Clintonic statements on the matter that inform rather than stonewalling, that would help.  Same as I'd hope you'd ask me to fill you in if you wanted to know something about an area where I was better informed.

I'be read some of the transcript.  Are you saying you read it and there is something there or are you doing the thing useless people do when they want to feel useful, " well, where did you last see your keys?"

Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: scifibum on February 21, 2016, 12:20:58 AM
I don't know how she can be helpful when the whole investigation is a political smear effort.  The Republicans don't investigate in order to improve embassy security or even to hold someone accountable for mishandling the Benghazi attack, they just investigate in order to try to embarrass their political opponents.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 21, 2016, 08:10:56 AM
I watched about 3 hours of the all-day hearing. She was respectful and direct in her answers to all legitimate questions. She even answered nearly all of the obviously baiting and politically accusatory questions straightforwardly. Since you clearly took that 5 second seemingly objectionable clip out of a whole day's worth of answers and even mangled the context to make the claim that it was a synecdoche proving she stonewalled the whole day, why don't you atone by reading the rest of the transcript and report back to us whether or not that's all she really did.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 21, 2016, 11:27:00 AM
Quote
Since you clearly took that 5 second seemingly objectionable clip out of a whole day's worth of answers [goes on to make angry and defensive motive inferences]

No.  As I have already explained twice, I have not followed the debates and just saw that quote online. Rather than spending three hours listening to her, I thought Ornery might have someone who likes Hillary who could provide a counterexample, i.e. an example of her speaking about Benghazi in a way that doesn't sound like BS or a stonewall.

I wouldn't take polite absence of volunteered quotes as proof that she's never said anything truthful and intelligent on the matter.

Quote
to make the claim that it was a synecdoche proving she stonewalled the whole day,

Please quote where I "claim"ed that "she stonewalle the whole day."  I asked if she'd ever provided a lucid useful description of what happened at Benghazi, and I didn't limit the scope to any particular day.

Just because you never pose honest (i.e. non-rhetorical) questions, doesn't mean you should assume that others share that defect.  Some of us come here to become better informed, and to get information from folks with other info sources, specialties, and political points of view.


Quote from: Wessex King of Obfuscation
why don't you atone by reading the rest of the transcript

Wow.

I ask if anyone knows of a better more positively representative quote from Clinton on Benghazi.

Wessex brags that he watched three hours of the Benghazi Clinton debrief.

I ask if, in those three hours, he saw anything to indicate that Clinton was willing to share ANYTHING remotely honest and intelligent on Benghazi, in other words, is it worth reading the transcript.

Al declines to answer the question directly, but indicates that I should read the whole transcript to punish myself for asking impertinent questions.

I can only infer that Al doesn't believe the transcript will be informative.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 21, 2016, 11:28:42 AM
I don't know how she can be helpful when the whole investigation is a political smear effort.  The Republicans don't investigate in order to improve embassy security or even to hold someone accountable for mishandling the Benghazi attack, they just investigate in order to try to embarrass their political opponents.

Is there any reason that she's bound to not talk to the American people about that incident, outside the scope of the investigation?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 21, 2016, 11:35:52 AM
Why should she?   It's old news and there's nothing new to say about it.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 21, 2016, 11:40:53 AM
Obviously I was asking if she had done so when it wasn't "old news." duh.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 21, 2016, 12:16:44 PM
Pete, as ever there's much to find wanting in your understanding about this issue.  I don't take you seriously about it because the pejorative clip you cited came from an obviously right wing source, meaning you repeated it here breathlessly without even taking the time to find out more about the context.  Now you bite back at me for saying I am better informed than you as bragging. 
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 21, 2016, 12:43:59 PM
Pete, as ever there's much to find wanting in your understanding about this issue.

I established that three times already. That's why I asked the question.
Quote
I don't take you seriously about it because the pejorative clip you cited came from an obviously right wing source
My source was facebook.  The quote caught my attention, so I came here to see if any pro-hillary folks could show that she did better than this at any time.

You're the one that reads right wing sources.  I very rarely go that way, and when I do, it's because I can't find hits for a word pattern on any other source.  I quote Fox about as often as I quote the world socialist dot org website.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 21, 2016, 12:47:20 PM
.  Now you bite back at me for saying I am better informed than you as bragging.

No.  I bite back for your bragging about your extensive knowledge but refusing to actually share anything.  Well sorry I decline to give you the verbal beating that you so obviously are having withdrawals for.  Other than giggling at your concession that reading Hillary Clinton should be construed more of an atonement and punishment than an actual source of information.  'nuff said.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 22, 2016, 12:17:38 AM
You don't understand.   You make unsupported statements that you want others to rebut or refute. If Facebook is your source for that remark taken out of context, perhaps you should look to Facebook for someone to point that out to you if you don't like hearing it from me. There is overwhelming evidence out there showing her speaking informatively and honestly about the events in Benghazi!  If all you choose listen to is that snippet and can't find anything,  then I don't think I can help you. Why do always come itching for a fight?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 22, 2016, 02:25:50 AM
Al find someone else to fight with.  What I asked for was a quote.  Failing that, I simply asked you if there was ANYTHING in the three hours you saw worth reading.  You declined to reply.  So I'm done with you.  I have no use for your motive reading, and no patience left for useless people.  If you have nothing to say, stop talking.

Quote
You make unsupported statements that you want others to rebut or refute.

Please don't be a jackass.  I provided a quote that I'd seen on facebook (which you call a far right source ::)) and asked if anyone had a quote where Clinton said something more lucid.  That's not an "unsupported statement."  And I'm not asking for a refutation or rebuttal.  In fact, if you have nothing to say, just rebutt out.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 22, 2016, 10:03:12 AM
Pete,  try this.   It wasn't very hard to find, and there are many other articles with similar content, just not perhaps where you chose to look and then stopped.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/30/is-hillary-clinton-a-liar-on-benghazi/

I object to your initial laziness and that you pretend to want to have an open and honest exchange when I think you're really just amusing yourself by trying to bait others here into an argument.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 22, 2016, 10:19:56 AM
Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately, you can't just google for "something halfway intelligent that Hillary said about Benghazi."

Your article does provide a glimpse of her behaving reasonably under difficult and confusing circumstances.

Note that unlike Rubio, I never accused her of lying about Benghazi.  I remember very well who in the US government focused on the video, and it wasn't clinton.

Please pretend I returned your gratuitous insults.  I'm just not in the mood.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 23, 2016, 10:20:11 PM
You need only google "clinton benghazi comments" to see a rich assortments of opinions and factual recountings of events from various points of view.  Here's another one (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/may/08/context-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/) that tries to put things in perspective.  What's clear is that the minimal quote on almost any issue of importance taken without the necessary context is likely nothing more than partisan hype meant to catch you leaning and help you lean further.  Whatever you might say about her, Clinton was not a robot, not a purely partisan actor, not uncaring or unwilling to reflect on her failings or those of the Department she headed.  What she also was was not perfect.  People who look for defects to exclude candidates, especially those with a long enough history, will be more than gratified and less than satisfied.  IMO, she's the best of an imperfect lot on either side of the aisle, not deserving of the honor to be President but willing and capable, which is about all you can ask.  Someone (Twain?, Lardner?) said that anyone who wants the office should be disqualified, but that would eliminate virtually anyone who vies for the position.  We have no tradition of unwilling Presidents, sometimes reluctant or unexpecting, but they wouldn't be in the vicinity if it wasn't in their sights.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 23, 2016, 11:43:39 PM
What I'm looking for isn't weakness.   Just some evidence to home that she sometimes uses some of that incredible wealth and experience to use on America's behalf, rather than on behalf of herself, her husband, or her party.  Maybe "strong enough to beat the Republicans" is enough creds for you.  But after she's brought Madaleine "Let's start a war just because we need something to do with this army" Albright on her team, I need more than that.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 24, 2016, 08:47:00 AM
If her lifetime of advocacy for women's rights and assistance, her strong interest in health care access to people who lack it, her serving as Senator and then Secretary of State don't even suggest the possibility of her desire for public service, nothing I say will motivate you to look at her more generously than you do now.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 24, 2016, 11:53:51 AM
I think we've already established that nothing YOU say will convince anyone of anything, at least while you're in defeatist gimp mode.  Search Al cross referenced with the phrase "nothing I say."   Sounds like one of those phrases one picks up from mommy and daddy and haunts all one's interactions.

What I'm looking is for things that Hillary Clinton has said, that make her sound presidential.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 24, 2016, 01:52:41 PM
Like I said nothing I say can convince you :).  That's partly because I say things you apparently don't want to hear.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Wayward Son on February 24, 2016, 06:25:02 PM
If you want to hear Hillary sound presidential, have you tried one of the Democratic debates? (Not that I have... :) )
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 24, 2016, 10:34:06 PM
If you want to hear Hillary sound presidential, have you tried one of the Democratic debates? (Not that I have... :) )

Yes. Watched the debate with her, Bernie, and some other guy that didn't get much time, but sounded good during the few moments he got to speak.  Hillary sounded like she'd been coached a lot to sound like her husband, and I felt quite irritated with her when she went after Bernie for failing to properly grovel to Obama.  I started a thread on that.

Note that Al has pulled this "nothing I can say can convince you" crap before, e.g. with the Missouri protests, and lo and behold, someone else actually came forward and made an argument that wasn't an insult to my intelligence or a demand that I grovel to authority, and I actually WAS persuaded.  It pissed Al and Pyr off that I'd been persuaded, and they griped to no end that I was a bad guy for not being previously persuaded prior to actual facts being made available.

I grant that Hillary sounds like past presidents have sounded (i.e. Reagan, Clinton and Bush) but to me that's not necessarily a good thing.  Reagan ran on a platform dedicated to balancing the budget, and then dropped taxes on the rich while escalating an arms race.  Bush I started an unnecessary war to make the world safe for folks that prostelytize militant islamist Wahabbism, sparking war and genocide from England to America to the Phillipines.  Clinton dropped cluster bombs on Serbian kids and bombed the Chinese Embassy to give Kosovo over to the KLA, a terrorist organization involved in human trafficking.  Bush II's the most honest of the bunch, since he actually ran on a platform that precisely outlined the stupidity that he was going to commit while in office, most notably to take us back into Iraq, take out Hussein, and try to create a "free Iraq" (a contradiction in terms since Iraq is a colonialist construct, a collection of groups that hate each other, could only be united by violence, and if free, would be free of each other.)  In short, Bush Jr was the most dangerous thing of all, an honest president who actually believed all the ridiculous lies that the previous three presidents had told to bamboozle the American public.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pyrtolin on February 24, 2016, 10:44:18 PM
Quote
It pissed Al and Pyr off that I'd been persuaded, and they griped to no end that I was a bad guy for not being previously persuaded prior to actual facts being made available.
Please refrain from making stuff up about me.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 24, 2016, 11:06:35 PM
Quote
It pissed Al and Pyr off that I'd been persuaded, and they griped to no end that I was a bad guy for not being previously persuaded prior to actual facts being made available.
Please refrain from making stuff up about me.

Here's the thread I was referencing.  I didn't make up anything.  It's possible that I misunderstood you.  A lot of people do, and I'm not altogether persuaded that you always understand yourself, since what you say what you meant, several pages downward, tends to look rather gaslit.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 25, 2016, 09:04:12 AM
So, I am so disgusted with your attitude that I'm going to waste 15 minutes of time I could be out shoveling snow to remind you just how dishonest you have been on this thread.

You can't go down gracefully without trying to pull down others who rightfully challenged you, can you?  Let's take a walk down memory lane in this thread.  First you basically retweeted an incomplete snippet from a 9-hour hearing where she was repeatedly attacked by Congressmen who had only partisan interests to diminish her standing in the eyes of the public.  You commented on that and said:

Quote
Hey, maybe they were just out for a pleasure cruise at night through eel infested waters.

If anyone wants to dissuade me from Sanders, show me where he plays Americans for Fools like that.

That shows that you completely bought into the selective quote and misrepresentation of her actual remarks without doing any minimal research of your own to find out what really happened. I have to assume you didn't want to do that, only to provoke people here into defending her so you could then move on to your next pointless attack and "wonder" if she ever said anything "informative and intelligent" about what happened at Benghazi:

Quote
OK. So somewhere there's a link of her actually saying something informative and intelligent about Benghazi, right?

In three years she never said anything substantive?  Never?  How much research did you do to come to that brilliantly skeptical view?  Frankly, you know she did but since you're only reviving this thread to provoke an argument where you can piss on anyone who challenges you, you leave that out of your remarks.  Do you argue cases in court this way?  Do you wear bright plaid suits and an oversized bow tie?

When you get a little pushback, you double down with snarky innocence:

Quote
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the Secretary to provide a cogent lucid analysis of what went down in Benghazi.

Which anyone with any hope or pretense of being objective would know she did often when she spoke on this issue.  No reasonable person would expect her to let her hair down and chat just between us girls about it, because after all, she was the Secretary of State.  That's also not to say that she copped to every far-fetched conspiracy theory regularly thrown in her face.  It really pisses them off that she doesn't cave like the wannabe man they think she really is.  Heh, she can't keep her man and she can't compete in a man's world, either.  If they attack her hard enough and long enough, with your help here, they can prove that she's just a fish with a bicycle.

OK, what's next?  Right, she's stonewalling and you can't find anything on the internet that would inform you otherwise:

Quote
Am looking, but if you are aware of any Clintonic statements on the matter that inform rather than stonewalling, that would help.  Same as I'd hope you'd ask me to fill you in if you wanted to know something about an area where I was better informed.

Oh, you babe in the woods who don't no how to push them buttons for yourself.  Am I just being a bitch for not helping you out?

Quote
Please quote where I "claim"ed that "she stonewalle the whole day."  I asked if she'd ever provided a lucid useful description of what happened at Benghazi, and I didn't limit the scope to any particular day.

Just because you never pose honest (i.e. non-rhetorical) questions, doesn't mean you should assume that others share that defect.  Some of us come here to become better informed, and to get information from folks with other info sources, specialties, and political points of view.

Yes, I guess I am.  You came to us for information that you have to avert your eyes not to see for yourself.  How nice.

Then, when I remind you that we're just playing whack-a-mole, you flip from talking about the hearing held 5 months ago and need something more fresh:

Quote
Obviously I was asking if she had done so when it wasn't "old news." duh.

Duh, indeed.  The only reason for her to talk about it is because Republicans smear her every time the word Benghazi! is mentioned.  BTW, have you noticed that none of the GOP candidates have been talking about Benghazi! in the debates or on the campaign trail?  Haven't heard from Bone Crusher Trey Gowdy lately, either.  What's up with that?  Maybe you're the last person left who's still looking for her to offer something fresh about it.

Finally, after I have repeatedly pointed you in the right direction and even offered a sop by giving you an article that reviews many, many cogent things she said and the timeline of the events themselves, you ungraciously offer that I'm the one who has been bragging by pointing out that I watched part of the hearing in question, stonewalling by not coughing up bite-sized pre-chewed quotes for you, and therefore have nothing useful to say:

Quote
Al find someone else to fight with.  What I asked for was a quote.  Failing that, I simply asked you if there was ANYTHING in the three hours you saw worth reading.  You declined to reply.  So I'm done with you.  I have no use for your motive reading, and no patience left for useless people.  If you have nothing to say, stop talking.

Then, apparently still unsatisfied you morph the conversation into an attack on her personal integrity out of the blue:

Quote
What I'm looking for isn't weakness.   Just some evidence to home that she sometimes uses some of that incredible wealth and experience to use on America's behalf, rather than on behalf of herself, her husband, or her party.  Maybe "strong enough to beat the Republicans" is enough creds for you.  But after she's brought Madaleine "Let's start a war just because we need something to do with this army" Albright on her team, I need more than that.

When I point out that her history contains lots of material to suggest you're wrong, you manfully try one more time to deflect by disparaging me yet again:

Quote
I think we've already established that nothing YOU say will convince anyone of anything, at least while you're in defeatist gimp mode.  Search Al cross referenced with the phrase "nothing I say."   Sounds like one of those phrases one picks up from mommy and daddy and haunts all one's interactions.

Weak, very, very weak.

But then you switched gears one more time and dragged Pyrtolin into your diss-fest. Having been rebuffed by him, you try to dig your way out of the mile deep hole you've dug yourself with a spoon with the most pathetic apology I've ever seen here on Ornery:

Quote
I didn't make up anything.  It's possible that I misunderstood you.  A lot of people do, and I'm not altogether persuaded that you always understand yourself, since what you say what you meant, several pages downward, tends to look rather gaslit.

Right, you misunderstood Pyrtolin.  EVERYBODY misunderstands Pyrtolin.  PYRTOLIN even doesn't understand what Pyrtolin says. 

Having pointed out your repeated failed attempts to manipulate this discussion (ignoring at least one other thread nearby where you are doing the same thing), I will breathlessly await your next attack on MY openness and honesty.

Ai: Please see your email. -OrneryMod
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 09:28:24 AM
Quote
[setting aside Al's disgraceful personal attacks which make up most of his posts to me as usual)
Duh, indeed.  The only reason for her to talk about it is because Republicans smear her every time the word Benghazi! is mentioned.

See, I can't make stuff like that up.  Al just said that the ONLY reason Clinton should ever talked about Benghazi is because of Republican smears.

I disagree.  I think Clinton, as secretary of state, owed the American people an honest accounting of what happened there.  I asked if anyone could link me to somewhere she spoke about it lucidly, honestly, or intelligently.  In response, Al's made a fury of personal attacks on me.

Quote
    Am looking, but if you are aware of any Clintonic statements on the matter that inform rather than stonewalling, that would help.  Same as I'd hope you'd ask me to fill you in if you wanted to know something about an area where I was better informed.


Oh, you babe in the woods who don't no how to push them buttons for yourself.  Am I just being a bitch for not helping you out?

Quote

No, Al.  Since you ask, that is definitely not what makes you a bitch.  That would be leaping to bitchy conclusions like this:

Quote
    OK. So somewhere there's a link of her actually saying something informative and intelligent about Benghazi, right?


In three years she never said anything substantive?  Never?

I have not read everything she's said in the last three years, Al.  I doubt that you have either.  There aren't any quick buttons that I know of that sum up everything she's said on the subject. 

This just goes to show that folks that spend all their time making rhetorical questions, end up forgetting that anyone could ever ask an honest question.  It's like when your mom said that if you keep making that face (http://images.amcnetworks.com/blogs.amctv.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/tio-560.jpg) it will stick that way.  Al, your brain is stuck on this dishonest inquiry mode.  If you cannot consider the possibility that I'm interested in hearing positive sides of Hilary in action, then for hell's sake just shut up and let me ask others the question.

It's a freebie, guys.  Does ANYONE here like Hillary and think she's acquitted herself on Benghazi with her own words?  Some of you have accounts and options that I don't have.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on February 25, 2016, 09:50:34 AM
Quote
It's a freebie, guys.  Does ANYONE here like Hillary and think she's acquitted herself on Benghazi with her own words?  Some of you have accounts and options that I don't have.
That pre-supposes she needs to acquit herself. This isn't the email thing where she's demonstrably done something questionable.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 09:58:21 AM
Quote
It's a freebie, guys.  Does ANYONE here like Hillary and think she's acquitted herself on Benghazi with her own words?  Some of you have accounts and options that I don't have.
That pre-supposes she needs to acquit herself. This isn't the email thing where she's demonstrably done something questionable.

While you are AFAIK right on the facts, I think you are mistaken with regard to the usage of the phrase "acquitted herself."

Quote
ac·quit  (ə-kwĭt′)
tr.v. ac·quit·ted, ac·quit·ting, ac·quits
1. Law To find not guilty of a criminal offense.
2. To conduct (oneself) in a specified manner: acquitted herself well during the interview.
3. Archaic To release or discharge from an obligation, such as a debt.
4. Obsolete To repay.

I meant definition #2.  #3 would also apply.

As far as I know, in the Modern English usage, when the verb to acquit is used directly (the jury acquit him) it refers to definition #1.  When the verb is used reflexively (acquitted herself) it refers to #2.

I could have said, "Does anyone here think she's risen to the challenge and properly spoke and acted as a leader with regard to Benghazi?"  But "acquitted herself" was shorter, and I thought it was clear.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 25, 2016, 10:53:22 AM
I do, taking into account that it was a chaotic mess at first and a lot of disentangling took place before the causes and course of events were sorted out, not to mention the hyper-partisan and relentless attacks against her and Obama by Republicans in Congress, FOX and almost every conservative talking head.  Plus as the Secretary of State she quite willingly agreed to implement all of the findings of the Benghazi Accountability Review Board (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/01/219760.htm):
Quote
Following the September 11, 2012 attack on U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, the independent Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB) on December 19, 2012, issued 29 recommendations (24 of which were unclassified) to the Department of State. The Department accepted each of the ARB’s recommendations and is committed to implementing them. This will require fundamentally reforming the organization in critical ways – work which is already well underway. While risk can never be completely eliminated from our diplomatic and development duties, we must always work to minimize it.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on February 25, 2016, 10:54:19 AM
I hate English. Stupid bloody pseudo-language thing.

Reports are that she made a good show of it at her hearing. T'other problem is that the GOP obsession with Benghazi is not a challenge that lends itself well to demonstrating leadership qualities. It's similar to the birther nonsense in that way.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on February 25, 2016, 11:05:45 AM
AI, while Pete may find your responses here distasteful because of the complete avoidance of providing him with a direct answer, I find them distasteful because of your blind partisan insistence on recharacterizing your favorite side's failures as partisan attacks from the other side.

I mean honestly, at this point, we know for a fact from Hillary's own words, that the administration was lying about the video sparking a spontaneous protest rationale (and its been completely ignored and forgotten that they went so far as to arrest the person who made the video, notwithstanding the first amendment), it's become clear that we could have sent help in a meaningful time frame - but that the order was never given, and it's also pretty convincing that the administration, your hero included, have deliberately mislead and obfuscated the facts for their own benefit.  It doesn't make a difference if they are doing that because they think the Republicans are out to get them (which is part paranoia and part reality) or simply to cover up their own misdeeds, because it's completely in their control to have been up front, honest and  clear about it from the start and they have chosen at every step not to be.

And you're correct it hasn't been coming up in the Republican debates, but there's no real reason it should be.  Let's wait till the actual debates, assuming Hillary is the candidate and hasn't been indicted, and see if it comes up there at all.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 11:14:16 AM
I hate English. Stupid bloody pseudo-language thing.

Reports are that she made a good show of it at her hearing. T'other problem is that the GOP obsession with Benghazi is not a challenge that lends itself well to demonstrating leadership qualities. It's similar to the birther nonsense in that way.

Agreed that they are similar in *that* way. Where they are dissimilar, is that the birther stuff doesn't touch on any part of Obama's job as president wherein he is accountable to the people.

I'd be happy with an indirect adress, e.g. Clinton saying, let's do this and that militarily because we learned x y and z in Benghazi.

Also, if anyone knows a way I could google for that without having to wade through a lot of invidious right wing trash, I would be even more grateful for improving my net searching skills.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 11:26:07 AM
I do, taking into account that it was a chaotic mess at first and a lot of disentangling took place before the causes and course of events were sorted out, not to mention the hyper-partisan and relentless attacks against her and Obama by Republicans in Congress, FOX and almost every conservative talking head.  Plus as the Secretary of State she quite willingly agreed to implement all of the findings of the Benghazi Accountability Review Board (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/01/219760.htm):
Quote
Following the September 11, 2012 attack on U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, the independent Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB) on December 19, 2012, issued 29 recommendations (24 of which were unclassified) to the Department of State. The Department accepted each of the ARB’s recommendations and is committed to implementing them. This will require fundamentally reforming the organization in critical ways – work which is already well underway. While risk can never be completely eliminated from our diplomatic and development duties, we must always work to minimize it.

Thank you!

That actually helps.  I'll read up on those recommendations, and search to see if Hillary had any responses to any of them.

Fox News is what was on TV in most of the bars I frequented 2010-2012, and so watching any news program or reading Fox-like attacks on Obama and Hillary make me feel like I'm on a bender.  So while Benghazi has fascinated, I've been literally unable to stomach reading any of the search results that come up on Benghazi.  I tried reading the left wing stuff, but that's nothing but predigested responses to the right wing stuff, and I'm back on a bender.  So that's what I mean by I'd like to hear what Hillary said about it, without wading through all the right wing stuff.  The recommendations so far seem good reading and easy on the stomach.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 25, 2016, 11:36:49 AM
Quote
I mean honestly
You say that as if it what follows goes without question.  True that the Administration mischaracterized events based on assumptions and incomplete information.  They should have held off despite the demands for instant analysis.  Here's one that may tell where your sense of honesty ends and partisanship might begin.  Is an "act of terror" different than an act labeled as "terrorism"?  As NobleHunter offers, one can sympathize with the statement "I hate English. Stupid bloody pseudo-language thing."  Songs about war or tragedy often carry a lot more weight than explanations.

Quote
So while Benghazi has fascinated, I've been literally unable to stomach reading any of the search results that come up on Benghazi.
As are we all, but there are some reasonable sites that have summarized, analyzed and opined that are stamped in the partisan mind as either left-wing or right-wing.  They work best when they don't quote each other and focus just on actual information.  That doesn't always work, either, as some who wear ties and jackets to work every day rather than ratty jeans have far more of an axe to grind.  I gravitate to sites that I think know *censored* more than just say *censored*.  Or ones that censor me for saying what I think.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 11:59:52 AM
Quote
As are we all, but there are some reasonable sites that have summarized, analyzed and opined that are stamped in the partisan mind as either left-wing or right-wing.

That's what i assumed when i started asking here for links.  It's thesort of thing we used to share qaround here before LR, Redskull and Funean left.  I still try to share good, accessible. Sources when i find them.

I concede that asking is 10% laziness but it's 90% trigger avoidance.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Wayward Son on February 25, 2016, 12:37:23 PM
Quote
...it's become clear that we could have sent help in a meaningful time frame - but that the order was never given...

Whoa!  Really?  Seriati, you've got to fill me in with the details.  This is the first I've ever heard of this.

Every other time someone's said it, it has turned out to be a bold-faced lie, usually told by some partisan hack in the media to fool the hicks.  But I must have missed one.

So please let me know who the help was, where they were stationed, and how long it would have taken them to get there.  It's absolutely amazing this was kept quiet for so long.  Does the Benghazi committee know about this?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on February 25, 2016, 12:40:02 PM
Quote
Does the Benghazi committee know about this?
Which one?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: scifibum on February 25, 2016, 12:45:12 PM
That was more or less my reaction, WS, but I was too lazy to ask.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 12:52:47 PM
ok, dicing with my sobriety in absence of links,, i google order given benghazi.

dodging obvious right wing sources, i find this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/former-cia-chief-in-benghazi-challenges-film-version-of-2012-attack/2016/01/15/9cf2defc-baf7-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html

Quote
,
It is the most fateful moment in a movie that purports to present a searingly accurate account of the 2012 attacks that left four Americans dead in Benghazi, Libya: a scene in which the highest-ranking CIA operative at a secret agency compound orders his security team to “stand down” rather than rush off to rescue U.S. diplomats under siege less than a mile away.

According to the officer in charge of the CIA’s Benghazi base that night, the scene in the movie is entirely untrue.

“There never was a stand-down order,” said the base chief known as Bob, speaking publicly for the first time. “At no time did I ever second-guess that the team would depart.”

[Fact-checking the Benghazi attacks]

Nor, he said, did he say anything that could be “interpreted as equivalent” to an order to stand down.

In a lengthy interview with reporters from The Washington Post, Bob provided new details about the attacks and his interactions with J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya who perished in them.

The account from the CIA base chief adds a critical and previously missing voice to the public record on Benghazi, an attack that even three years later remains so politically charged that Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), a Republican presidential candidate, made it the center of his closing remarks during this week’s GOP debate.

The question of whether someone issued a “stand down” has loomed over Benghazi since the immediate aftermath of the attacks. The initial speculation centered mainly on whether an official in Washington, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had impeded rescue attempts — an allegation rejected by a series of congressional inquiries. A 2014 House Intelligence Committee report found “no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on February 25, 2016, 12:55:08 PM
Quote
...it's become clear that we could have sent help in a meaningful time frame - but that the order was never given...

Whoa!  Really?  Seriati, you've got to fill me in with the details.  This is the first I've ever heard of this.

Every other time someone's said it, it has turned out to be a bold-faced lie, usually told by some partisan hack in the media to fool the hicks.  But I must have missed one.
Well there is the redacted email released that shows the Pentagon offering unspecified forces - did I miss where this turned out to be a bold-faced lie by a partisan hack?

There's several different statements of various insiders relating to forces in the region that were action ready and could have been sent to arrive with various arrival times.  Not sure how any of that would be a bold-faced lie, unless your asserting there are no American forces (including air power) anywhere in Europe, the Mediterrean, the Middle East or Northern Africa that would be kept ready to react on a short time line?

There's absolutely no way to have known real time that any force mobilization would not have arrived in time to make some sort of difference, which means lack of beginning to mobilize forces that would take even several days to arrive is not justifiable. 
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 25, 2016, 01:09:24 PM
Any chance you're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight after the dust has cleared and copious amounts of confidence that this one redacted email with an "offering [of] unspecified forces" trumps all other information to the contrary?  What would you have done if you were the SoS getting myriad conflicting reports from the CIA, FBI, other intelligence agencies, the Pentagon and purported witnesses?  Be specific and be exact so we can measure if what you say carries the authority of a clear and all-knowing intellect.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 01:24:59 PM
Any chance you're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight after the dust has cleared and copious amounts of confidence that this one redacted email with an "offering [of] unspecified forces" trumps all other information to the contrary?  What would you have done if you were the SoS getting myriad conflicting reports from the CIA, FBI, other intelligence agencies, the Pentagon and purported witnesses?  Be specific and be exact so we can measure if what you say carries the authority of a clear and all-knowing intellect.

"Reasonable with hindsight" is a better fit for the limited facts I've seen than Wayward's argument, i.e. "a bold-faced lie."
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 25, 2016, 01:46:34 PM
I was being a bit coy.  Everybody can find reasons to complain that people they don't like missed the critical piece of information that would have flipped everything around and have it come out just as they suspected all along.  How many pieces of email *didn't* make similar offers?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on February 25, 2016, 01:50:32 PM
Any chance you're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight...
Well you could go back to the old thread, "Benghazi - Just the Facts, Ma'am" thread where I raised most of the same issues real time.  You remember, the thread where members of this forum kept defending the administration's deceptions, even after they were discredited. 
Quote
...after the dust has cleared and copious amounts of confidence that this one redacted email with an "offering [of] unspecified forces" trumps all other information to the contrary?
There's nothing else to the contrary, let alone things that justify a claim such as you're making.  There's really no evidence that we did not have forces there, and there's plenty - admittedly often not direct given troop locations and readiness has not been disclosed - that we did.  It's logically implausible that we had no air based resources that could have gotten there in time to at least dissuade a continuation of the mortar attacks.
Quote
What would you have done if you were the SoS getting myriad conflicting reports from the CIA, FBI, other intelligence agencies, the Pentagon and purported witnesses?  Be specific and be exact so we can measure if what you say carries the authority of a clear and all-knowing intellect.
And you might also recall how often I've specifically said I don't fault the administration for its real time decisions.  That doesn't change the facts on the ground.  They chose not to mobilize forces they could have mobilized at a time when they could not have known the forces would not arrive in time (and from some accounts they would have been wrong if they had made that assessment). 

All they had to do, on this point, to quite me, would have been to state their reasons for deciding not to do so.  Claiming there were no forces is a form of moral scape-goating where they write off their responsibility for having been in the driver's seat by effectively claiming it was out of their hands, which is simply a lie.  And they bank on those who will willingly deceive themselves to make it stick.

As a simple matter, if the problem was the lack of forces, show the communications establishing your efforts to track down those forces.  When the whole disclosed record consists of offers to help without a response it just makes the  claims they are making so unbelievable it takes a partisan to be convinced otherwise.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: scifibum on February 25, 2016, 01:54:10 PM
I'm really not sure "failed to take an action that wouldn't have helped, and hasn't been able to prove that they had sufficient certainty that it wouldn't have helped, where sufficient means even your political enemies can't construe a criticism" is quite the bombshell you seem to think it is.


What we really have is: it looks like the administration might have favored interpretations of available information that might have been politically beneficial for a while.  "Four Dead Americans" is not the proper rallying cry to get people mad about that, because it has nothing to do with how many people died.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 25, 2016, 01:58:11 PM
People are digging up bombs like that under streets in London and Berlin 70 years after the war ended, and when they check them out they're still duds.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 02:05:36 PM
Quote
What would you have done if you were the SoS getting myriad conflicting reports from the CIA, FBI, other intelligence agencies, the Pentagon and purported witnesses?

Since you ask, I would have made sure a rescue plan was operable in case it was needed.  But then, I remember watching the last president I ever trusted turn grey over 100 days as hostages languished in Iran.  These aren't just four people.  These are the four people that represent the American people in that region.

But I'm sure there's more to the story I don't know.  That's why I ask.

I respect Jimmy Carter for trying to send a helicopter to rescue our people, even though unforeseeable calamities soured that operation.  Now THAT was a scenario where the Republicans behaved like total *censored*.

Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on February 25, 2016, 02:09:56 PM
Not sure why you think I was trying to drop a bombshell.  Just reacting to AI's vicious underselling of the issues when they don't favor his team.  I've never deviated from a position that the Administration's decisions real time could be construed as reasonable, what's unreasonable is their cover-up, lieing and obfuscation.  And Hillary Clinton is a big part of that idea.  What happened to the left's insistence that we hold government accountable, that transparency and openness are virtues and that the media should be overzealous in exposing government lies and corruption?  Hillary's practically the poster child for everything the left of 20 years ago claimed was wrong with government, and she's the front runner for their Presidential nominee.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: scifibum on February 25, 2016, 02:11:47 PM
The GOP has relentlessly hammered on Benghazi using slogans about finding the truth about dead Americans. 

But the only truths they have uncovered aren't about mistakes that led to those dead Americans, they are about politicians being political.  Which is exactly the same thing they are doing with the Benghazi investigations.  They want the righteous justification of vital matters of security to cover their relentless abuse of office for political gain, because justifying what they are doing with their actual motivations would be too nakedly hypocritical.

The Benghazi investigations have done nothing to benefit the security of embassies.  They benefit only politicians.

It's not that I don't care about whether politicians are being honest with the public.  It's disgusting to lie to the public for political purposes.  But not as disgusting as lying to the public for political purposes while wasting millions of tax dollars searching for truths you don't expect to find, and that's the Benghazi investigations in a nutshell.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 02:18:50 PM
For me, the quote from Hillary I cited on page 1, plus Obama's BS about the video's role, all plays into the general sense that the administration is obfuscating over Islamist terrorism.  E.g. denying victim benefits to the folks at Fort Hood and at the military recruiters because it's just a "workplace incident."  Not to mention keeping military personnel in the US disarmed, plucked and convenient targets.  It's all very nice to play music to keep people calm on the Titanic as it goes down, but when you extend that to actual deception, keeping the cattle serene, well I don't think that's the sort of leader we want right now. 

Quote
It's disgusting to lie to the public for political purposes.

It's less disgusting, but still alarming and off-putting, when they lie to us "for our own good."  And that's how I read Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama.  Also Clinton, Reagan, and Bush Sr.  Bush Jr. actually drank the kool-aid, I fear.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on February 25, 2016, 02:36:20 PM
It's worth noting that not letting military personnel go about armed on base is an old policy. One I suspect is rooted more in inventory control than safety or security.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 25, 2016, 02:37:40 PM
What Scifibum said goes without saying, but since he said it, I'll say more

Quote
And Hillary Clinton is a big part of that idea.  What happened to the left's insistence that we hold government accountable, that transparency and openness are virtues and that the media should be overzealous in exposing government lies and corruption?  Hillary's practically the poster child for everything the left of 20 years ago claimed was wrong with government, and she's the front runner for their Presidential nominee.
The left's "insistence that we hold government accountable" is still there, but it's drowning beneath a wave of bilge like the comment I highlighted.  Name one charge Democrats have made in the last 8 years about Republican over-politicization of Congress that you don't find lacking.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Wayward Son on February 25, 2016, 04:07:49 PM

Well there is the redacted email released that shows the Pentagon offering unspecified forces - did I miss where this turned out to be a bold-faced lie by a partisan hack?

Actually, yes, you missed it.  The Democrats released the unredacted e-mail (http://www.salon.com/2015/12/10/they_have_no_shame_its_confirmed_fox_news_lied_egregiously_again_in_its_latest_benghazi_bombshell/), and it turns out that military forces referenced were  the ones that were actually sent to the Libyan compound to rescue the survivors. (http://www.salon.com/2015/12/10/they_have_no_shame_its_confirmed_fox_news_lied_egregiously_again_in_its_latest_benghazi_bombshell/)  I told about this on the last post of this thread on the old forum.

So, yeah, it pretty well was a bold-faced lie by a partisan hack. :)

Quote
There's several different statements of various insiders relating to forces in the region that were action ready and could have been sent to arrive with various arrival times.  Not sure how any of that would be a bold-faced lie, unless your asserting there are no American forces (including air power) anywhere in Europe, the Mediterrean, the Middle East or Northern Africa that would be kept ready to react on a short time line?

Yes, and all of them (that I heard of) would have arrived long after the action was done, and long after the servicemen that were sent had already evacuated the survivors--thus negating any "meaningful time frame."

However, if you know of a specific one that would have arrived sooner, I would love to hear about it.

Quote
There's absolutely no way to have known real time that any force mobilization would not have arrived in time to make some sort of difference, which means lack of beginning to mobilize forces that would take even several days to arrive is not justifiable.

Unless, of course, that those in charge in the area realized that this attack would be over well before other help could arrive.  Sure, it was a guess--but it turned out to be the right guess.  Perhaps those local decision makers were better informed, more experienced, or made better judgments than partisan politicians in Washington. ;)
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 04:39:36 PM
It's worth noting that not letting military personnel go about armed on base is an old policy. One I suspect is rooted more in inventory control than safety or security.

a policy that should have been changed after the fort Hood incident, and probably will be when a Republican takes office.  the moment Islamists shot up a domestic base the policy became dated.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on February 25, 2016, 04:45:07 PM

Well there is the redacted email released that shows the Pentagon offering unspecified forces - did I miss where this turned out to be a bold-faced lie by a partisan hack?
Actually, yes, you missed it.  The Democrats released the unredacted e-mail (http://www.salon.com/2015/12/10/they_have_no_shame_its_confirmed_fox_news_lied_egregiously_again_in_its_latest_benghazi_bombshell/), and it turns out that military forces referenced were  the ones that were actually sent to the Libyan compound to rescue the survivors. (http://www.salon.com/2015/12/10/they_have_no_shame_its_confirmed_fox_news_lied_egregiously_again_in_its_latest_benghazi_bombshell/)  I told about this on the last post of this thread on the old forum.
The Salon "article" is pretty partisan.  Other sources out there seem to indicate that the soldiers in question (and referenced in the email) could have departed directly to the site and gotten there much quicker than they did.  It seems like Panetta ordered them to arrive at a  staging area for the next day.  How does ordering a force that potentially could arrive in a timely manner on an indirect route that kept them out of the area represent proof that they couldn't have gotten there?  So again, what exactly am I missing here?

When did they get ordered to the compound in the timeline (in your view)?
Quote
So, yeah, it pretty well was a bold-faced lie by a partisan hack. :)
It looks like your source asserted that it was, it doesn't look like they actually showed anything of the sort.
Quote
Yes, and all of them (that I heard of) would have arrived long after the action was done, and long after the servicemen that were sent had already evacuated the survivors--thus negating any "meaningful time frame."
Your analysis can only be conducted after the fact.  There's no way to know at the time of attack if it all be over in 2 hours or 2 days, which means you're deciding - real time - on a meaningful time frame that definitely stretches out beyond the time it would have taken some of those forces to arrive.  It's entirely possible that even with immediate action they'd be too late, and its possible that even with dilly dallying they'd arrive in time.

Nothing you cited shows any action taken by the administration to get forces on site for anything other than after the fact recovery and clean up.
Quote
However, if you know of a specific one that would have arrived sooner, I would love to hear about it.
Other estimates indicate that the forces in the Salon article could have arrived in 3 hours, which I seriously doubt, but when do you think they arrived?  You really think they got there as quickly as possible?
Quote
Unless, of course, that those in charge in the area realized that this attack would be over well before other help could arrive.
Them let them state that.  I've got no problems with an Executive saying that they chose not to deploy a force they thought would be inadequate to the task even though it could have gotten there in a timely manner.  Why tell lies and cover it up, when you can just explain the proper exercise of your executive decision making?
Quote
Sure, it was a guess--but it turned out to be the right guess.
Only if you accept that extremely partisan article would that be true, like I said other estimates put them in place within 3 hours and with time enough to potentially save 2 of the lives lost.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pyrtolin on February 25, 2016, 06:01:15 PM
Quote
There's several different statements of various insiders relating to forces in the region that were action ready and could have been sent to arrive with various arrival times.
And those most able to respond were mobilized, in proportion to the understanding of the overall threat, and they arrived relatively quickly, with negotiation of transit permissions being the largest factor in slowing down the time it took them to get out the door. (Something that would have taken even more time for any group that had to travel longer distances through territory that we similarly would have needed to secure permission to move through.)

Heck, two of the four casualties were from security forces specifically dispatched to help with the situation.

Suggesting that, essentially, the entire US military presence should jump at every shadow and commit itself to moving toward every incident as it comes up is a bit insane and a complete logistical nightmare.

The contractile forces whose job it was to respond responded and did so in reasonable time and got the situation under control.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 06:20:33 PM
Quote from: Pyr
The contractile forces whose job it was to respond responded and did so in reasonable time and got the situation under control.
Quote
con·trac·tile
kənˈtraktəl,-ˌtīl/
adjectiveBiologyPhysiology
adjective: contractile

    capable of or producing contraction.
    "the contractile activity of the human colon"

No wonder Pyr's last sentence caused my bowels to convulse.

What did you actually mean to say by Contractile forces?  I've learned to not speculate as to what you meant by what you say.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 25, 2016, 09:48:49 PM
I share Pyrtolin's view.  They did what they thought made sense at the time given the circumstances.  I don't understand why people are still trying to parse their actions as if they might have seen it better than those involved did.  Every Congressional attempt to undermine Obama's or Clinton's handling of the situation have utterly failed, which should encourage everyone else to let it go.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 25, 2016, 10:49:46 PM
I share Pyrtolin's view.  They did what they thought made sense at the time given the circumstances.  I don't understand why people are still trying to parse their actions as if they might have seen it better than those involved did.  Every Congressional attempt to undermine Obama's or Clinton's handling of the situation have utterly failed, which should encourage everyone else to let it go.

Would you let it go?  How much of "Bush lied and people died" stuff on Saddam's chemical weapons being depleted is based on information that wasn't knowable?  (And are we confident that the chems Assad just used on Syria last year weren't originally Saddam's?)

Don't get me wrong -- going back into Iraq, and going into it in the first place, was an appalling mistake that has done more damage and will do more again than say, all the evil of Pol Pot.  But that's not something we can blame on Bush's lies, but rather on his straightforward keeping of a campaign promise.

Also, do you know what Pyr meant by a "contractile force"?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 26, 2016, 06:44:16 AM
Contractile ~ trained, assigned, available

Why do you go the FOX meme route if you then reject it?  One reason people can't find enough dirt to satisfy their hunger about Benghazi! is because it was a remote diplomatic mission 400 miles away from Tripoli by air, 600 by not very good land routes and not much closer to anything else, not heavily involved in any DoS activities, not a hotbed of anything but sand.  Those who have done serious investigation haven't found much because there isn't much to find**. Serious *censored* happened that night.  In what possible way can it be compared to the years long preparation costing $$B and operations costing 1000's of lives and ~2T$$ that the Bush Administration spent to invade, conquer and destroy an entire country? 

The only reason to keep asking is the fading hope of smearing Obama, Clinton by association**.  Some stellar thinkers in the GOP have even called the Benghazi! attack worse than 9/11, including Dick Cheney of all people.  Please don't make those "guilt by association" comparisons, it demeans the entire discussion.

** Let's see, the 8 Congressional committee investigations is more than were held for the 1998 Embassy (embassy, not mission) bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing (home-grown terrorist killed 168), the Boston Marathon bombing (Al Qaeda inspired attack), 9/11 (yes, THAT 9/11), and the USS Cole attack (terrorist attack against a US military ship) COMBINED.  And exactly ONE hearing on lead up to and operations of the entire process of the Iraq War II.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on February 26, 2016, 09:32:51 AM
I share Pyrtolin's view.  They did what they thought made sense at the time given the circumstances.  I don't understand why people are still trying to parse their actions as if they might have seen it better than those involved did.
Which is the difference between a substantive critique - which I have never made - and a critique of their cover up after the fact, which I did do, still do and you hand waive away solely because they are on your team.
Quote
Every Congressional attempt to undermine Obama's or Clinton's handling of the situation have utterly failed, which should encourage everyone else to let it go.
I think they've revealed very clearly that the administration lied, and that every reason for the lies other than their own self interest has completely fallen apart.  Did they fail to get to the truth?  Of course, in the same way you have a difficult time prosecuting the mafia if everyone keeps their silence, the Administration has done a good job of not talking about and protecting themselves.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 26, 2016, 11:13:45 AM
Quote
I think they've revealed very clearly that the administration lied, and that every reason for the lies other than their own self interest has completely fallen apart.  Did they fail to get to the truth?  Of course, in the same way you have a difficult time prosecuting the mafia if everyone keeps their silence, the Administration has done a good job of not talking about and protecting themselves.

Even that highlighted snip above betrays your conviction based on faith rather than a conclusion based on evidence.  "They" have not revealed any such thing.  You don't seem aware of the irony in your position that believing that there's more there there than there really is is even more proof that the more there really is there.  In simpler grammar, the lack of any proof after 3 years and 8 investigations is the proof you were looking for.  Guilty, I say, Guilty!  The lack of evidence proves it, your Honor!
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on February 26, 2016, 11:20:47 AM
There's no lack of proof.  Show me what evidence you've found for a spontaneous attack that came as a result of a video?  They lied, you don't like it, show me the evidence that this occurred.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on February 26, 2016, 11:48:14 AM
I don't really see why taking a week or two (or weekend or whatever the timeframe was) to be specific about a spontaneous versus inculcated riot is worth the level of outrage.

I just don't see the percentage in expecting politicians to flagellate themselves for the unintended consequences of low-interest policy decisions or for not trying to grab a plausible excuse in the middle of an election. I don't recall them pushing this narrative for very long, once the sequence of events became clear.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pyrtolin on February 26, 2016, 12:07:20 PM

What did you actually mean to say by Contractile forces?  I've learned to not speculate as to what you meant by what you say.
Contractor, contracted.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pyrtolin on February 26, 2016, 12:25:48 PM
Which is the difference between a substantive critique - which I have never made - and a critique of their cover up after the fact, which I did do, still do and you hand waive away solely because they are on your team.
No, it's waved away because there was no coverup. The motivation for the attack has nothing to do with the reaction to it. The reaction would have been the same regardless of the cause, and there was never any attempt made to obfuscate the measures used to reaction. The accusations of a cover up still makes no sense other than as a purely political invention to have something to accuse them of because there was absolutely nothing to cover up.

There was an alternate narrative offered, originating from the CIA that there was a relationship to other protests over the video that were occurring at the same time, which may have been put forward to protect some degree of intelligence actions that were going on in relationship to the incident, but it's not really relevant, because the reason for the attack only really matters to the CIA and the military in terms of planing going forward. They made no material difference to the general public, and any confusion motivations didn't actually cover or obscure anything that the administration had done.

It also creates a false distinction between two motivations that could have easily both been at play. The attack could have been pre planned and in their playbook waiting to be executed, while the outrage over the video could have been either what motivated them to choose that time to make the play or at least been something they were discussing when they chose to put it into action, since the explanation for presenting the video as a motivator supposedly came from intercepted messages between people involved with the attack.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 26, 2016, 12:28:08 PM
There's no lack of proof.  Show me what evidence you've found for a spontaneous attack that came as a result of a video?  They lied, you don't like it, show me the evidence that this occurred.
Does backing away from an early incomplete or ultimately false explanation mean anything to you?  What if they believed it was the video and then realized that wasn't a complete or reliable explanation?  Sticks like glue, right?  No take-backs?  24/7 news cycle, can't wait for the truth to catch up?  What about the fact that there were demonstrations against the video at the same time in different places in the region?  What if, just a what if, they're not omniscient and spoke before all the facts had been ascertained and should have waited instead?  Have they ever said they wished the information had been more clear at first and that they should have double and triple and quadruple checked all of their facts before exposing themselves to people like you who would heap scorn on them for the slightest misstatement of facts?

Just like your wishful appeal that maybe some troops that may have been stationed somewhere nearby maybe could have arrived on the scene in enough time to maybe save the lives that were lost, maybe they got it wrong.

Maybe?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on February 26, 2016, 12:41:52 PM
Yes, I get your responses, all versions of rationalizations.  There is no evidence that the attack was a result of a spontaneous protest based on a video, there never was.  Waiting to come up with an explanation would have been totally reasonable, that, however, is exactly what the administration DID NOT DO.  They jumped head first into an immediate lie.  So like I said, show me the evidence proving that what they said is true.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on February 26, 2016, 12:52:20 PM
Because waiting to respond is a well-rewarded activity in the middle of an election campaign.

Not to mention there was a riot and the video was used to inflame it. It just wasn't spontaneous.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 26, 2016, 02:34:14 PM
Yes, I get your responses, all versions of rationalizations.  There is no evidence that the attack was a result of a spontaneous protest based on a video, there never was.  Waiting to come up with an explanation would have been totally reasonable, that, however, is exactly what the administration DID NOT DO.  They jumped head first into an immediate lie.  So like I said, show me the evidence proving that what they said is true.
If your facts were actually facts, maybe you'd have a point, but they aren't facts, just hopeful interpretations that cast the Administration in the worst possible light.  I should say "heat" instead of light, because what you say brings no light.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 26, 2016, 03:35:02 PM
Quote
oes backing away from an early incomplete or ultimately false explanation mean anything to you?  What if they believed it was the video and then realized that wasn't a complete or reliable explanation?  Sticks like glue, right?  No take-backs?


Cite for take backs?  Where they said, hey, our bad on the.stupid video, it was just a pretext?

Take backs are great.  Failure to take them, not so great.

No rush to answer.  The fact that i havent seen it doesnt mean it's not true.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 26, 2016, 04:39:01 PM
Pete, I'm tired of being your reader.  It's out there, but let me know if you can't figure out how to get it.  For that I might have sympathy.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 26, 2016, 08:05:24 PM
Don't ask questions if you don't want the answer, Bubba.

My reply is yes, takebacks are allowed, and the burden's on the person taking the statement back to get it out there.

You haven't provided more information in response to my questions than I have in response to your claims; you've only spent more time moaning about it.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 27, 2016, 08:31:56 AM
Those were rhetorical questions directed at Seriati, since I'm sure he won't go looking for information that would perturb his settled opinions about this faux scandal.  But, if you or anyone else who still is unclear what to think about what did or didn't happen and want to take them as direct questions, there is plenty of material out there to help.  That's not to say that anyone who thinks of themselves as a fair witness will come to the same conclusions that I have.  FWIW, I believe there is no smoking gun that proves they lied and no way to "prove the negative" that they didn't.  IMO, the preponderance of "evidence" strongly suggests the significance of misstatements and misclarifications has been overblown.  But I'm willing to listen to consider what you say about it after you've done some digging of your own.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 27, 2016, 09:56:15 AM
Those were rhetorical questions directed at Seriati, since I'm sure he won't go looking for information that would perturb his settled opinions about this faux scandal.

Is that something you do, periodically?  Actively go looking for information that would perturb your settled opinions?


 
But, if you or anyone else who still is unclear what to think about what did or didn't happen and want to take them as direct questions, there is plenty of material out there to help.  That's not to say that anyone who thinks of themselves as a fair witness will come to the same conclusions that I have.  FWIW, I believe there is no smoking gun that proves they lied and no way to "prove the negative" that they didn't.  IMO, the preponderance of "evidence" strongly suggests the significance of misstatements and misclarifications has been overblown.  But I'm willing to listen to consider what you say about it after you've done some digging of your own.

I wasn't saying anything about it.  Was not demanding that you prove anything.  But you implied a fact, so I asked you if such a thing had in fact occurred, or if you were simply engaged in wishful thinking.  I do periodically go searching for facts that disturb my settled opinions, but even when I just ask for them, here, that's a few steps more open minded than asking rhetorical questions.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 27, 2016, 11:26:24 AM
Quote
Is that something you do, periodically?  Actively go looking for information that would perturb your settled opinions?
Yes, I read a lot of different things.  That doesn't mean that the truth therefore lies halfway between all of the disparate viewpoints and assessments.  For example, I read "The Federalist" and Powerline much more frequently than I read DailyKos.  The rightward skew on Federalist is absurdly high, but he speaks for a population I would otherwise never get to hear.  Powerline sometimes has good articles that I think about that appeal to a middle-minded conservative, and the NRO gives good weight to the upper economic reaches of the conservative caste; they're hopelessly biased, but I read them to be reminded of how elites tend to view the priorities and needs of the unwashed masses below. 

I'll be candid about my personal view and say that it's clear to me that liberal sites tend to be far more tied to fact-based reality, even when they lard up their reporting with a political message. 

For instance, Rachel Maddow can be credited with breaking the story about the Flint water crisis to the general media.  Can you even imagine FOX possibly considering telling that story if they had all the same resources and gathered the same information that she had?  She blamed the Republican Governor and overwhelmingly Republican legislature in Michigan for letting it happen and then doing nothing about it, but that doesn't make her wrong or unreliable in any way about what she said.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 27, 2016, 06:50:18 PM
It does make her assignment of blame questionable.  Can I assume that the leadership of Flint itself is more Democratic-leaning?  Isn't that kind of like blaming the Katrina mess on Bush? 
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 27, 2016, 07:49:50 PM
Flint has a predominantly poor and black population, and is a decaying relic of the car industry, an erstwhile prosperous union town.  The city was in bad financial shape due to the long term decline of local car operations, so the Governor (Snyder) appointed an "Emergency Manager" who essentially disenfranchised all elected officials in the city.  Under his aegis cost cutting measures were made without oversight, review or recourse by the population or any of the elected officials. It was he who switched the water supply to the Flint River to save money and refused to take steps to ensure that the water was safe and potable.  I've seen bottles of tap water that are brown.  This went on for about a year and a half with no positive steps taken.  GM has facilities in Flint and they stopped using city water and trucked in bottle water to their workers.  The state officials in the city did the same thing.  All that was done without ever notifying the residents that the water was unsafe to drink, despite repeated complaints about it and tests the proved that was the case.

Republicans are responsible for every bad thing that happened, though the EPA is somewhat culpable for not acting on information that it had also collected.  It all started on the current state Administration's watch and they dismissed and ignored concerns because nobody in the city had standing to challenge them.  The assignment of blame is beyond question.

If you won't believe Maddow for saying it (I can't understand why you find anything in what I said "questionable"), consider that Snyder's hopes for a future government career on the national stage has just ended.  He moved from my neighborhood to a condo in downtown Ann Arbor recently and he can't show his face without being yelled at.  From being re-elected in a landslide a little over a year ago, he's now a pariah even among his previous followers.  He's a "nice guy", but he's the head of a massively partisan state government that routinely abases cities in the state with large poor populations and denies even basic services to them.  The Detroit schools are in such bad condition that the teachers have staged numerous mass sick-outs to get his and the legislature's attention, to no avail.  There are lots of other examples, but once again, you should do some research of your own if you want to have a more informed opinion that you do at this point.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 27, 2016, 08:04:33 PM
Absolutely agreed with your last sentence.  Being honest about my prejudices isn't the same thing as believing that I know everything about the story.  In any event, Maddow probably did good bringing the story to light, based on what you said. 

Quote
She blamed the Republican Governor and overwhelmingly Republican legislature in Michigan for letting it happen and then doing nothing about it, but that doesn't make her wrong or unreliable in any way about what she said.

I responded

Quote
It does make her assignment of blame questionable.  Can I assume that the leadership of Flint itself is more Democratic-leaning?  Isn't that kind of like blaming the Katrina mess on Bush? 

My comparison meant, in terms of her prejudice.  However, as you first said correctly, her prejudice doesn't mean that she's not dead right on the facts. 

Your last response was great and informative.  You weren't obliged to tell me that, but I'm grateful you did.

When I first saw Maddow, I was very impressed with her show, and IIRC I even wrote some glowing review here.  I later became disillusioned with a few very misleading statements she made.  But I guess that's why it's useful to have journalists from a number of different political persuasions around.  Agreed that the truth isn't "in the middle" and you can't just compromise between the reports to get at what really happened.

Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 28, 2016, 09:26:44 AM
Nobody's perfect, but she's often very good and sometimes excellent.  She and John Oliver are the two best serious minded investigators in the political and social arena.  One's a comedian with no professed political leanings and the other an arch-liberal.  There are none of their caliber on the conservative side.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 28, 2016, 01:57:16 PM
Oh, she's very talented and smart, but not particularly honest when the facts lean against her employer's politics.   
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 28, 2016, 02:41:02 PM
Oh, she's very talented and smart, but not particularly honest when the facts lean against her employer's politics.
Cite?  If it's a matter of interpretation or a weenie half-truth, expect the expected reaction.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 28, 2016, 03:08:15 PM
I haven't watched her since I became disillusioned, circa 2012.  Romney was the topic, IIRC. 

Are you saying I should give her another chance, that she doesn't go beyond half-truthes that you find acceptable?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 28, 2016, 03:19:08 PM
I haven't watched her since I became disillusioned, circa 2012.  Romney was the topic, IIRC. 

Are you saying I should give her another chance, that she doesn't go beyond half-truthes that you find acceptable?
I'm saying any opinion should have a factual basis. If you only have an impression that is 3-4 years old, you shouldn't offer it without some reservation.  And if you have reservations, you should check back in to see if you should reconsider.  Is this not obvious?  You said flat out that she's "not particularly honest".  That's a smear unless you can bring something tangible to the table.  This is exactly why I tell you to do your own research instead of throwing a comment out as if it's a simple declarative statement of truth or asking pejorative questions that are actually provocative statements surrounding a sliver of a larger statement with no surrounding context.  You can understand why that's frustrating to me and others, can't you?  You did that work on the "holocaust" threadlet, which engaged my interest enough that I went and did some reading on my own.  That's the kind of discussion I wish we could have more of instead of the drive-by buzzspeak that can always be traced back to partisan hackery in whatever source you found it.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 28, 2016, 03:25:11 PM
Well, I gave Maddow my first shot since 2012, and saw this clip: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/nevada-mormons-set-to-vote-romney-stays-mum-628771907825

Nothing dishonest; here she really doesn't seem to get Mormons.  If she'd looked at the caucus numbers for Democrats in Nevada, she'd have seen that we were overrepresented there as well.  I'd say at least 10% of the people in the downtown vegas democratic caucus in 2008 and 2012 were actually LDS from my congregation specifically.  Wouldn't recognize LDS from other congregations.  Mormons just like caucuses.  It fits into the whole social responsibility thing.  But Romney's not going to just jump and deliver the mormon vote in a high mormon area through an endorsement.  That would be frowned on.  You don't use the church for political reasons unless some issue is at stake that's very close to the church's heart, like the same sex marriage issue was.  Such issues only crop up once in a generation at most.

Quote
I'm saying any opinion should have a factual basis.

Sure, but I'm sure some of your opinions are based on things that you can't cite off hand.  Every *argument* should be supported by evidence, but I don't demand evidence for things you cite as your mere opinion, only for those that you assert as fact.  When I watched Maddow in 2012, I was initially elated and later became angry with some dishonest factual maneuvers regarding the Romney race.  I can't recall more specs than that.

"If you only have an impression that is 3-4 years old, you shouldn't offer it without some reservation. "

I offer it with reservation, and with willingness to give her another chance, if you so recommend.  Do you recommend?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 28, 2016, 08:01:33 PM
Quote
Sure, but I'm sure some of your opinions are based on things that you can't cite off hand.
Don't we all, but you have a strong penchant for putting out opinions with a certain conviction for which no evidence exists at all.  The claim that she's "not particularly honest" needs corroboration, and not just of the kind where you think she doesn't have all the facts you think you have.  You have to prove that she engages in a willingness to deceive rather than inform with a point of view.  There are all kinds of shades of gray between outright dishonesty and pious truth, and you pegged her at one end.

Quote
I offer it with reservation, and with willingness to give her another chance, if you so recommend.  Do you recommend?
Yes, when I think she's exploring an issue rather than making a case for her viewpoint.  The Flint reporting is one example, but she's done well with many others.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 28, 2016, 08:19:11 PM
Quote
Sure, but I'm sure some of your opinions are based on things that you can't cite off hand.
[snip offensive characterization where you commit exactly the same error that you've caught me in, by speaking of your unsupported impressions as my "history."]The claim that she's "not particularly honest" needs corroboration, and not just of the kind where you think she doesn't have all the facts you think you have.

On reflection, I didn't make that particular statement as I should have, and did read as a positive assertion about Rachel Maddow, rather than a summation of my recollections from 2012.

I recognize and wish you would recognize that this is the sort of error that's easier to point out in other people than to catch in oneself.

I will give Maddow another shot, even though I generally abhor consuming my news through video.  I feel that video delivery is generally more controlling and manipulative, and bypasses logical centers.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 29, 2016, 07:59:40 AM
Even news and topical media can't help but be manipulative.  At it's best it tries to draw you into its stories and let them transform you a little.  Maddow is clearly a liberal apolitical (these days "progressive") advocate who uses her show to expose corruption, incompetence and politicization at all levels of government wherever she finds it. 

She presented her show in a town hall setting in Flint on Jan 27 and used the interactive format to bring her TV audience to Flint with her.  That introduced everyone watching to its water problems in a way that studio programming simply can't do.  Overall she has succeeded in her mission to show how this local problem is a clear example of denial of representation leading to institutionalized neglect and human suffering on a massive scale.  Today Flint is a toxic prison where people can't get clean water even though they are paying water bills that are actually higher than they were before the city switched to the current water supply source and can't afford to move away.

The state handling of this problem didn't begin when the water supply was switched, but decades earlier when Flint started to become a nuisance to the state GOP-dominated legislature.  The city's decline and the state's neglect trace its path from a prosperous union town to one that is mostly black and poor today.  The imbalance of the underutilized infrastructure with high overhead and declining tax revenues finally led to the state imposing an Emergency Manager to undemocratically take over the city's administration.

Maddow has a history with the state and the Emergency Manager law.  She took on Michigan back in 2012 when she investigated how the law (http://www.eclectablog.com/2013/03/rachel-maddow-shows-how-emergency-managers-in-michigan-dont-exactly-have-the-best-track-record.html) had been applied and warned about its real and potential consequences.  She worked these two stories four years apart, warning that the law gives EM's too much unrestricted power that can bring about worse problems than it is intended to solve. The Flint crisis is a direct result of the city's EM's decision to save money at the expense of its residents. 

Some people don't like her strident tone and clear liberal orientation, but advocacy at the citizen level is her real focus.  You would think that people everywhere would applaud her efforts even when they don't agree with her views.  Republicans disproportionately give her way too much material to work with, but she also takes on Obama (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-hits-obamas-orwellian-drone-program-153937) and other Democrats from time to time with the same critical eye.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on February 29, 2016, 11:22:46 AM
The city was in bad financial shape due to the long term decline of local car operations, so the Governor (Snyder) appointed an "Emergency Manager" who essentially disenfranchised all elected officials in the city.
This is true.
Quote
Under his aegis cost cutting measures were made without oversight, review or recourse by the population or any of the elected officials.
This is an overstatement, there was oversight and review, but there wasn't control or much in the way of recourse.  There was also protest and resistance to most of the cost savings measures, which means this particular protest, which should have been heard and acted on, was part of a clutter of protests that should have not.
Quote
It was he who switched the water supply to the Flint River to save money and refused to take steps to ensure that the water was safe and potable.
This is untrue, and deceptively so.  The city of Detroit in a retaliatory measure, when Flint decided to switch its pipeline to a cheaper more direct source to the lake water, cut Flint more than a year before they were ready to switch to the new source.  That led Flint to invest in a plant to process River water, which was an expensive proposition. 
Quote
I've seen bottles of tap water that are brown.  This went on for about a year and a half with no positive steps taken.  GM has facilities in Flint and they stopped using city water and trucked in bottle water to their workers.  The state officials in the city did the same thing.  All that was done without ever notifying the residents that the water was unsafe to drink, despite repeated complaints about it and tests the proved that was the case.
This all seems true, much to the embarrassment of the EPA and the emergency manager/state government.
Quote
Republicans are responsible for every bad thing that happened, though the EPA is somewhat culpable for not acting on information that it had also collected.
Not true.  The Democrats in charge of Flint were responsible for completely screwing up Flint so bad that the state took over in the first place.  The Democrats in charge of Detroit were responsible for overcharging Flint for the water, which caused them to have to change their water plan in the first place, and then they were also responsible for cutting them off from the supply in retaliation way before they were prepared to switch to their new and safe source.  And of course the Democrats at the EPA were also completely negligent.  The Republicans definitely screwed up in a major way as well, and they were directly responsible because of the take over both for cost cutting (which they did) but also for the health and safety of the citizens where they completely failed at every level.
Quote
It all started on the current state Administration's watch and they dismissed and ignored concerns because nobody in the city had standing to challenge them.  The assignment of blame is beyond question.
If you're a one side partisan the assignment is "beyond question," otherwise, its pretty clear that no elected or appointed official from either party did their job.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 29, 2016, 11:32:31 AM
Quote
This is untrue, and deceptively so.  The city of Detroit in a retaliatory measure, when Flint decided to switch its pipeline to a cheaper more direct source to the lake water, cut Flint more than a year before they were ready to switch to the new source.  That led Flint to invest in a plant to process River water, which was an expensive proposition. 
A miscalculation by the EM is the most charitable thing you could say about him?  How do you explain him not adding anti-corrosives to the water after being told they were needed?

Quote
Not true.  The Democrats in charge of Flint were responsible for completely screwing up Flint so bad that the state took over in the first place.
They were floundering under the weight of the infrastructure and revenue problems I mentioned.  That they were not perfect administrators is also true, but blaming them for the EM who is responsible for switching the water supply is off-base.  If you want to do that, then you should also excoriate the GOP-controlled state legislature, which has done everything possible to cut taxes even when it meant not providing necessary services to Flint residents, not to mention all other residents of the state.  Nobody comes off good, but you should follow the chain of events in as straight a line as possible.

Quote
If you're a one side partisan the assignment is "beyond question," otherwise, its pretty clear that no elected or appointed official from either party did their job.
Like I said, nobody comes off well in this fiasco, but I'll repeat that all of the events that directly caused the calamity were carried out or avoided by members of the Governor's office, the state legislature or their appointees.  The EPA could have and should have acted sooner, and the Detroit newspapers tried to raise interest in the problem, and GM took steps to protect their employees (as did the state), but nobody looked out for the safety and well-being of the city's population.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on February 29, 2016, 11:38:42 AM
Even news and topical media can't help but be manipulative.  At it's best it tries to draw you into its stories and let them transform you a little.  Maddow is clearly a liberal apolitical (these days "progressive") advocate who uses her show to expose corruption, incompetence and politicization at all levels of government wherever she finds it. 


That's good.

Does she ever find corruption, incompetence, and politicization on the left?

Don't get me wrong; she's valuable even if she's one-sided and unbalanced, because even a strong light on things from one angle, is better than none.

Sounds like she's saving lives in Flint.

I do like her strident tone, but would like it more if she applied it to defend the poor and downtrodden from some of its abusers on the left.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pyrtolin on February 29, 2016, 11:50:53 AM
There is no evidence that the attack was a result of a spontaneous protest based on a video, there never was.
And? That's not related in any way to what I said.

Quote
They jumped head first into an immediate lie.
They were immediately asked and fell back on the initial talking points they were given. As more and better information was available, they use the better information in response instead. Speculation isn't lying, it just has a high probability of being inaccurate.

You['ve yet to show any evidence that any actions that were taken in regard to the attack were obfuscated in any way or even unreasonable enough to warrant trying to hide them to justify the accusation that they tried to cover something that they did up.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 29, 2016, 11:52:55 AM
Here (http://www.advocate.com/election/2016/1/15/watch-rachel-maddow-confronts-hillary-clinton-over-bernie-sanders-attack-ad) she takes on Clinton for remarks about Sanders.

Here (http://www.inquisitr.com/1619854/rachel-maddow-rips-democrats-on-keystone-xl-vote/) she criticizes Democrats over the XL pipeline.

You'll have to dig for more yourself.  You won't find her attacking social programs that Democrats support, because she thinks government does far less than it should.  You also won't find her attacking religious or sexual freedoms, as those are in her wheelhouse.  Almost all of the things she does attack involve discrimination, excessive punishment and institutionalized threats to individual liberties and well-being.  So mostly she takes positions where Republicans do harm or Democrats don't do enough good.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on February 29, 2016, 12:11:18 PM
Quote
This is untrue, and deceptively so.  The city of Detroit in a retaliatory measure, when Flint decided to switch its pipeline to a cheaper more direct source to the lake water, cut Flint more than a year before they were ready to switch to the new source.  That led Flint to invest in a plant to process River water, which was an expensive proposition. 
A miscalculation by the EM is the most charitable thing you could say about him?  How do you explain him not adding anti-corrosives to the water after being told they were needed?
Criminal neglect?  Switching to the Flint River was a total mistake for a town that hadn't run their own water, doing so incompetently was criminal.
Quote
Quote
Not true.  The Democrats in charge of Flint were responsible for completely screwing up Flint so bad that the state took over in the first place.
They were floundering under the weight of the infrastructure and revenue problems I mentioned.  That they were not perfect administrators is also true, but blaming them for the EM who is responsible for switching the water supply is off-base.  If you want to do that, then you should also excoriate the GOP-controlled state legislature, which has done everything possible to cut taxes even when it meant not providing necessary services to Flint residents, not to mention all other residents of the state.  Nobody comes off good, but you should follow the chain of events in as straight a line as possible.
But you only follow the chain of events till you find a Republican.  Flint was a mismanaged mess that was in terrible shape because of the Democrats that ran it into the ground.  That's no excuse for what happened to the water under the EM's control, but you never get there if an EM was necessary in the first place. 
Quote
Quote
If you're a one side partisan the assignment is "beyond question," otherwise, its pretty clear that no elected or appointed official from either party did their job.
Like I said, nobody comes off well in this fiasco, but I'll repeat that all of the events that directly caused the calamity were carried out or avoided by members of the Governor's office, the state legislature or their appointees.  The EPA could have and should have acted sooner, and the Detroit newspapers tried to raise interest in the problem, and GM took steps to protect their employees (as did the state), but nobody looked out for the safety and well-being of the city's population.
What about the petty decision by the Democrats in Detroit to force Flint out before it was ready?  If Detroit had just agreed to keep them on until their Lake Huron pipeline was finished NONE OF THIS ever happens.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 29, 2016, 12:29:41 PM
Quote
But you only follow the chain of events till you find a Republican.  Flint was a mismanaged mess that was in terrible shape because of the Democrats that ran it into the ground.  That's no excuse for what happened to the water under the EM's control, but you never get there if an EM was necessary in the first place.
I acknowledge that the city was in bankruptcy, but I can't understand how you connect the previous city management to the EM's decision.  The automotive industry supported union population abandoned the city over those decades, but the city remained and could not be managed.  I'm more comfortable saying they were ill-equipped to manage the city's long term demise and that the state refused to help.

Quote
What about the petty decision by the Democrats in Detroit to force Flint out before it was ready?  If Detroit had just agreed to keep them on until their Lake Huron pipeline was finished NONE OF THIS ever happens.
Here you're mistaken (http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/21/snyders-top-aide-talked-flint-water-supply-alternatives/76037130/).  The switch occurred when both cities were under the control of state appointed EM's, thus both EM's were GOP appointees.  I know you want to find a Democrat with his hand on the throttle, but there aren't any.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on February 29, 2016, 12:55:46 PM
AI, thanks for the source, but your source says the DWSB was not under state control at the time of the negotiation and decision (hence not the state EM).  It seems to have been under federal control, do you have any detail on who actually was running the show?  Normally, the board would have been the Mayor's appointees, were they still involved?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on February 29, 2016, 06:01:26 PM
Federal oversight of the DWSD ended (http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20130327/NEWS/130329875/federal-oversight-of-detroit-water-department-ends-after-nearly-36) on March 13, 2013.  Kevin Orr took over as the Detroit EM on March 14, 2013.  The decision to switch to the Flint River (http://www.metrotimes.com/Blogs/archives/2016/01/25/new-emails-reveal-the-switch-to-the-flint-river-was-not-about-saving-money) was made on April 16, 2013. The head of the DWSD was still in charge at that time, so apparently Orr didn't make the decision.  If you read the second article you'll see that the decision apparently wasn't made to save money, as was widely reported (and I believed), but was instead a political one made for as yet unrevealed reasons.  The article notes that Rick Snyder has released thousands of emails about the Flint water decisions and discussions, but none from the 2013 period when the transfer actually took place.  This a scandal with a muddy bottom, and like many others evidence is being withheld and likely destroyed to protect the people who were responsible.  Note that the Michigan Governor's office is explicitly exempt from FOIA disclosures.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on March 01, 2016, 12:49:27 AM
Thank you, but your first source only makes it clear that the DWSD was in fact under the control of the mayor of Detroit, and was made up of his appointees.  The second, shows a bit of muddle around why Flint would join the KSA (though it ignores the history of the relationship with Detroit in trying to assign blame).  Anyone who's ever left their cable company because of crappy service and high costs, has gotten the "offers" to go back at a steep discount.  As you should know they're gonna look good on paper, even if you have to watch out for the hidden garbage.  That kind of last offer email is a cya email from someone in Detroit.

Nothing in there though about why the Democratic political appointees in Detroit cut them off. 
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 01, 2016, 05:51:13 AM
Quote
Nothing in there though about why the Democratic political appointees in Detroit cut them off.
Who?  And what do you mean by cut them off? 
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Wayward Son on March 01, 2016, 02:03:25 PM
Quote

Quote
Sure, it was a guess--but it turned out to be the right guess.

Only if you accept that extremely partisan article would that be true, like I said other estimates put them in place within 3 hours and with time enough to potentially save 2 of the lives lost.

Seriati, could you please show your non-partisan source for this 3 hour estimate?

And do you know when the source testified during a Benghazi hearing?  And what was the Administration's response to this 3 hour estimate?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 03, 2016, 07:35:40 AM
Yet more proof the GOP bears the ultimate responsibility for the Flint water crisis (http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/03/state_loan_prohibited_flint_fr.html#incart_special-report):

Quote
The city of Flint couldn't rejoin the Detroit water system or lower water rates for residents under the terms of a loan the state issued to Flint's emergency manager in April 2015, show documents obtained by the Michigan Democratic Party under the state's Freedom of Information Act and provided to MLive.

Then-emergency manager Jerry Ambrose proposed the $7 million loan from the state's Local Emergency Financial Assistance Loan Board as a way to pay down the city's remaining deficit.

Provisions in the document state that:

    "The City shall not decrease rates with City charges for water or sewer services" without approval from the State Treasurer
    "The City shall not terminate its participation in the Karegnondi Water Authority (the "KWA") before the KWA water supply system... is operational with all required regulatory approvals effective."
    "The City shall not enter into an agreement with the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, or any successor entity, including the Great Lakes Water Authority, without the prior written approval of the State Treasurer."

Flint switched from Detroit water to the Flint River as its primary water source in April of 2014 as a temporary measure before the KWA was operational.

The more corrosive Flint River water caused lead to leach into the city's water supply, exposing an unknown number of children to the toxin. Residents were officially told not to drink the water due to that lead contamination in October 2015.

In early 2015, residents were protesting discolored water. Flint City Council in March of 2015 voted to do everything in its power to return to DWSD for its water supply -- a largely symbolic action, since a state-appointed emergency manager was still at the city's helm.

On April 29, 2015 that emergency manager, Ambrose, signed a $7 million loan agreement with the state that prohibited the city from switching water supplies without permission from State Treasurer Nick Khouri. The loan helped pave the way for the city to transition away from emergency management that same day.

Joshua Freeman, who was city council president at the time and supported the loan, said the prohibition on DWSD reconnection "wasn't part of the discussions."

Brandon Dillon, chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, said the contract locked the city into a bad water supply.

"The Snyder Administration effectively put a financial gun to the heads of Flint families by using the Emergency Manager agreement to lock the City into taking water from a poisoned source even after alarm bells were going off all over the Snyder Administration that lead and Legionnaire's disease were poisoning families," Dillon said."It is simply unconscionable."

Department of Treasury spokesperson Terry Stanton said the "there were several provisions in the loan agreement, which were included to ensure the city remain on solid financial footing going forward."

Freeman believes the inclusion of the provision was most likely due to the city council's vote a month earlier to try and reconnect to the Detroit system.

If that last statement is true, then the state wanted to make sure that the city residents paid higher than necessary rates for the water, but made no effort to ensure that the water quality was adequate.  Sometimes the more you know about something the less you wish you did.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 04, 2016, 12:28:31 PM
Quote
If that last statement is true, then the state wanted to make sure that the city residents paid higher than necessary rates for the water, but made no effort to ensure that the water quality was adequate

That's deplorable.  But if you are touting this as some sort of GOP conspiracy, rather than a state level decision, you are hardly in a position to lecture me on conspiracy theories for my suspicions about Trump et al. :p
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 04, 2016, 01:18:08 PM
Quote
If that last statement is true, then the state wanted to make sure that the city residents paid higher than necessary rates for the water, but made no effort to ensure that the water quality was adequate

That's deplorable.  But if you are touting this as some sort of GOP conspiracy, rather than a state level decision, you are hardly in a position to lecture me on conspiracy theories for my suspicions about Trump et al. :p
I'm just pointing out the facts as best I can determine them from what should be reliable sources.  I don't see a conspiracy as much as a confluence of policy and process decisions that ignored or deprecated the safety and delivery of services that the people of Flint were entitled to.  It's not debatable that all of the key players in the chain of decisions were Republicans.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 04, 2016, 01:37:54 PM
  It's not debatable that all of the key players in the chain of decisions were Republicans.

Still, you fail to deliver on your claim of "proof the GOP bears the ultimate responsibility for the Flint water crisis."

That's like claiming that Monica Lewinsky blew the whole Democratic Party.  One state government does not a national party make.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 04, 2016, 03:53:11 PM
  It's not debatable that all of the key players in the chain of decisions were Republicans.

Still, you fail to deliver on your claim of "proof the GOP bears the ultimate responsibility for the Flint water crisis."

That's like claiming that Monica Lewinsky blew the whole Democratic Party.  One state government does not a national party make.
Sorry, I'll leave you to do the research on this.  Google is your friend as much as mine.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 04, 2016, 03:58:22 PM
  It's not debatable that all of the key players in the chain of decisions were Republicans.

Still, you fail to deliver on your claim of "proof the GOP bears the ultimate responsibility for the Flint water crisis."

That's like claiming that Monica Lewinsky blew the whole Democratic Party.  One state government does not a national party make.
Sorry, I'll leave you to do the research on this.  Google is your friend as much as mine.

Googling the word "this" does not turn up any grand conspiracies on the part of the national republican convention to poison the city of Flint. 

I will say you've offered what looks like a plausible argument that select MI state Republicans were responsible for the crisis. That doesnt mean that the GOP is to blame. No research can dig you out of just plain old bad English.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 04, 2016, 05:13:46 PM
Quote
Googling the word "this" does not turn up any grand conspiracies on the part of the national republican convention to poison the city of Flint.

I will say you've offered what looks like a plausible argument that select MI state Republicans were responsible for the crisis. That doesnt mean that the GOP is to blame. No research can dig you out of just plain old bad English.
I have no idea what your point is.  First, I never used the word "conspiracy", so as you do way too often, you're making up something I didn't say just so you can argue with me about it.  Second, saying that the GOP is not to blame is that argument I cited earlier, that just because a law was written to explicitly target blacks doesn't mean it's racist.  Uh-huh.

Is it that important to you that you have to pick a fight in every thread and then backtrack when it's pointed out that you are misreading, misattributing and misdirecting?  Never mind, I guess it's just who you are.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on March 04, 2016, 06:36:57 PM
Second, saying that the GOP is not to blame is that argument I cited earlier, that just because a law was written to explicitly target blacks doesn't mean it's racist.  Uh-huh.
A law that prohibits felons from voting is written to explicitly target blacks?  That's pretty racist statement.

And again on this thread, you have tons of involvement by Democrats at every level, including running Flint into the ground, Flint's counsel approving the EM's plan (even though they were powerless), the constituent members of the Detroit water board appointed by its Democratic mayor and released from federal control (where they'd been for decades because of mismanagement and cronyism) that decided to cut Flint off prematurely in retaliation for its decision to switch water authorities, a good chunk of the EPA that sat by and watched, not to mention that state government includes countless people from both parties that touched on the crisis. 

There's no doubt that the Republicans involved boffed it, made it worse and have a big part of the blame, but only a ridiculous partisan would see this a Republican's doing something evil to poor Democratic voters given the actual history and facts.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 04, 2016, 07:30:07 PM
Quote
Googling the word "this" does not turn up any grand conspiracies on the part of the national republican convention to poison the city of Flint.

I will say you've offered what looks like a plausible argument that select MI state Republicans were responsible for the crisis. That doesnt mean that the GOP is to blame. No research can dig you out of just plain old bad English.
I have no idea what your point is.  First, I never used the word "conspiracy", so as you do way too often, you're making up something I didn't say just so you can argue with me about it.  Second, saying that the GOP is not to blame is that argument I cited earlier, that just because a law was written to explicitly target blacks doesn't mean it's racist.  Uh-huh.

Is it that important to you that you have to pick a fight in every thread and then backtrack when it's pointed out that you are misreading, misattributing and misdirecting?  Never mind, I guess it's just who you are.

It doesn't matter if you use the word "conspiracy" grand wizard.  When you attribute the actions of a couple Michigan Republicans to indict the national GOP party of, what is it now, "explicitly targeting blacks" to poison Flint's waters, that's a grander conspiracy than I've ever dreamed of.

Or have you confused that argument with the one about felons voting?

The fourteenth Amendment was written by Republicans, it is true.  But since the same group wrote the 13th and 15th amendment, I think it's extremely unlikely that they allowed for criminals to be disfranchised as some sort of trick to disfranchise blacks. 

If you were referring to some one state's law being written with racist intent, that would not surprise me.  But you'd be a fool and a bit of a racist to assume that the only reason to disfranchise any class of criminal would be to disfranchise blacks.  14a specifically targeted southern rebels, and I reckon them rebel boys was generally white.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 04, 2016, 08:16:17 PM
Quote
It doesn't matter if you use the word "conspiracy" grand wizard.  When you attribute the actions of a couple Michigan Republicans to indict the national GOP party of, what is it now, "explicitly targeting blacks" to poison Flint's waters, that's a grander conspiracy than I've ever dreamed of.

I get it. I didn't say what you say I did, but I said it anyway.  So you deflect one gross misattribution to me with another that is equally untrue.  Please cite where did I indict the "national GOP" in this process?  Go ahead, tell me what else I didn't say that I actually meant.

You are incredibly exasperating to talk to and not nearly as much fun as you imagine.  Do you ever stop to think that you should really try harder to understand what people say to you?  You keep reinforcing my opinion that you only come here to start fights and play whack-a-mole with anybody you can bait into taking you on.  I think you don't care what you talk about or what you say as long as you can start an argument. 
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 04, 2016, 10:27:02 PM
Please cite where did I indict the "national GOP" in this process? 

I already did.  You said proof that the GOP is to blame.  The GOP is the national GOP. 

Go ahead, tell me what else I didn't say that I actually meant.

Tell me where I accused you of meaning what you said.


  Do you ever stop to think that you should really try harder to understand what people say to you?

You ever stop to think you should really try harder to understand what you say to other people?  People don't read minds.  They read words.  Try saying what you mean, and I will probably respond less annoyingly.


Quote
[Al goes off in creepy Motive-reading ]
Sometimes I do, as do you.  Right now, I'm simply pointing out that what you said is absurd.  The GOP is a national party, and the supposed actions of a governor and a few state flunkies do not constitute collective GOP guilt, let alone intent to poison Flint to suppress the black vote.  (And I think you got your conspiracy theories tangled)
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 05, 2016, 04:48:50 PM
Try googling "michigan gop" and see what comes up.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 06, 2016, 09:47:00 AM
Seriati:

Quote
A law that prohibits felons from voting is written to explicitly target blacks?  That's pretty racist statement.
I pointed out in my reference to that case that it was clear that the law was passed to target blacks.  Go back and read it again.

Quote
And again on this thread, you have tons of involvement by Democrats at every level, including running Flint into the ground, Flint's counsel approving the EM's plan (even though they were powerless), the constituent members of the Detroit water board appointed by its Democratic mayor and released from federal control (where they'd been for decades because of mismanagement and cronyism) that decided to cut Flint off prematurely in retaliation for its decision to switch water authorities, a good chunk of the EPA that sat by and watched, not to mention that state government includes countless people from both parties that touched on the crisis. 
Do you not understand that you are repeating your position that no elected Democrats had any role in any decision?  I get the feeling you would go back to 19th Century history to find a Democrat somewhere in the chain of events so you can say it's their fault, too.  Flint was in crappy shape for the same reasons that many rust-belt cities have been.  I'm sure there was some malfeasance and corruption somewhere along the way, but that's not a smoking gun or even smoke in this crisis.

Read this recent summary with a link to an email from the DWSD to the Governor explaining that Flint would save 48% if it stayed on Detroit water:
Quote
However, question marks are already emerging from the conventional explanation for the switch - that is, to save $2 million by selling polluted water to Flint residents. Journalist Steve Neavling of the independent newspaper, Motor City Muckraker, believes that the water pipes were not switched in order to save money, thanks to the release of a new email which appears to indicate that the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) offered Snyder a deal worth $800 million over 30 years, which would have been 20% cheaper than switching to the polluted Karegnondi Water Authority.

MCM also reports that "A high-ranking DWSD official told us today that Detroit offered a 50% reduction over what Flint had been paying Detroit. In fact, documents show that DWSD made at least six proposals to Flint, saying “the KWA pipeline can only be attributed to a ‘political’ objective that has nothing to do with the delivery – or the price – of water.” The deal was signed in 2013, and Governor Snyder refuses to release the emails from this period - refusing to offer up the paper trail of how, exactly this decision was made.
In other words, *if* the DWSD was composed of all Democrats (just because they *may* have been appointed by a Democrat elected official, that doesn't all or even any of them were themselves Democrats), they *tried* to avert the switch to the Flint River.  Note that the members of the board are all required to have extensive leadership experience in a regulated industry.  You'll be hard-pressed to find any political bias in their bios. (http://archive.dwsd.org/pages_n/bowc.html)
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Mynnion on March 06, 2016, 10:26:12 AM
Why do we believe this is an issue with one party or the other rather than a group of individuals who made a series of bad decisions and then tried to cover it up?  This us/them mentality is a major part of the problem we have with Washington.  The majority of those that support either party find what happened in Flint horrible if not criminal.  The problem is that no one ever really gets held responsible when the issue is used for politics.  In this case those from the GOP side who might find what happened criminal if the a DEM were governor feel obligated to back up their "SIDE."  The DEMs are no better.  Hold those accountable who should be and stop playing games. 
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 06, 2016, 05:10:54 PM
Because it is systematic.  Every Republican governor and the state legislature since the 90's has siphoned money and services away from SE Michigan, which is where the majority of black and poor residents live.  They repeatedly cut taxes rather than recognize that the bad policy was destroying the state.  The Governor did one or two things I can get behind (I voted for him the first time around, but not the second), but he is behind the Emergency Manager explosion that undermines the democratic process, has supported underfunding the Detroit public school system, and even when he tries to do something everybody in the state would benefit from he can't get the legislature to fund essential road and infrastructure repairs.  It's not a few bad actors, but party principles and party discipline that keep repeating the mistakes.  Michigan is suffering from the market crash, but more from the leadership and legislative agenda it's followed since then.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 06, 2016, 05:55:13 PM
Try googling "michigan gop" and see what comes up.

Quote
The Michigan Republican Party is the state affiliate of the national Republican Party in Michigan. It is sometimes referred to as MIGOP, which simply means Michigan Grand Old Party.

Ronna Romney McDaniel is the chairman of the party, having been elected in 2015 by delegates to the Republican State Convention, and Jeff Sakwa is co-chairman.[1] Its Republican National Committee members are Dave Agema and Kathy Berden. Its party Vice-Chairs are Administrative Vice-Chair David Wolkinson, Youth Vice-Chair Michael Banerian, Coalitions Vice-Chair Adi Sathi, Outreach Vice-Chair Kelly Mitchell, Grassroots Vice-Chair Wendy Day, and Ethnic Vice-Chair Darwin Jiles Jr.

At no point do I see anything about it being called just "the GOP," Al.

Quote
Every Republican governor and the state legislature since the 90's has siphoned money and services away from SE Michigan,

Do you mean every Republican governor of Michigan and every Michigan state legislature since the 1990s?  Because that would be the MGOP, not the GOP generally.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 06, 2016, 09:25:10 PM
You keep hoping that I meant something I never said and never intended.  I only ever referred to state politicians in my comments about the Flint problem.  Since it's the state's Republicans and they refer to themselves as the Michigan GOP, why don't you just take the fact that I have repeatedly told you to stop trying to put words in my mouth.  It's not a national conspiracy, it happened, and elected Republicans and their staff and their appointees made the decisions.  Seriati is straining to say that Democrats are equally at fault (or greater if you want to drag decades of local Democratic elected officials into the mess, and you straining even harder to delegitimize my pointing out what happened by making it seem I'm a conspiracy theorist.  Pretty weak.  Get over it, it's tiresome.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: D.W. on March 06, 2016, 10:46:56 PM
Maybe it's a 'soda vs. pop' thing.   I knew what he meant... 
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 06, 2016, 10:56:19 PM
You keep hoping that I meant something I never said and never intended.  I only ever referred to state politicians in my comments about the Flint problem.  Since it's the state's Republicans and they refer to themselves as the Michigan GOP, why don't you just take the fact that I have repeatedly told you to stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Honest to Dawkins, Al, the only word I've been trying to put into your mouth is "Michigan."  I was hoping you intended that, and have begged and encouraged you speak more clearly.  But if you have to pretend that I want to distort your meaning in order to say what you actually mean, then sure, use me as your magic feather.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 07, 2016, 06:13:11 AM
No, to be clear, you have repeatedly claimed that I said it was a conspiracy, which I have denied just as often.  It's pretty significant whether the national GOP singled out the city of Flint, Michigan for the treatment they received.  I doubt very much that happened, which means if there was any sort of conspiracy, it was carried out by the state's Republicans who controlled every political position involved.  Now, that *could* have been a knowing conspiracy, but nobody has turned up any evidence showing that and I doubt any will be found.  Instead, the GOP in Michigan fumbled, bumbled and screwed the pooch through a mixture of incompetence, disregard for public safety and a political agenda that didn't value the city of Flint or its potential recovery from the severe economic straits it has sunk to.

We also know that many people at the highest levels of the state government knew of the problem long before it was revealed and did nothing to correct the situation.  The only action they took that I know of when they found out was to supply bottled water to state workers in the city.

Call it a conspiracy if you want, but stop trying to make it sound like I'm the one saying it.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 07, 2016, 07:29:50 AM
First of all, she's more than a supporter.  She's her husband's former strongman, known to drop cluster bombs on kids on Easter Sunday when she's bored and the weather allows.  Second, Hillary specifically asked her to come help her with her woman problem.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 07, 2016, 07:47:46 AM
And that is stronger than Trump getting everyone at his rally to swear to vote for him?  You're all over Hitler and Nazi references, so it's *very* odd to me that you're more upset about Albright's comment. 

Pete, it's not like we have to agree to disagree.  It's that I can't stop you from finding something to rebut every thing that comes up that goes against your preferences.  Albright apologized immediately after she saw the effect her remarks had.  How has Donald followed up?  Many in the audience raised their arms in what looked like a Nazi salute.  Here are some headlines about what Trump did (again, of course, you could Google these things for yourself.  I wonder why you say stuff without ever looking for additional information):

Quote
Donald Trump asks backers to swear their support, vows to broaden torture laws
This Donald Trump Rally Looks Like A Scene From Nazi Germany
Twitter Has a Field Day with Trump Supporters Raising Their Hands at Rally
Donald Trump’s supporters swear their allegiance in Orlando
Trump asks rally attendees to swear to vote for him
Trump Calls For Loyalty Oath From Florida Supporters
...

How did the media respond to Albright?

Quote
Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright Rebuke Young Women Backing Bernie Sanders
Hillary Clinton Booed at Debate for Madeleine Albright’s ‘Special Place in Hell’
Rebuke Swift After Albright Declares: 'Special Place in Hell' for Women Who Don't Vote Clinton
Madeleine Albright Apologizes for ‘Special Place in Hell’ Comment
Albright: 'Special place in hell' comment came at 'wrong time'

You can (and clearly have) drawn your own conclusions about this "controversy", except that it's not.  What both did was wrong.  One of them realized that and apologized.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 07, 2016, 07:58:47 PM
Quote
You're all over Hitler and Nazi references, so it's *very* odd to me that you're more upset about Albright's comment

I didnt know she had apologized. Thanks for the fyi. 

if Hillary repudiates the Kosovo war, I could vote for her over Trump, otherwise i abstain if that's the contest
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Fenring on March 07, 2016, 08:08:38 PM
Quote
You're all over Hitler and Nazi references, so it's *very* odd to me that you're more upset about Albright's comment

I didnt know she had apologized. Thanks for the fyi. 

if Hillary repudiates the Kosovo war, I could vote for her over Trump, otherwise i abstain if that's the contest

Talk about a one issue voter. If literally the only thing you see wrong with Hillary's record is her view of the Kosovo war then you should probably vote for her anyhow rather than hold one arbitrary opinion against her.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on March 07, 2016, 08:34:46 PM
Abstaining is at least half a vote for Trump.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 07, 2016, 08:51:43 PM
Quote
You're all over Hitler and Nazi references, so it's *very* odd to me that you're more upset about Albright's comment

I didnt know she had apologized. Thanks for the fyi. 

if Hillary repudiates the Kosovo war, I could vote for her over Trump, otherwise i abstain if that's the contest

Talk about a one issue voter. If literally the only thing you see wrong with Hillary's record is her view of the Kosovo war then you should probably vote for her anyhow rather than hold one arbitrary opinion against her.

I'm a many issue voter. But we're talking about TRUMP being the alternative.  Two issues keep me from voting Hillary even if Trump is the alternative: Domestic thuggery and international thuggery.  I need to know she's not going to put in a Janet Reno or a Mad Albright.  Because I don't like civil war, and I don't like fighting on the side of slave-trading terrorists.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 07, 2016, 08:54:24 PM
"Nazi salute" is the freaking American pre-ww2 salute.  What, you think this guy is Hitler?  More like Charlie Chaplin.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 07, 2016, 09:00:03 PM
Thanks for the headings, Al.

"The comments came a day after feminist icon Gloria Steinem said in an interview that young women were supporting Bernie Sanders because "that's where the boys are.""

Holy *censored*.  THAT used to be called a feminist"  Good gravy.  Why have so many of the old guard feminists turned so sour and misogynistic?

Don't worry, I don't blame Hillary for that turd of a statement.  But I did tell my girlfriend's daughter, a very independent minded Bernie supporter, and asked he to cc me on anything she sends. 
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 08, 2016, 04:27:50 AM
One more note about the (imaginary) equivalence between Albright and Trump.  I can't find any site that supports what Albright said, but I can't find any site that condemns Trump for what he said.  Conservative/Republican sites simply report it, and Liberal/Democratic sites shake their hands in sad wonder.  He can say anything, it seems, and we try to take it in with a wry chuckle, but what he says still means something.  To be clear, the leading Republican candidate has now called for his followers to swear their loyalty to him, and he says he is going to change international laws to allow his Administration to torture people.  Which part of any of what he said is in any way in keeping with the Constitution? 

And then you look to his right and there is Cruz, whose father believes he was anointed to be God's hand, whose wife has said that she (and he) believes that the Constitution is an extension of the bible, and that government isn't nearly Christian enough.  I can't even come close to a wry chuckle over anything he says.  As his college roommate pointed out, being loathed was his superpower.  Frank Underwood's is nothing compared to Cruz.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 08, 2016, 12:00:34 PM
I never said there was "equivalence" between Trump and Albright. Albright has actual human blood on her hands.  The fact that you are caught up in what ignorance of history calls "the nazi salute" suggests Trump has none.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 08, 2016, 12:09:55 PM
"he says he is going to change international laws to allow his Administration to torture people"

If he means waterboarding, then i disagree with him.  Otoh if he means interrogating gently while suspects are recovering from anaesthesia from needful.surgery, then i agree. Internationaal law has misidentified that as torture, when it actually inflicts no pain or physical or mental damage other than release of information,   engaging rather than ignoring international law (as Clintons are wont to do) is a relatively good thing.  Nevertheless, I cant see myself voting for trump.  In your eagerness to condemn him, you have missed his scariest aspect.  RightLeft may have grasped it; i hope he will be more specific.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: D.W. on March 08, 2016, 12:27:56 PM
He means waterboarding.  More importantly, he is allowing his audience to take part in mass revenge fantasies.  I don't believe he will take action to try and deliver on these promises.  He's just giving people an excuse to express their outrage and not apologize for it.  A lot of people (more than some would have expected) are taking him up on that offer. 

People don't like to be shamed.  (even when societal norms dictate we deserve it)  Trump is shameless, and more importantly, tells people they they shouldn't feel shameful for their anger.  That others are to blame for their troubles and it's OK to be angry at them for this.

That doesn't excuse the things other politicians and leaders have done (and will likely do).  What it does is gives up on the idea that we can or should hold them to account.  Instead, we just lower our standards as a people.  Do we simply give over power to those who sells us a story that casts us as the down trodden heroes set upon by aggressors we've either been ignoring or trying to fight with one arm tied behind our back?

We (or at least a surprising number) apparently don't even care if it's a believable fiction.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 08, 2016, 12:36:06 PM
He means waterboarding.  More importantly, he is allowing his audience to take part in mass revenge fantasies.  I don't believe he will take action to try and deliver on these promises.  He's just giving people an excuse to express their outrage and not apologize for it.  A lot of people (more than some would have expected) are taking him up on that offer. 

People don't like to be shamed.  (even when societal norms dictate we deserve it)  Trump is shameless, and more importantly, tells people they they shouldn't feel shameful for their anger.  That others are to blame for their troubles and it's OK to be angry at them for this.

That doesn't excuse the things other politicians and leaders have done (and will likely do).  What it does is gives up on the idea that we can or should hold them to account.  Instead, we just lower our standards as a people.  Do we simply give over power to those who sells us a story that casts us as the down trodden heroes set upon by aggressors we've either been ignoring or trying to fight with one arm tied behind our back?

We (or at least a surprising number) apparently don't even care if it's a believable fiction.

Very well-argued.  I cannot refute those arguments that Trrump iss a serious threat, rather than merely a manifestation of something ugly heretofore repressed among the voters.

But by those arguments, is Trump not dangerous whether elected, unelected, or assassinated?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on March 08, 2016, 12:39:05 PM
He might not take action to deliver on his promises but that doesn't mean someone else won't. Perhaps even especially if he doesn't take action. But he doesn't get to complain about a meddlesome priest and then act surprised when there's blood on the cathedral floor.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: D.W. on March 08, 2016, 01:47:22 PM
Having a hard time articulating my answer to the dangers of Trump and what he stands for.  I’ve deleted several paragraphs so far…

Even up against as polarizing a figure as Hillary, I don’t see him winning.  IF he did, hypothetically, I think seeing him fail to achieve his goals would most likely result in total defeatism in his supporters.  Then the question becomes, what remains of the GOP after being stripped of this group’s support.  If he miraculously won, I don’t see how anyone who out Trumps Trump could possibly win some sort of referendum on the man. 

Now if we want to explore the scariest hypothetical, Trump gets in, puts on a good show but unlike Obama facing a pure partisan opposition, Trump faces a bipartisan “establishment” opposition.  He rallies his supporters to vote out as many GOP establishment seats as possible and replace them with those sympathetic to or loyal to him.  I don’t see this happening.  He IS a good showman.  He IS a personality people are drawn to.  Maybe they don’t all like him, but it’s just hard to look away when he gets the spotlight.  I don’t think he can simply lend out or bestow that type of support to others.

So what about losing?  First, the GOP establishment can go, WE TOLD YOU SO!  They are even given the opportunity to cut this group loose.  Now possibly, that’s not their decision, maybe this group becomes so disenfranchised that they just crawl away and are no longer a political variable.  I doubt either would happen though.  I think that volatility and hand biting be damned, they will still court these voters.  Maybe I’m wrong and the establishment will finally try and reinvent itself.  If they trim off their more extremist edges and promoted fiscal conservatism and state rights that sounded realistic rather than just lip service, I think they could still grow the party.  And their cases for State’s rights can’t be pandering to those fighting social issues.  In fact, they need to raise the white flag on some social issues.  Pandering to those who long for the bad ol’ days is no longer worth the gains.  If you can’t sell a group on your whole platform, or at least the vast majority of it, you are vulnerable to someone who panders to them harder than you.  They are learning right now that taking fringe elements of your party for granted is dangerous.

Then lastly we have the scenario that Trump becomes a martyr to his cause.  I’m not sure what my take on this is.  I don’t see his supporters as having a goal.  What happens when you have an angry mob given proof that the others are out to stop them?  Do they get more angry?  I guess it depends a lot on who martyred him…  Then, who can co-opt them to their side? 


Had to edit train of thought derailment which was contradicting myself...
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 08, 2016, 03:05:31 PM
Quote
I never said there was "equivalence" between Trump and Albright.
Yes you did, by raising her as the counter to Trump.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 08, 2016, 03:12:46 PM
"Nazi salute" is the freaking American pre-ww2 salute.  What, you think this guy is Hitler?  More like Charlie Chaplin.
Actually, I've always called it that, as have most of my family members who have talked about it, and have read other people calling it that. If it makes you happy, you can translate that to Hitlergruß whenever you see me write it.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 09, 2016, 08:24:53 AM
Well i know plenty of people who refer to Spaniards and Hondurans and Chileans "Mexicans" but that doesnt make it so.  Do your relatives visit 3000 year old HIndu temples and demand that the ancient swaztikas be taken down?  the world doesnt revolve around your prejudices and ignorance.  Call it the nazi salute if you must, but when you put more horror on this ambiguous symbol than in the systematic murder of Serb Orthodox children , your chauvenism approaches Chabadnik levels.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 09, 2016, 08:29:01 AM
[If it makes you happy, you can translate that to Hitlergruß whenever you see me write it.

Did Wessex Just call me a Nazi because I dont see the chest salute as more threatening than the legacy of Albright's Kosovo war?  pathetic.  And he used to be a moderator....
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: D.W. on March 09, 2016, 09:32:41 AM
Granted the whole "which is worse?" question is silly, but regardless of what was intended, there is symbolism and optics that a US presidential candidate should try to avoid.  You may not have seen it but it took a fraction of a second for me to make the connection between the pledge and the Nazi salute.  Unfair?  Maybe.  Confirmation bias?  Probably... but it doesn't matter.

Any reasonably savvy politician and their staff, a staff which contains people paid to help you avoid such optics, would know better.  Now, maybe he's the exception, maybe he chooses to ignore or shuns such "advisers" to promote his rebellious persona.  I think it was intended.  Yet another example of dumping chum in the water for the media feeding frenzy.  And, as Pete is pointing out, it CAN be dismissed as harmless, coincidental or an unjustified reaction by those already looking to vilify the man.

The man trolled us... again, and the media, if not we, fell for it... again.  Trump's got serious game.  It's just a game we don't all grasp the rules of yet.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 09, 2016, 10:05:56 AM
[If it makes you happy, you can translate that to Hitlergruß whenever you see me write it.

Did Wessex Just call me a Nazi because I dont see the chest salute as more threatening than the legacy of Albright's Kosovo war?  pathetic.  And he used to be a moderator....
This is deeply offensive.  CUT IT OUT!
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on March 09, 2016, 11:36:01 AM
Quote
egardless of what was intended, there is symbolism and optics that a US presidential candidate should try to avoid.

Absolutely agreed.  I'm not inclined to vote for him even if the opton is hillary.  Heel, i would even vote H over T if I could be convinced she doesnt follow the same demons as her hubby did, with respect to internal and external war.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on March 09, 2016, 12:20:59 PM
Quote
And again on this thread, you have tons of involvement by Democrats at every level, including running Flint into the ground, Flint's counsel approving the EM's plan (even though they were powerless), the constituent members of the Detroit water board appointed by its Democratic mayor and released from federal control (where they'd been for decades because of mismanagement and cronyism) that decided to cut Flint off prematurely in retaliation for its decision to switch water authorities, a good chunk of the EPA that sat by and watched, not to mention that state government includes countless people from both parties that touched on the crisis. 
Do you not understand that you are repeating your position that no elected Democrats had any role in any decision?  I get the feeling you would go back to 19th Century history to find a Democrat somewhere in the chain of events so you can say it's their fault, too.  Flint was in crappy shape for the same reasons that many rust-belt cities have been.  I'm sure there was some malfeasance and corruption somewhere along the way, but that's not a smoking gun or even smoke in this crisis.
What does it have to do with the 19th century?  Flint and Detroit are disasters because of Democratic mismanagement, that's just a fact.  The need for fiscal emergency managers is pretty clear.  The fact that the failure of Democratic policy makes this such a sore subject for Democrats that they would be going over the situation with a fine tooth comb is a fact is a well.  None of that changes the fact that the Flint water crisis is an absolute disaster under the oversight of the EM and the Republican administration.  Yet, it does put a lot of context into your complaints. 
Quote
Read this recent summary with a link to an email from the DWSD to the Governor explaining that Flint would save 48% if it stayed on Detroit water:
I read them and multiple other accounts.  And let me ask you this, since you seemed to miss a key fact in all of those write ups.  WHY THE HECK WERE THEY ABLE TO OFFER 50% OFF?  One reason and one reason only, the corrupt DWSD has been overcharging Flint for years under the control of the federal government and the mayor of Detroit.  Given that kind of offer, and the implied and acknowledged factual history of corruption in the DWSD and Detroit, why would anyone with a rationale care for the future not look to move to a better source of water?

Now seriously, explain in one sentence, why Detroit cut them off?  Is your whole answer that they had to be cut off immediately because they wouldn't sign a long term deal with the corrupt DWSD and forego their rational decision to switch to a new source of water?  If you don't explain why they cut them off, when it was clearly in the approved plan they would stay on Detroit water until they were ready to switch to the new water authority (ie not the Flint River), I'll have to say you're ignoring the issue for partisan reasons.
Quote
Seriati is straining to say that Democrats are equally at fault (or greater if you want to drag decades of local Democratic elected officials into the mess, and you straining even harder to delegitimize my pointing out what happened by making it seem I'm a conspiracy theorist.  Pretty weak.  Get over it, it's tiresome.
Show me where I'm "straining" to say anything other than you present a single-minded conspiracy attack version of events.  Like I said several times, every analysis you do stops when you find a Republican and concludes all contributory events (by Democrats) were irrelevant.  It doesn't have to been an even split on any of this, but you're lying to yourself to believe the Dems had no involvement in this.




Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 09, 2016, 02:42:51 PM
Quote
Flint and Detroit are disasters because of Democratic mismanagement, that's just a fact.  The need for fiscal emergency managers is pretty clear.  The fact that the failure of Democratic policy makes this such a sore subject for Democrats that they would be going over the situation with a fine tooth comb is a fact is a well.  None of that changes the fact that the Flint water crisis is an absolute disaster under the oversight of the EM and the Republican administration.  Yet, it does put a lot of context into your complaints. 
Just another irrelevant but certain statement.  Democrats may have been in elected offices 20 or more years ago when the auto industry decline began to draw down the economy of SE Michigan, and the cities may have been mismanaged.  That has nothing to do with your highlighted statement, it just gives you a chance to try to spread the blame to the "other side".

Quote
WHY THE HECK WERE THEY ABLE TO OFFER 50% OFF?  One reason and one reason only, the corrupt DWSD has been overcharging Flint for years under the control of the federal government and the mayor of Detroit.
Let's assume for the moment that what you said is true.  Doesn't that further advance the argument that Flint should have taken the offer?

Quote
Now seriously, explain in one sentence, why Detroit cut them off?

I think you have it backward:
Quote
When the state loaned Flint $7 million in April 2015 so the city could erase its deficit and get out from under emergency management, the loan included a condition that barred the city from returning to Detroit as its source of drinking water without state approval, records show.
This happened in 2015 when the state had control over both cities through the EMs.  So, which evil Democrats are you pointing the finger at?  The DWSD was composed of independent players, and were not part of the previously corrupt group that the federal government had taken over control of.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on March 10, 2016, 12:20:16 AM
So like I accuse you of, you just look for the word Republican and stop there, thus your bolding in your first quote.  Lol.  You are such a blind partisan.

To answer your second question, if you've been strong armed by the mafia for years into paying double the going rate on your trash contracts and you have the chance to get out for a legitimate company, who'll charge you the going rate and not risk breaking your legs, is it really such a great offer to get a discount from the mafia to switch back?  Can you honestly say that you've never gone for a higher price product because the lower price product came from a company where you had a bad experience?  This part is the least mysterious part of the whole puzzle, and you act like it's a coup de grace.  The DWSD was under 40 years of federal management, was renowned for its overwhelming levels of corruption and cronyism deals, had clearly been overcharging flint for years (while the Democrats in control did nothing) thus the ability to offer the undercutter deal (with no real way to prevent them from jacking the rates back up the next time they had crony Democrats back in charge in Flint).  Real mystery there AI.

I don't have it backwards.  The state said leave Detroit, so Flint signed a deal with the KWD that was to start over year later.  Detroit said switch back or get out, which is what friggin caused them to switch to the Flint River.  They never wanted to be there, they intended to state with Detroit till their new pipeline was finished. 
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 11, 2016, 05:58:45 AM
If you continue to ignore or reject the information that I've provided or is out there for you to discover on your own, then your repeated claim that non-existent Democrats are to blame gets more and more transparently partisan.  For one, if Flint was offered a 30 year deal at a 48% cost reduction (which would be much cheaper than switching), what plausible reason would they have to reject it?  Your answer is because of evil Democrats who were nowhere to be seen.

Quote
I don't have it backwards.  The state said leave Detroit, so Flint signed a deal with the KWD that was to start over year later.  Detroit said switch back or get out, which is what friggin caused them to switch to the Flint River.  They never wanted to be there, they intended to state with Detroit till their new pipeline was finished. 
Show me your backing evidence.  This statement is belied by every document and article that has been published in the past few months about the sequence of events leading to the switch.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on March 11, 2016, 09:58:13 AM
Quote
I don't have it backwards.  The state said leave Detroit, so Flint signed a deal with the KWD that was to start over year later.  Detroit said switch back or get out, which is what friggin caused them to switch to the Flint River.  They never wanted to be there, they intended to state with Detroit till their new pipeline was finished. 
Show me your backing evidence.  This statement is belied by every document and article that has been published in the past few months about the sequence of events leading to the switch.
According to Wikipedia, the pipeline from the KWA had its ground breaking in June 2013, with real work starting in December 2016.  It was supposed to be a 30 month project.

So here is the letter of termination from the DWSD, pushing Flint well over a year and half before the scheduled completion date.  http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/michigan/files/201512/dwsd_termination_ltr.pdf?_ga=1.66617326.1973691929.1443711833 (http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/michigan/files/201512/dwsd_termination_ltr.pdf?_ga=1.66617326.1973691929.1443711833)

Here's the letter from Flint to the DWSD responding to Detroit's offer - two months before termination - to let them keep buying water.  http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/michigan/files/201512/earlely_letter.pdf?_ga=1.224901786.1036207224.1446746452 (http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/michigan/files/201512/earlely_letter.pdf?_ga=1.224901786.1036207224.1446746452)

Is it your assertion that it was negligent for the EM to not to spend the 10 months between the termination letter and this letter trying and find a water source to replace the DSWD's water after termination?  This is still at least a year and a half before the KWA pipeline would be complete?  Your contention seems to be that they should have caved to whatever Detroit asked. 

All I pointed out is that this is directly at the feet of the DWSD playing games.  They sent the termination notices after the pipeline was underway, and had incurred costs, they provided their offers to allow Flint to stay after Flint had already dumped substantial resources into trying to fix the problems that the DSWD had caused (ie the whole Flint processing operation was already well under way with sunk costs), and they expressly told Flint they would have to pay higher rates.

There are real time sources and quotes from representatives of the DWSD stating that Flint should have known the termination would have been the consequence of their decision to switch, are you also unable to find any of those?

The fact that they sent kya letters after Flint was already out the door, don't change any of that in my view.

Like I said, there's plenty of blame for the EM and the Flint river connection was criminally mishandled.  But only a blind partisan looks at this record and only finds Republicans to blame.
Quote
If you continue to ignore or reject the information that I've provided or is out there for you to discover on your own, then your repeated claim that non-existent Democrats are to blame gets more and more transparently partisan.  For one, if Flint was offered a 30 year deal at a 48% cost reduction (which would be much cheaper than switching), what plausible reason would they have to reject it?  Your answer is because of evil Democrats who were nowhere to be seen.
The KWA pipeline was 75% of the initial Detroit costs.  The fact that after the Pipeline was almost complete, the Flint river processing plants had been built, and the DWSD had attempted to strong arm Flint with bad faith and frankly evil negotiating tactics they wouldn't agree to a 30 year deal is actually logic, not some evidence of bad faith on their own part.

Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 11, 2016, 10:33:28 AM
Thanks for providing the details backing up your argument.  I appreciate that you did that.  I'm traveling today and don't have time to dig into it until I get home, but I will review your post and references over the weekend. 
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on March 11, 2016, 10:43:17 AM
That was December 2013, not 2016.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 14, 2016, 09:08:26 AM
OK, I read your post and the letters you included:

Quote
So here is the letter of termination from the DWSD, pushing Flint well over a year and half before the scheduled completion date.  http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/michigan/files/201512/dwsd_termination_ltr.pdf?_ga=1.66617326.1973691929.1443711833

Here's the letter from Flint to the DWSD responding to Detroit's offer - two months before termination - to let them keep buying water.  http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/michigan/files/201512/earlely_letter.pdf?_ga=1.224901786.1036207224.1446746452

The termination of the agreement was in anticipation of Flint moving to KWA, not in punishment for doing so.  They had a full year to negotiate a short term extension to the DWSD agreement before the KWA pipeline came online, assuming that it would meet its schedule.  Instead they chose to drop DWSD.  Here's an article (http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/01/flint_report_says_going_back_t.html) describing the situation in January 2015 before the cutoff date given by the DWSD had been made, but after Flint switched water sources and the supply from Detroit water was cut off:

Quote
The city broke up a 50-year marriage when it stopped buying water from Detroit in 2014.

But now that there are second thoughts about the divorce, Flint's former water supplier is offering to talk about a reconciliation.

Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, an engineering contractor for the city, raised the question of reverting to buying water from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department in a Nov. 26 report to the city.

The report, which spells out possible solutions for removing a disinfection byproduct from Flint's water supply, says that a short-term water deal between the two cities is possible but would be expensive -- $4 million for a re-connection fee alone -- and a $900,000 monthly fee in addition to use charges.

The report concludes that "utilizing the DWSD for interim supply is cost-prohibitive under the terms defined by DWSD," and Jason Lorenz, a spokesman for the city of Flint, said that's also the position of emergency manager Darnell Earley.

But others are not closing the door to the possibility so quickly in light of ongoing complaints from some residents about the smell and taste of Flint water, a series of boil water advisories in 2014 and the recent issue with trihalomethanes in the water supply.

Several City Council members said at a special meeting Wednesday, Jan. 7, that they want to work out a reunion with Detroit to get Flint off river water.

DWSD spokesman Greg Eno said in an email to MLive-The Flint Journal that his agency "has not put forth any dollar amounts that would be needed in order to temporarily (or otherwise) be a supplier of water to the city.

"However, if the city of Flint would like to open a dialogue, DWSD would be more than happy to engage in those talks," the statement says.

Although Flint Mayor Dayne Walling said he doesn't believe Detroit is a part of the solution to Flint's water challenges, he said he's willing to consider any option that leads to a "safe, secure and affordable water source."

"I'm open to further dialogue and research," Walling said. "It's healthy for a community to have discussions about important issues" -- even though the two cities couldn't agree on a contract extension less than a year ago.

"I really wish we could have achieved an agreement to stay with a regional system," Walling said. "We couldn't come to terms. That wasn't possible."

A couple of things to note (highlighted).  Flint claims that the DWSD was going to gouge them, but the DWSD says they never negotiated any pricing.  Flint did not see Detroit as a long term solution, which put Detroit in a weak position of possibly having to make major changes to restore Flint water access for a very short period of time.

I'll remind you that the DWSD offered Flint a 30-year deal (http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2016/01/23/gov-snyder-lied-flint-water-switch-was-not-about-money-records-show/) to stay with Detroit water at a huge cost savings over the switch to KWA, given the cost overruns in the KWA development and the lack of confidence about the viability of that project overall.  The state opted for the likely more expensive option anyway.

Nothing in those emails supports the contention that the DWSD was trying to rip off Flint over the water switch, but are selected communications taken from a long chain that don't really establish anything other than that discussions were taking place and no decisions had been reached.

And oh-by-the-way, you still haven't shown how Democrats were involved in the making of this debacle.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on March 14, 2016, 09:38:15 AM
AI, you realize you're buying into a bizarre interpretation don't you?  You just confirmed what I said.  The DSWD cut them over a year before their new pipeline was complete.  On what earth is leaving a city the size of Flint without a fresh water source for a year and a half in "in anticipation of Flint moving to KWA, not in punishment for," leaving the water system.

After they cut them off, they demanded a $4M reconnection fee and an extra $900k per year?  That's blatant extortion.  You know we have laws against price gouging don't you.  Normally, you'd be all over a town full of poor democratic minorities being price gouging in a crisis, why not this time?

I'm not sure I understand, how you read all that and wrote what you wrote that acknowledges the facts and still manage to twist yourself up in a pretzel, maybe someone else can explain it you, you clearly don't hear what I say.  I've shown exactly how the Democrats in Detroit, on the DWSD, at the EPA and that drove Flint into the ground in the first place were involved, I'm beginning to think you can't process statements that involve Democrats and blame.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 14, 2016, 10:03:19 AM
Quote
AI, you realize you're buying into a bizarre interpretation don't you?  You just confirmed what I said.  The DSWD cut them over a year before their new pipeline was complete.  On what earth is leaving a city the size of Flint without a fresh water source for a year and a half in "in anticipation of Flint moving to KWA, not in punishment for," leaving the water system.
They didn't cut them.  Your letters say that they had a termination date, which does not preclude short-term extensions.  Those didn't go anywhere, but nothing in any of your "evidence" supports your contention that it's all the DWSD's fault.  You keep saying that every ambiguous or bit of information that leans in the direction you want somehow proves your version of history.  It's nothing like that, but if you keep digging and come up with some real evidence I'll be open to reconsidering my view.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on March 14, 2016, 10:36:59 AM
They didn't cut them.
They sent a letter of termination.  Forcing a short term solution.  True or False?
Quote
Your letters say that they had a termination date, which does not preclude short-term extensions.
And the evidence indicates they attempted to use that to force a long term recommitment and/or punitive short term rates.  True or False?
Quote
Those didn't go anywhere, but nothing in any of your "evidence" supports your contention that it's all the DWSD's fault.
Show any place that I said that it was all DWSD's fault or retract.

Show anyplace I denied that the Republicans were at fault, or retract.

I can quote where I called the EM criminally negligent.
Quote
You keep saying that every ambiguous or bit of information that leans in the direction you want somehow proves your version of history.
I linked primary sources, did you?  What was ambiguous about it?
Quote
It's nothing like that, but if you keep digging and come up with some real evidence I'll be open to reconsidering my view.
Please just retract this.  I'm absolutely convinced that there is absolutely nothing on earth that would cause you to 'reconsider your view,' that no Democrat anywhere possibly contributed in any way, and that only Republicans were involved (and I'm guessing you think they deliberately poisoned the water from your rhetoric).
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 14, 2016, 06:34:58 PM
You really need to cut down on your snipping.  I'm not going to bother responding to most of your comments, but...

Quote
They sent a letter of termination.  Forcing a short term solution.  True or False?
Negotiating?  You're familiar with that process, yes?

Quote
Show any place that I said that it was all DWSD's fault or retract.

Show anyplace I denied that the Republicans were at fault, or retract.
...
I'm absolutely convinced that there is absolutely nothing on earth that would cause you to 'reconsider your view,' that no Democrat anywhere possibly contributed in any way, and that only Republicans were involved (and I'm guessing you think they deliberately poisoned the water from your rhetoric).

What you did was attempt to make this an equal blamefest by calling in "elected Democratic officials" in Detroit and years of Democratic corruption in decades prior to this sequence of events.  So far you have failed in any way to demonstrate that either of those charges have any merit.  You don't like me bashing Republicans, and Pete doesn't even like me referring to them as the Michigan GOP, but you have not found a single Democrat that you can drag into this mess to pin any of it on.  Eventually you'll probably find one somewhere, in some irrelevant role and vindicate yourself, so keep digging, eh.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on March 14, 2016, 06:43:25 PM
I don't even know how to respond to you at this point. 
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 07:11:41 PM
Quote
They sent a letter of termination.  Forcing a short term solution.  True or False?
False, particularly with your qualifier. They agreed top a termination date and options to extend it if needed. The pro forma notice was sent when the prior date finally arrived with no extension, but it did not force a short term solution; the failure to exercise any of the extension options available forced when Flint found itself behind schedule forced the short term solution

Quote
And the evidence indicates they attempted to use that to force a long term recommitment and/or punitive short term rates.
A long term commitment or shorter extensions that were marked up as is standard to account for the cost and risks associated with investing in shorter term accommodations. If you pay for a service month to month, you're often going to pay more than if you commit to a yearly or multiyear contract. That's not punitive, that's sharing the savings that comes from the certainty and ability to spread static/structural costs across a longer period of time.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 14, 2016, 08:05:34 PM
I don't even know how to respond to you at this point.
Understandable.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on March 15, 2016, 09:22:35 AM
Quote
They sent a letter of termination.  Forcing a short term solution.  True or False?
False, particularly with your qualifier. They agreed top a termination date and options to extend it if needed. The pro forma notice was sent when the prior date finally arrived with no extension, but it did not force a short term solution; the failure to exercise any of the extension options available forced when Flint found itself behind schedule forced the short term solution
So to be clear, for those joining us late, a boy playing a music box one time in his ex-girlfriend's yard is coercion that robs her of her ability to say no to continuing a relationship, but cutting off the water to a city of 100K people as a negotiating tactic, signaling that you wouldn't negotiate an extension in good faith, actually failing to negotiate an extension in good faith (demands for long term commitment, punitive fees) wasn't coercion or even forcing that city to find a short term solution.

Only in the world of Pyrtolin I guess.
Quote
Quote
And the evidence indicates they attempted to use that to force a long term recommitment and/or punitive short term rates.
A long term commitment or shorter extensions that were marked up as is standard to account for the cost and risks associated with investing in shorter term accommodations.
Specifically - in detail - lay out the costs and risks of cutting Flint off from the water system they'd been on for decades at the time their new pipeline is ready, rather than a year and a half earlier.  Reality is no where near your side on this timeline.
Quote
If you pay for a service month to month, you're often going to pay more than if you commit to a yearly or multiyear contract. That's not punitive, that's sharing the savings that comes from the certainty and ability to spread static/structural costs across a longer period of time.
BS.  Flint was on the water system for decades.  The DWSD had been engaged in price gouging for decades.  It's not even up for debate, the DWSD was under federal emergency management specifically because of its corrupt practices. 

There is no argument that there were any costs, other than providing the water, that would have been imposed on the DWSD by not trying to blackmail  Flint.  And given their corrupt and excessive water charges there is no argument that they needed to increase the costs.

Honestly, you should look in a mirror, you're arguing in support of a water authority price gouging a city filled with poor Democratic minorities (remember that's the whole reason you guys want to sell the Republican's killed the city angle).
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on March 15, 2016, 09:23:53 AM
I don't even know how to respond to you at this point.
Understandable.
That's not a compliment.  I was actually excited when you indicated you were going to check the primary sources and come back to me, now I'm questioning whether its even possible to a have a good faith discussion with you.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 15, 2016, 09:46:56 AM
I don't even know how to respond to you at this point.
Understandable.
That's not a compliment.  I was actually excited when you indicated you were going to check the primary sources and come back to me, now I'm questioning whether its even possible to a have a good faith discussion with you.
So, let me be clear.  Your primary sources don't sway the argument in the direction you want it to go.  So far you've made claims that can't be proven or disproven (decades of Democratic control of Flint), you can't back up (elected Democrats in Detroit locked Flint out of a continuation), and linked to letters that don't prove that the DWSD cut the city off when it came begging to be reconnected.  The things you've added with your "primary sources" are at best equivocal.

I'm not trying to stonewall you, I'm continuing to ask you to back up your own claims. I've provided numerous sources that have investigated the situation who say things that are either directly in contradiction to what you insist is the case or don't advance your arguments.  I don't have investigative access, myself, so I rely on the media and legal experts who have done the legwork.  They're getting closer to the true facts despite having been blocked at almost every turn by the people who were and still are responsible for this mess.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on March 15, 2016, 11:57:18 AM
So AI, specifically, is what I flag below a failure of reading comprehension or bad faith (straw-man arguements)?  You tell me.
So far you've made claims that can't be proven or disproven (decades of Democratic control of Flint),...
From the time Flint moved to a strong mayor in 1975 they don't appear to have ever had a Republican mayor, nor can I find any evidence they ever had a majority (or substantial minority) Republican city council.  Refuted.
Quote
...you can't back up (elected Democrats in Detroit locked Flint out of a continuation),...
Bad faith, I said the DWSD was controlled by Democratic appointments - the mayor of Detroit - not that elected officials did anything.  But your logical consistency utterly fails when you're holding "Republicans" responsible for an unelected EM appointed by a Republican, while ignoring unelected DWSD members appointed by a Democrat.  I'm also fascinated to learn today, that not only was the EM at the time Early a Democrat he was a former mayor of Flint, granted who only served temporarily because the Democratic mayor he worked for was recalled by voters.

And I never said they "locked them out."   I said they sent them a notice of termination and attempted to strong all arm them into abandoning their new pipeline deal (that was already underconstruction) unethically.  All of which is clearly laid out in the record if anyone bothers to look.  So Bad Faith and Refuted.
Quote
...and linked to letters that don't prove that the DWSD cut the city off when it came begging to be reconnected.
Bad faith, I clearly cited them to refute your arguments about the "great deal" Flint had ignored from the DWSD.  And I clearly showed that the DWSD deliberately terminated the water over a year and a half prior to Flint having another source of fresh water.  Unconscionable blackmail, even in your world if the DWSD was controlled by Republicans.  That they did that after impoverished Flint had already started spending on the new pipeline.  That they "offered" Flint reconnection if they agreed to long term contracts and/or unconscionable and unnecessary fees, and even then waited until Flint had again incurred substantial costs in building a completely unnecessary plant to process Flint river water to meet their short term needs.  Refuted.
Quote
The things you've added with your "primary sources" are at best equivocal.
Not equivocal at all, and still better than everything you've actually put forward.
Quote
I'm not trying to stonewall you, I'm continuing to ask you to back up your own claims. I've provided numerous sources that have investigated the situation who say things that are either directly in contradiction to what you insist is the case or don't advance your arguments.  I don't have investigative access, myself, so I rely on the media and legal experts who have done the legwork.
You just have to have a brain.  There is absolutely no secret about who ran Flint and Detroit into the ground.
Quote
So, let me be clear.  Your primary sources don't sway the argument in the direction you want it to go.
The truth doesn't sway you.  I agree, that's exactly my point about you arguing in bad faith.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 15, 2016, 12:53:31 PM
Quote
From the time Flint moved to a strong mayor in 1975 they don't appear to have ever had a Republican mayor, nor can I find any evidence they ever had a majority (or substantial minority) Republican city council.  Refuted.
Not refuted: IRRELEVANT.

Quote
Bad faith, I said the DWSD was controlled by Democratic appointments - the mayor of Detroit - not that elected officials did anything.
So, it's therefore irrelevant what happened over those past decades, especially since the DWSD was not under the control of the Mayor.  I posted the professional backgrounds of all of the 7 members of the DWSD board.  They're mostly engineers with broad and deep experience, the others are community leaders with an orientation toward the welfare of their community.  WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHO APPOINTED THEM?

Quote
Bad faith, I clearly cited them to refute your arguments about the "great deal" Flint had ignored from the DWSD.  And I clearly showed that the DWSD deliberately terminated the water over a year and a half prior to Flint having another source of fresh water.
I'll say for the last time (as Pyrtolin also pointed out), that was a "positioning" exchange, not a final determination of anything.  It's not clear from the article I cited back to you that any offer was actually made by the DWSD or rejected by Flint.  Why do you not want to understand that?

Quote
You just have to have a brain.  There is absolutely no secret about who ran Flint and Detroit into the ground.
Which has NOTHING to do with Flint changing water systems or failing to ensure the safety of the operations during the sequence of events!

If Flint had added the necessary chemicals to the Flint River water none of this would be a discussion topic.  Then the history of Democratic politics and Administration would have nothing to do with the crisis.  I absolutely fail to see how the EM and DEQ and Governor's office *censored*ing this up suddenly brings all that no doubt fascinating history into the picture.

Sorry if you don't think I'm arguing in good faith.  For my part I think you're just plain being stubborn in order to spread or deflect responsibility for what happened. I'm not buying it.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 15, 2016, 03:35:10 PM
Quote
So to be clear, for those joining us late, a boy playing a music box one time in his ex-girlfriend's yard is coercion that robs her of her ability to say no to continuing a relationship,
Is a creepy form of stalking that shows an utter disregard for he expressed wishes and encourages the notion that it's okay to ignore what others say they want and instead harass them until they give in to what you think they should want.

Quote
but cutting off the water to a city of 100K people as a negotiating tactic,
No, it's following a prearranged agreement in accordance to previously stated wishes of the other party.

Quote
signaling that you wouldn't negotiate an extension in good faith, actually failing to negotiate an extension in good faith (demands for long term commitment, punitive fees) wasn't coercion or even forcing that city to find a short term solution.
Because the other party did not exercise good faith offers to ask for an extension under the terms that they had previously negotiated that they would if they needed more time.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 15, 2016, 03:40:40 PM
Quote
From the time Flint moved to a strong mayor in 1975 they don't appear to have ever had a Republican mayor, nor can I find any evidence they ever had a majority (or substantial minority) Republican city council.  Refuted.
Was FLint in a strong economic position at this point, or had it already been mismanaged into a hole.

Democrats tend to be in charge in failing cities because they take over _after_ mismanagement has run them into a hole, and they're the only ones willing to try to pull them out when there's no money left to be squeezed out by private interests.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on March 15, 2016, 04:38:57 PM
Quote
From the time Flint moved to a strong mayor in 1975 they don't appear to have ever had a Republican mayor, nor can I find any evidence they ever had a majority (or substantial minority) Republican city council.  Refuted.
Not refuted: IRRELEVANT.
Sigh.  You claimed I didn't and couldn't show decades of Democratic control of Flint, to which I showed 40 years of single party Democratic control and your response is that it's irrelevant?  Seriously?   Where did you learn to debate, in the school of, "nuh uh"?

And Pyrtolin, if you want to argue about the make up of the council more than 40 years ago maybe you should do a little bit of research and relate your findings.
Quote
Quote
Bad faith, I said the DWSD was controlled by Democratic appointments - the mayor of Detroit - not that elected officials did anything.
So, it's therefore irrelevant what happened over those past decades, especially since the DWSD was not under the control of the Mayor.  I posted the professional backgrounds of all of the 7 members of the DWSD board.  They're mostly engineers with broad and deep experience, the others are community leaders with an orientation toward the welfare of their community.  WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHO APPOINTED THEM?
Since your entire argument for why Republicans are to blame is based on an appointment, don't you get how your outrage undermines your argument?

In any event, your citation to professional qualifications is misplaced.  No one has honestly asserted that the Flint termination occurred when it did because of technical or engineering reasons.  It was always nothing but political hardball, for which I'm not aware a degree in Engineering has relevance.
Quote
I'll say for the last time (as Pyrtolin also pointed out), that was a "positioning" exchange, not a final determination of anything.
Not clear why you said it the first time, since it doesn't refute in any way my claim that it was coercion and an illegitimate negotiation tactic.  It's absolutely laughable that you're going to bat for the power of a corrupt water authority to threaten a poor community with the termination of their water supply, if the poor community doesn't cave to their punitive demands. 

There's a bunch you could be right about on this issue, this is not part of it, and your absolutely inability to make any concession, even when you're clearly in the wrong, just further demonstrates that this is nothing but partisan posturing on your part.
Quote
It's not clear from the article I cited back to you that any offer was actually made by the DWSD or rejected by Flint.  Why do you not want to understand that?
And?  What is clear is that the DWSD terminated Flint's water spitefully as a negotiating tactic.

And Pyrtolin, the fact that the termination was done is accordance with the agreement has no real bearing on why it occurred.  It didn't occur for any legitimate purpose.
Quote
Quote
You just have to have a brain.  There is absolutely no secret about who ran Flint and Detroit into the ground.
Which has NOTHING to do with Flint changing water systems or failing to ensure the safety of the operations during the sequence of events!
It actually has a lot to do with Flint changing water systems.  Flint was stuck for decades paying excessive fees to the corrupt DWSD.  A community on the rocks getting the shaft when they should have been protected.  Sure it wasn't the only fiscal mismanagement its Democratic officials participated in, but it was part.

You are correct about one thing!  It has nothing to do with the duty to ensure the safety of the water supply.  That seems to have boiled down to one single decision not to add an additive to the processed river water.  Who made that one decision?  Do you even know?  Was it even a decision?  The additive was called for in the plan.
Quote
If Flint had added the necessary chemicals to the Flint River water none of this would be a discussion topic.  Then the history of Democratic politics and Administration would have nothing to do with the crisis.
Well we wouldn't be talking about it in this way.  If we talked about it at all, it would be the same way we've been talking about Detroit.  You know as evidence of what the implementation of the policies favored by the left does to a community over time (drive it into the dirt).
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 15, 2016, 04:49:28 PM
Quote
Sigh.  You claimed I didn't and couldn't show decades of Democratic control of Flint, to which I showed 40 years of single party Democratic control and your response is that it's irrelevant?  Seriously?   Where did you learn to debate, in the school of, "nuh uh"?
No, I said it had no relevance, none, zippo, nada.

Quote
Since your entire argument for why Republicans are to blame is based on an appointment, don't you get how your outrage undermines your argument?
<<Face-palm!>> One more time, NO RELEVANCE, nico, zapata, nuh-unn!

You're obsessed with dastardly Democrats reaching out from the grave to cause a crisis that was actually caused by a massively, Yugely series of incredibly unfortunate, consequential and even mendacious decisions made by -- wait for it -- the people in charge -- keep waiting, it's coming soon -- put in place to manage the city over the past three years -- here it COMES --------- the current Republican Administration, officials in the Executive's DEQ and the Emergency Manager he appointed, while hapless helpless hopeless people of the city of Flint were poisoned and ignored.  Thank God the state workers and GM employees knew about this before the residents were told and were able to save themselves with bottled water before the state did anything about it!

I think we're done here. 
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 15, 2016, 05:14:29 PM
Quote
It's absolutely laughable that you're going to bat for the power of a corrupt water authority to threaten a poor community with the termination of their water supply, if the poor community doesn't cave to their punitive demands. 
If you ask me to turn the lights out at 5pm unless you say otherwise, and then a call you at 4:55 saying I'll be shutting the lights out like you asked and you say "Okay, go ahead" then it's really hard to pin any coercion on me for letting you know I'd be doing exactly what I'd agreed to do earlier.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 23, 2016, 02:12:43 PM
The state commission Governor Snyder appointed to analyze the Flint water crisis issued its report (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-michigan-water-idUSKCN0WP25I?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews):

Quote
A task force appointed by Michigan’s governor said on Wednesday state officials showed stubbornness, lack of preparation, delay and inaction in failing to prevent a health crisis in the city of Flint caused by lead contamination in the drinking water.

There were failures on all levels of government, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a report from the task force said. However, the report highlighted failures of state agencies, especially the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has been criticized for the state's poor handling of a crisis that garnered national headlines.

"It was a mixture of ignorance, incompetence and arrogance by many decision makers that created the toxic and tragic situation," Chris Kolb, task force co-chair and president of the Michigan Environmental Council, a coalition of non-profit groups, said at a press conference in Flint.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: D.W. on March 23, 2016, 02:31:03 PM
That condemnation has all the sternness of an on stage spanking by a stripper at a bachelor party...  :(
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on March 23, 2016, 03:26:55 PM
I think the report is a little tougher than you might think if you haven't read it yet (I'm only part way through, but they are not holding back on some important findings):

Quote
We cannot begin to explain and learn from these events — our charge without also highlighting that the framework for this decision-making was Michigan’s Emergency Manager Law. This law replaces the decision - making authority of locally elected officials with that of a state - appointed emergency manager. While one must acknowledge that emergency management is a mechanism to address severe financial distress, it is important to emphasize that the role of the emergency manager in Flint places accountability for what happened with state government.

They were not pleased.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Wayward Son on April 09, 2016, 11:51:04 AM
700 days of the House Republican's Benghazi Committee just passed. (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-benghazi-committee-just-keeps-going-and-going)  $6.5 million spent.  The 8th in a series of investigations of Benghazi.  Anyone care to list what they've discovered that the previous investigations didn't? :)

But, fortunately, even though this has dragged on for almost 2 years, the end is in sight.  They know that they will have all the info they need just before the election. Coincidently. :)

What a complete farce...
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on June 04, 2016, 08:20:54 AM
It may be a "complete farce" but it won't be a "completed farce" until the Gowdy committee report is issued.  Among those who have drawn comparisons between what happened at Benghazi and Watergate are John McCain, Rep. Mike Pompeo, Rep. Darrell Issa, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Newt ("the Newt") Gingrich, Rush ("how low can you limbo") Limbaugh, Rep. Steve King, Mike ("Huckster") Huckabee, Lindsey Graham, Rep. Steve Stockman, Pat ("the white man's white man") Buchanan, Rep. Louie Gohmert, Sen. Jim Inhofe, Charles Krauthammer, every pundit at FOX, as well as everybody at the Daily Caller, NewsMax, CNN and every other ultra-conservative hate group masquerading as a news organization.  Here's a pre-review (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/opinion/the-benghazi-committees-dead-end.html?emc=edit_th_20160604&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=869778&_r=0):

Quote
The Benghazi committee, which was set up in May 2014, has been operational for longer than the 9/11 Commission was. It has dragged on longer than congressional investigations into the attack on Pearl Harbor, the assassination of President Kennedy, Watergate, the Iran-contra scandal, the 1983 bombing that killed 241 American service members in Beirut and the response to Hurricane Katrina.

The committee has spent nearly $7 million looking into an incident that had already been the subject of an independent investigation commissioned by the State Department and nine reports issued by seven other congressional committees. Those reviews faulted the federal government for failing to provide proper security for the American ambassador in Libya and three of his colleagues who were killed, but found no evidence of a cover-up or gross negligence by Mrs. Clinton.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 04, 2016, 06:15:13 PM
So did we ever find out what President Obama was doing while all this was happening? What orders did he give?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: TheDeamon on June 04, 2016, 07:28:08 PM
\But, fortunately, even though this has dragged on for almost 2 years, the end is in sight.  They know that they will have all the info they need just before the election. Coincidently. :)

Or more aptly, the Obama Admin will data dump on them the day before the election, and they won't have a chance to sift through it until after the election, so whatever they're given won't matter because Lame Duck. The Obama Admin has taken slow walking inconvenient information to heights other admins could only dream of.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on June 05, 2016, 03:59:33 AM
So did we ever find out what President Obama was doing while all this was happening? What orders did he give?
Why don't we have an investigation to find out?  Another Congressional Committee certainly won't help, or at least one of the eight that have been conducted would have found this out already.  Instead of relying on yet more lying White House, Pentagon or State Department personnel, this time let's go to the people who really know what goes on, the right wing Obamaphobic blogosphere. They know the real truth about Obama's past life and future objectives for America, and have STUNNING BOMBSHELL proof that he was born in Kenya, was a drug dealer in Chicago, never went to Columbia or Harvard, has a plan to declare martial law and strip all Americans of their guns, and is a Muslim mole whose secret mission is to deliver the country to his Caliphate masters.  Thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 05, 2016, 09:25:41 AM
Why do we need an investigation?

Why can't he just tell us?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: TheDeamon on June 05, 2016, 01:31:09 PM
Why can't he just tell us?

Because the "right" would likely eat him alive(proverbially speaking) if they found out?

It's the only answer that makes sense at this point.

Otherwise it would have been used already as fodder to mock the Republicans for making a big deal about it.

That isn't to say anything he may or may not have been doing was illegal, just potentially questionable on a number of other grounds.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on June 05, 2016, 04:11:04 PM
Anything he would say would be questioned and used accusingly.  Lyndon Johnson once said that if he walked on water across the Potomac Republicans would say that all it meant was that it proved that he couldn't swim.  What does Obama have to gain by talking to Republicans and providing fodder for the right wing gossip and scandal factory?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 06, 2016, 12:17:26 AM
Why does everything have to be about what he has to gain or lose with this guy?

And how is that even any kind of defense for him not telling us something as simple as what he was doing during the Benghazi attack?

Am I mistaken or isn't he the one who said something or other about transparency?

Is this transparency?

I mean, we know what Bush was doing during 9-11, right? Reading My Pet Goat. And Cheney was hiding in a bunker. Nothing heroic there but we still know anyway.

And it also doesn't make sense that he won't tell the American people the truth because the Republicans won't believe him. So what? Why can't he tell the Democrats who will believe him? Do they, tens of millions of them if not over a hundred million, all unanimously insist that he not? No Democrats at all want to know what decisions he made and what orders he gave? How does that make any sense?

But my main point is all of this about how we know everything about anything having to do with Benghazi is quite a load of rubbish when we don't even have any idea whatsoever what the President was doing during those thirteen long hours.

That was the proverbial 3 am phone call. So what was the answer?

Was there even an answer?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: TheDeamon on June 06, 2016, 01:34:41 AM
He was tied up at the time.... Literally.  8)
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on June 06, 2016, 11:36:18 AM
I imagine Obama was doing whatever was on his schedule plus periodic updates on the situation as it developed. Any decision that could be made at his level had already been made in the previous weeks and months. If the US military needs signed orders from the President to respond to an attack on a minor diplomatic post, it's a sad organization indeed. This wasn't 9/11 where the nation was subject to an attack at home of unknown scale and complexity.  Sure the buck stops in the Oval Office but competent subordinates shouldn't pass it that far up.

Quote
Or more aptly, the Obama Admin will data dump on them the day before the election, and they won't have a chance to sift through it until after the election, so whatever they're given won't matter because Lame Duck. The Obama Admin has taken slow walking inconvenient information to heights other admins could only dream of.
Or at some time when its convenient to suck all the air out of the right-wing echo chamber for a few days. The splash and froth will quite drown out actual news for a while and whatever spurious nonsense the right manufactures will encourage people to tune them out.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Wayward Son on June 06, 2016, 01:48:38 PM
\But, fortunately, even though this has dragged on for almost 2 years, the end is in sight.  They know that they will have all the info they need just before the election. Coincidently. :)

Or more aptly, the Obama Admin will data dump on them the day before the election, and they won't have a chance to sift through it until after the election, so whatever they're given won't matter because Lame Duck. The Obama Admin has taken slow walking inconvenient information to heights other admins could only dream of.

Sorry, Deamon, but that's not according to the timetable.  They aren't going to wait until the day before the election.  They will have all the information they need for a report just a few weeks before the election, regardless of what info the Obama Admin does or doesn't give them.

They aren't waiting for info.  They already know when they are going to finish.  And you can't do that unless you either have all the info you need, or have decided to come to a conclusion regardless of how much info you have.  This isn't that type of investigation. ;)
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on June 06, 2016, 02:13:10 PM
Quote
Why does everything have to be about what he has to gain or lose with this guy?
That is one of the most un-self-aware and naive comments I've ever heard.  Or do you think that Hannity (among many other rightwing tongue-twisters) will listen to what he says and say "Yes, I understand now"?

Quote
That was the proverbial 3 am phone call. So what was the answer?

Was there even an answer?
Why does it matter?  No matter how hard the Republicans in Congress scrape the bottom of the barrel looking for dirt, there isn't any.  It wouldn't matter a bit whatever Obama did or didn't say.  At long last, it's time for you to take your spoon and go dig somewhere else.

Alternatively, what NH said.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on June 06, 2016, 02:30:13 PM
No matter how hard the Republicans in Congress scrape the bottom of the barrel looking for dirt, there isn't any.  It wouldn't matter a bit whatever Obama did or didn't say.  At long last, it's time for you to take your spoon and go dig somewhere else.

You wouldn't find dirt at a top soil farm if Obama owned it.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Wayward Son on June 06, 2016, 02:32:13 PM
Conversely, the Right Wing Media will tell you there is a pile of dirt ten feet high in silicon chip manufacturing room if they thought it would slander Obama. :)
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on June 06, 2016, 03:07:38 PM
Not sure what the Right Wing Media is, but that is definitely true about Right Wing politicians.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on June 06, 2016, 04:13:35 PM
Quote
You wouldn't find dirt at a top soil farm if Obama owned it.
I like this one :).  I might find dirt, but not pig *censored*.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on June 06, 2016, 06:31:17 PM
Not sure what the Right Wing Media is, but that is definitely true about Right Wing politicians.
Some examples: CNS, WND, FOX, NewsMax, National Review, Townhall, the Blaze,  Breitbart, Drudge, Washington Times, Washington Examiner, the Political Insider, Infowars....to name a few, only a few.  They all agree that she lied and (I didn't check but am confident that) she should go to jail for the email server messup.  If they hit on Vince Foster searches, it's a trifecta right, righter, rightest.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 06, 2016, 08:09:58 PM

NobleHunter

"I imagine Obama was doing whatever was on his schedule plus periodic updates on the situation as it developed. Any decision that could be made at his level had already been made in the previous weeks and months."

So in other words, he did nothing. He kept himself informed, if that, but issued no orders, stand down or otherwise. How well did he sleep that night? By his peppy performance at a fund raiser the next day it seemed like he didn't lose much if any sleep over it.

Is that embarrassing enough to never admit it's exactly what happened?

Apparently.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on June 06, 2016, 08:41:15 PM

NobleHunter

"I imagine Obama was doing whatever was on his schedule plus periodic updates on the situation as it developed. Any decision that could be made at his level had already been made in the previous weeks and months."

So in other words, he did nothing. He kept himself informed, if that, but issued no orders, stand down or otherwise. How well did he sleep that night? By his peppy performance at a fund raiser the next day it seemed like he didn't lose much if any sleep over it.

Is that embarrassing enough to never admit it's exactly what happened?

Apparently.
If he picked his cabinet secretaries and generals well, he wouldn't have needed to do anything, would he?  Can you imagine General Don telling the head of the air force which planes to deploy and where :) ?  He knows *nothing* about the military, having dodged service when he had the chance and only knows anything about foreign affairs through those he had with beauty pageant contestants.  He's said openly that he would let the generals generalate and you really, really want him to be President, so what's your problem?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on June 06, 2016, 08:50:20 PM

NobleHunter

"I imagine Obama was doing whatever was on his schedule plus periodic updates on the situation as it developed. Any decision that could be made at his level had already been made in the previous weeks and months."

So in other words, he did nothing. He kept himself informed, if that, but issued no orders, stand down or otherwise. How well did he sleep that night? By his peppy performance at a fund raiser the next day it seemed like he didn't lose much if any sleep over it.

Is that embarrassing enough to never admit it's exactly what happened?

Apparently.
What would you want him to do?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 06, 2016, 09:17:51 PM
As to what he should have done, it's much easier to say in retrospect of course and there's no telling if that could have made things even worse with massive American firepower such as gunships mistakenly attacking the Libyans who were trying to help us during the attack. Who can say for certain what the right course of action was? He should just tell us what he did and why he did it or what he didn't do and why he didn't do it. The American people deserve to know and it is his duty to keep us informed.

The point is having accountability, transparency, and where the buck stops. But all we get from this guy is finger pointing, coverups, slow walking, stonewalling, and / or silence. It's sickening and pathetic and the man is entirely unfit to be President, an abject failure and embarrassment by just about every measure. This is just one more sad example among many and the apologies along with the rationalizations for his actions and in this case inaction amount to little more than miserable attempts at water carrying with sieve bottomed leaky buckets.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on June 06, 2016, 10:18:36 PM
The buck, as it were, is one of the most investigated items in American history. If you'd paid attention to any of the investigations you'd know that the screws ups which lead to the attacks were already baked in by the time the attack started. Forgive me if the continual insistence for new information looks more like petty-minded fault-finding than a genuine interest in the truth.

AI, he's also said his staff is stupid. So maybe he won't be picking his generals based on their intelligence.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on June 07, 2016, 06:55:48 AM
Damn, NH keeps repeating what I say before I even say it.  Cherry, OTOH, keeps repeating himself in response to whatever either NH or I say. 

If it turns out that what Obama said was captured on tape (I'm old, so I say "tape") and it was played back on FOX and he began by saying "...hmmm..." they would condemn him for hesitating while lives were in jeopardy.  If he continued by saying "...what is the situation on the ground now...?" they would destroy him for being out of touch.  If he then said "...what does the general in charge think should be done..." they would vilify him for shoving the responsibility onto someone else.  And if he then said "...this situation is too chaotic, call me back as soon as you have more information..." they would say he's not paid to go back to sleep while his Ambassadors are being burned alive and call for his impeachment.

But if his words on the tape instead of all that were: "Oh my God!  Deploy every available resource in the area!  We must save these brave Americans!"  FOX would say first he calls out to Allah and then foolishly throws precious resources into the situation randomly without consulting his generals or knowing the facts of what was happening.

Damn you, Obama!  Damn you!
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on June 07, 2016, 09:32:57 AM
It would also encourage the worst kind of executive meddling. It is not good for leaders to do something only for the sake of being seen to do something.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on June 07, 2016, 09:50:03 AM
You may think Cherry is the one being unreasonable, but you guys are pretty far down the rabbit hole.  You're actually arguing that we should have a crisis room (which we did), responding to an emergent situation (which it was), where immediate military action is on the table (which it was), and the President should go about his daily routine.  This isn't complex.  If he wasn't in the room, he should have been getting status updates and been ready to make decisions.  He could easily express that he was monitoring the situation but staying out of the way of the experts if that was what he was actually doing.

I think too, if you ever even implied criticism for Bush finishing the story for the kids on 9/11, you have to take a serious look at yourself after making the statements you did.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on June 07, 2016, 10:39:50 AM
Quote
I imagine Obama was doing whatever was on his schedule plus periodic updates on the situation as it developed.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Wayward Son on June 07, 2016, 11:26:37 AM
I think too, if you ever even implied criticism for Bush finishing the story for the kids on 9/11, you have to take a serious look at yourself after making the statements you did.

That's a fair point, Seriati.  Bush trusted his staff enough to handle a surprise attack on U.S. soil by an unknown number of agents in an unknown number of places without panicking, trusting them to take appropriate action and immediately inform him if there was a crucial decision that needed to be made.  So reading a book about a goat to children was a reasonable action to take, with those assumptions.

Of course, that would mean that, conversely, anyone who criticizes Obama for not trusting his staff to handle a surprise attack on a small U.S. embassy in Libya, trusting them to take appropriate action and immediately inform him if there was a crucial decision that needed to be made, should also take a serious look at themselves if they defended Bush, even implicitly, for his inaction in a far worse and far less certain situation.  In fact, I would say that anyone who criticizes Obama more than Bush for a far less serious situation should hide his head in shame for his blatant partisan hypocrisy, wouldn't you?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Fenring on June 07, 2016, 11:37:10 AM
In fact, I would say that anyone who criticizes Obama more than Bush for a far less serious situation should hide his head in shame for his blatant partisan hypocrisy, wouldn't you?

Too be fair, it's pretty hard to defend Bush in that instance :p
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on June 07, 2016, 11:46:30 AM
Sure, say if you want Wayward.  Hope you aren't implying that I did that though.  I have never leveled a single criticism of the decisions President Obama made with respect to the embassy attack in real time.  I have repeatedly criticized the lies his administration unnecessarily told afterwards.

This more in the vein of that second idea.  There is no reason we shouldn't know what he was doing.  If Bush had covered up that he finished reading the story, and kept it an unexplained mystery where he was at the time, I'd find that just as inappropriate.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on June 07, 2016, 12:37:51 PM
Wouldn't have worked, first graders are notorious blabbermouths and can't keep a secret.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: TheDeamon on June 07, 2016, 01:03:13 PM
In fact, I would say that anyone who criticizes Obama more than Bush for a far less serious situation should hide his head in shame for his blatant partisan hypocrisy, wouldn't you?

Too be fair, it's pretty hard to defend Bush in that instance :p

Not really, it was widely thought to possibly be a freak(/strange) accident when the first one happened. Which is where he continued "reading" the book, once the second one was hit, they knew that wasn't the case, we get a quick statement and then he's whisked off by the Secret Service to board Air Force One bound for a safe location of his own.

Meanwhile in the Obama case, once they knew the Diplomatic facility was being overwhelmed by a persistent attack, it wasn't likely to be an accident(as accidental organized attacks don't exist, just mistaken targets) or a flash riot. I think it was safe to assume that the situation wasn't one where they thought the crowd believed themselves to be attacking someone or something other than a facility operated by the United States.

The other thing is 9/11 was a domestic event, and the existing organizations had the developing situation largely in hand(as much as was possible given the footing they started off on) without need for highest level involvement. There also are legal firewalls in place to place restrictions and limitations on what form and how quickly a high level federal intervention can occur in the first place. (Something Bush later got hammered for during Katrina, because the local political idiots weren't doing their part to allow the Feds to get involved directly in a more timely manner, because hey there are legal firewalls preventing their involvement until invited)

While back in Obamaland with Benghazi, there was a very short chain involved, all of it Federal, all of it directly answerable to Obama. Also of note is that the event itself was historically significant in its own right, it wasn't like what happened there was anything even remotely close to being a "routine occurrence" and thus something that requires little to no attention from the President himself as HE was the only common point in the respective chain of commands between where the problem was, what the possible (outside) solutions were, and where the authority lay for authorizing most of the options that could have possibly been exercised. If he did delegate most of that authority away, we have other issues to be concerned about.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on June 07, 2016, 01:46:20 PM
I fail to see how a domestic attack of unknown scope and magnitude warrants less executive attention than an attack on a minor diplomatic post that didn't even have american troops guarding it.

If Obama's actions or inaction was a problem, why have none of the reports mentioned it?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: D.W. on June 07, 2016, 02:08:43 PM
I fail to see how the president should have said, "Holy *censored* kids we're under attack!  I got to go!"
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Wayward Son on June 07, 2016, 03:37:54 PM
Sure, say if you want Wayward.  Hope you aren't implying that I did that though.  I have never leveled a single criticism of the decisions President Obama made with respect to the embassy attack in real time.  I have repeatedly criticized the lies his administration unnecessarily told afterwards.

This more in the vein of that second idea.  There is no reason we shouldn't know what he was doing.  If Bush had covered up that he finished reading the story, and kept it an unexplained mystery where he was at the time, I'd find that just as inappropriate.

Just to be clear, I did not imply that anyone has defended Bush for not responding more quickly to 9/11 or attacked Obama for not responding appropriately, either.  (Mainly because I don't keep track of such things. :))  I leave it to each individual to recall what they did or did not do in the past.

And while it could be interesting to find out what Obama was doing during the attack, I don't think it is germane.  IIRC, it occurred during the night in Washington, D.C., so the most likely activity Obama was doing was snoring. :)  If anything required his attention, he was available to be waken.  And while it is nice to imagine that certain military and diplomatic decisions and actions would require his personal attention, I find it hard to believe that anything that was truly necessary could not have been accomplished without him.  After all, do you really think that a military transport would have to wait until he finished a speech or got off the potty? ;)  The government runs better than that.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: TheDeamon on June 07, 2016, 04:57:55 PM
And while it is nice to imagine that certain military and diplomatic decisions and actions would require his personal attention, I find it hard to believe that anything that was truly necessary could not have been accomplished without him.  After all, do you really think that a military transport would have to wait until he finished a speech or got off the potty? ;)  The government runs better than that.

"Damn the torpedos, and full speed ahead." Comes to mind as a solution path that would be best left to the President. In other words, use of an armed intervention force without waiting for proper diplomatic clearances from the host nation prior to going in. Something which from what I recall hearing, would have been within our rights to do in that particular case, while it isn't the preferred solution path, it is valid one that can be used. Diplomatic facilities are crazy things that way.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Wayward Son on June 07, 2016, 05:31:10 PM
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" is a solution that would require the President's approval, but not one that would originate with him, I would hope.  That is a decision that would require someone who is intimately knowledgeable of the full situation.

One shouldn't use an extreme solution until you know that all other solutions won't work.  And a President in Washington ain't gonna know if or when we reached that point. ;)
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on June 07, 2016, 06:52:02 PM
One shouldn't use an extreme solution until you know that all other solutions won't work.  And a President in Washington ain't gonna know if or when we reached that point. ;)
Well certainly not if he's taking a nap instead of being in the situation room.

Not clear to me why we're getting bogged down though in the  particulars.  This is really a simpler question than that.  Do you believe that we have a right to know where a President is or not during a crisis?  Do you believe that is a question they are obligated to answer?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on June 07, 2016, 07:18:34 PM
Quote
Well certainly not if he's taking a nap instead of being in the situation room.
That begs the question why he was napping at 3AM.  Perhaps because he is President 24/7 except for minimal times when he is "indisposed".
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: TheDeamon on June 08, 2016, 01:09:10 AM
Quote
Well certainly not if he's taking a nap instead of being in the situation room.
That begs the question why he was napping at 3AM.  Perhaps because he is President 24/7 except for minimal times when he is "indisposed".

Well, he certainly made time for (White House photographer) photo ops during the Osama Bin Laden raid. But that is admittedly tangential, particularly as that was an operation involving troops being somewhere they weren't supposed to be, and very close to a large military facility belonging to said country playing unknowing host to them. With it as an event that was scheduled to better fit his (daily presidential) time table as well, no doubt.

So the issue with the Benghazi event was that the terrorists didn't consult with Obama's scheduler beforehand.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Wayward Son on June 08, 2016, 11:14:35 AM
One shouldn't use an extreme solution until you know that all other solutions won't work.  And a President in Washington ain't gonna know if or when we reached that point. ;)
Well certainly not if he's taking a nap instead of being in the situation room.

Not clear to me why we're getting bogged down though in the  particulars.  This is really a simpler question than that.  Do you believe that we have a right to know where a President is or not during a crisis?  Do you believe that is a question they are obligated to answer?

Yes, you do have a right to know.

Here's your answer. (http://askedandanswered-democrats.benghazi.house.gov/question.php?q_id=13)

Quote
The President was in the White House in Washington D.C. on the night of the attacks. Senior officials, including the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have testified that they personally informed the President about the attacks, and the President immediately ordered the military to deploy all available assets to protect American lives. Military leaders report that the President was “well informed” and his staff was “in constant touch” with the Pentagon, which “is the way it would normally work.”

But, of course, that's not enough for you, is it?  Just like his birth certificate: he provides an answer, and the opposition wants more.  And more.  Never satisfied, always questioning.  And blaming him for not providing enough info.

Was he awake the entire time?  Probably not.  If he was needed, he was eminently available.  He didn't micromanage the response.  He didn't have the expertise.  But he had people who did who were working on it.

Why do you need to know more?  Why do you need to know whether he was sleeping or pacing the situation room?  He did what he could, and was available to do more if needed.  He apparently handled it responsibly.  Why do you need to find something that shows he didn't?

Why are you so intent on finding fault with the man?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on June 08, 2016, 03:22:21 PM
What exactly do you think that says?  Honestly, that could mean anything from they texted him that a situation was going on, and he texted back, u deal with it aysf, to he sat in the next room working on other things all night while people popped back and forth.  We already know that Hillary was in the room (ie his staff was in constant touch).
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Wayward Son on June 08, 2016, 03:27:29 PM
It says he was at the White House.  It says he was informed of the situation.  It says he was available for consultation and decisions if necessary (since they knew where he was and could talk to him).

What more do you need to know?

And why do you need to know it?  What are you looking for?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on June 08, 2016, 04:10:53 PM
Wayward, this is an extension of the police video situation.  Any Democratic President needs a camera and mic focused on him 24/7, even in the bathroom.  For all we know he could be talking to his Muslim handlers when he's in there.  On the Republican President side, that level of observation won't be necessary, as we only have to make sure Trump doesn't say what he's thinking.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Fenring on June 08, 2016, 04:26:05 PM
Wayward, this is an extension of the police video situation.  Any Democratic President needs a camera and mic focused on him 24/7, even in the bathroom.

Funny enough, this is precisely what Frank Herbert suggests in Chapterhouse: Dune, as the only way to ensure the proper oversight over a government head. In that book such a person is constantly observed by a committee, which in turn is elected. His basic position is obviously that democracy is by its nature a system built on equal parts mutual cooperation and distrust, and that the moment trust (i.e. lack of oversight) becomes systemic the entire system rots from the inside out. This is, as far as I can tell, quite close to how the Founders (not the DS9 Founders) felt about it as well.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on June 09, 2016, 04:12:32 PM
Quote
Well, he certainly made time for (White House photographer) photo ops during the Osama Bin Laden raid.
You see a planned assault by us and a sudden and unanticipated chaotic attack against us as somehow comparable from an operational perspective?  We will need a fleet of Presirazzi to keep up with all the potential media events.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: TheDeamon on June 09, 2016, 05:48:18 PM
Quote
Well, he certainly made time for (White House photographer) photo ops during the Osama Bin Laden raid.
You see a planned assault by us and a sudden and unanticipated chaotic attack against us as somehow comparable from an operational perspective?  We will need a fleet of Presirazzi to keep up with all the potential media events.

Not really, three people(8*3=24) would normally be sufficient to give the 1st Family sufficient coverage, particularly when everyone is @home in the White House. Now when they split up, that becomes a different proposition, but as their main tasking is the President...

You also ignore that there actually IS a "White House Photography Office" and even a "Chief Whitehouse Photographer" which implies that there is a team of photographers working out of that office, and probably a few more than just 2 or three.

..and going by:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/26/open-questions-pete-souza-white-house-photography

Quote
Chief Official White House Photographer and Director of the White House Photography Office, has access unlike any other. Camera in tow, Souza travels alongside President Obama to visually document each meeting, trip and encounter for historical record.

And historically, the White House Photographers have a LOT of access, and a lot of very candid and unscheduled pictures get taken, many of which take decades to see the public light of day, but they're out there.  With the advent of high quality digital cameras, I can only imagine the picture count has probably increased, as film isn't an ongoing expense anymore.

"Because of history" I was given the distinct impression that they do take great strides to make sure that there is a photographer on site virtually 24/7 wherever the President may be, exactly for the above quoted reason. Being the PotUS, and that events have a history of not happening on a set time schedule, they never know when a "critical historical event" is going to happen that they may want to photograph for posterity. Of course, due to the level of access given them, the PotUS & their respective Presidential Libraries as is the trend these days, ultimately is the one with release/approval authority of any such images.

Which is why it circles back to "this was the first time in decades that a US Diplomatic 'facility' had been attacked in such a manner" while the Ambassador was present, and Obama couldn't be bothered enough to even get the photographer involved on his end?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on June 09, 2016, 07:23:17 PM
Quote
Which is why it circles back to "this was the first time in decades that a US Diplomatic 'facility' had been attacked in such a manner" while the Ambassador was present, and Obama couldn't be bothered enough to even get the photographer involved on his end?
Or nothing happened that made for a good picture.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: TheDeamon on June 09, 2016, 07:28:37 PM
Quote
Which is why it circles back to "this was the first time in decades that a US Diplomatic 'facility' had been attacked in such a manner" while the Ambassador was present, and Obama couldn't be bothered enough to even get the photographer involved on his end?
Or nothing happened that made for a good picture.

Uh, the number of "Presidential Photos" that consist of little more than the particular president in question is holding a phone next to his head are legion. The only thing significant about the picture is that it's captioned "The president receives(/makes) a phone call about ______."
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on June 09, 2016, 07:32:59 PM
Are you suggesting those are good pictures? Or that there's a reliable relationship between the image and the caption?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: TheDeamon on June 10, 2016, 12:38:25 AM
Are you suggesting those are good pictures? Or that there's a reliable relationship between the image and the caption?

Not really, for all I know he could be talking to someone at Pizza Hut ordering a delivery for some of his staff. Doesn't mean they couldn't present something and claim differently.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on June 10, 2016, 02:08:30 AM
If I understand what you're saying, they *should* show some picture with a caption indicating that it is from when he was first informed about the Benghazi! attack, even if it's fake.  I bet they've got a lot of those.  They'll have to be careful not to publish one with his hair still dark, since by the time of the Benghazi! attack he had aged at least 20 years in office.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on June 28, 2016, 10:23:34 AM
I find it fascinating that on the day of the release of the House Benghazi report, CNN bill's it as "House Republicans release their report," CBS puts it in the title of their article but only discusses the Democrat's pre-released response, the NY Times leads their article by referencing that there is no new dirt on Hillary (i.e. move along) while ignoring any issues about the administration itself, and Fox actually quotes the report, including several elements like the email on the strategy that made clear that the hard sell of the video motive as a motive was part of a strategy to show their wasn't a broader failure on the part of the admin (pretty exactly the argument I've been making the entire time). 

Shows a pretty clear media bias towards the underplay from the left sites.  Heck, CBS had on its headline four different articles about the women's basketball coach of Tennessee passing on, above the tiny article on the report.  Hard to get more blatant about trying to make the truth go away.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on June 28, 2016, 10:29:40 AM
Quote
Shows a pretty clear media bias towards the underplay from the left sites.  Heck, CBS had on its headline four different articles about the women's basketball coach of Tennessee passing on, above the tiny article on the report.  Hard to get more blatant about trying to make the truth go away.
I'm not saying that the "left" side of the media doesn't have some elements of bias, but are you arguing that FOX is pure as the driven snow :)?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: D.W. on June 28, 2016, 11:42:28 AM
What is the point of the Benghazi investigation?

Are they trying to show the movie had nothing to do with it?
Are they trying to show the administration / HRC lied about it?
Are they trying to show the above was done to distract from / cover up actual wrong doing?

What is the end game?  What does victory / vindication / justice look like at the end of this?
I'm assuming you believe there is one, other than just a constant barrage of suspicion and erosion of her trustworthiness / capabilities to manage an emergency.

Is there a result that disqualifies her from being president or makes her ability to win a general all but impossible?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Fenring on June 28, 2016, 12:10:52 PM
What is the point of the Benghazi investigation?

Honestly I think a lot of the controversial issues we've seen lately are a result not of a unified force trying and failing to obtain some result (e.g. to pin a crime on Hillary) but of distinct factions fighting with each other for control of public opinion. Hillary may be a tangible target of the Benghazi investigation, but I don't think the real 'stuff' of the investigation is 'them vs. her', but 'them vs. another them.' Examples of this can be FBI vs. CIA, or the Cato Institute vs. the CFR (I assume they oppose each other). A lot of infighting appears from the outside to be witch-hunting against one person, whereas in fact I think the person isn't the real target but is the public face of the investigation. In the case of Benghazi my hunch is that getting Hillary (or Obama) on some charge isn't the real object of the investigation. I think the part of the investigation dealing with alleged arms smuggling was more to the point of where their real concerns lay, and likewise to try to get more of a sense of what the hell had been going on in Libya in general.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on June 28, 2016, 03:02:02 PM
Does anyone think threats to embassy personnel from Isis or Al Qaeda were not reasonably forseeable ?  Does anyone think that Ambassador Stephens was adequately protected given what we knew about the region prior to the attack?

Quote
What is the end game?  What does victory / vindication / justice look like at the end of this?

Obama puts on his big boy pants and says, we really should have had more protection in place for the Ambassador.  ISIS and like organizations pose a serious danger to America's diplomats wherever violent islamist groups have a foothold, and I pledge that our embassies and consulates in such regions will be better protected.  When we cannot provide adequate protection, we will not set up an embassy or consulate.

Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: D.W. on June 28, 2016, 03:15:34 PM
Does anyone think threats to embassy personnel from Isis or Al Qaeda were not reasonably forseeable ?  Does anyone think that Ambassador Stephens was adequately protected given what we knew about the region prior to the attack?

Quote
What is the end game?  What does victory / vindication / justice look like at the end of this?

Obama puts on his big boy pants and says, we really should have had more protection in place for the Ambassador.  ISIS and like organizations pose a serious danger to America's diplomats wherever violent islamist groups have a foothold, and I pledge that our embassies and consulates in such regions will be better protected.  When we cannot provide adequate protection, we will not set up an embassy or consulate.
That sounds like excellent PR for domestic consumption, and terrible policy for running a government.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on June 28, 2016, 03:18:11 PM
why terrible?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on June 28, 2016, 03:23:19 PM
Obama also sabotages Clinton's run by not seeking death penalty on this Benghazi bastard: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36261851
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: D.W. on June 28, 2016, 03:41:09 PM
From the standpoint that embassies serve a necessary purpose.  You can't guarantee safety there.   The very nature of them means you are relying on the host government to provide a stable enough area.  If you do not feel that is sufficient, yet feel it necessary to maintain a presence there, you suddenly need to decide how much of a defense you CAN provide, are willing to provide, are allowed to provide and want obvious to others. 

Making such a statement ties our hands.  (or is just another lie to try and distract the domestic population)
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on June 28, 2016, 04:01:40 PM
The other impressive thing to me is the reporting says that Obama ordered the military to provide assistance and that the delays were on their end.  Don't know why that couldn't have been clarified a long time ago.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Wayward Son on June 28, 2016, 06:50:12 PM
Can anyone tell me the new findings in this report that weren't addressed in the 8 previous investigations, that justifies the $7 million spent on it? 

Anyone?  Anyone? :)
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Fenring on June 28, 2016, 07:12:26 PM
Can anyone tell me the new findings in this report that weren't addressed in the 8 previous investigations, that justifies the $7 million spent on it? 

Anyone?  Anyone? :)

Not to deny the validity of your argument, but I only wish the biggest waste in government was of $7 million. When 10's of billions routinely "go missing", I can't say I'm crying about this kind of expense, however warranted or unwarranted it might be. On the balance I wouldn't be against spending such sums on corruption policing all around, as long as that was really how the money was used. My problem with the Benghazi investigation, if anything, wouldn't be how much was spent, but rather how much of the $7 million was misspent. If it takes that kind of sum to bring down a kingpin of crime then by all means, I'm in. I agree with you, though, that's it's not as appealing if it's only being used to harass people.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: AI Wessex on June 28, 2016, 09:55:56 PM
The money spent is miniscule, but the opportunity cost is monumental.  Imagine what useful work those Congressmen could have done with their time that would have helped all of us instead...
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on June 28, 2016, 11:26:18 PM
From the standpoint that embassies serve a necessary purpose.  You can't guarantee safety there.   The very nature of them means you are relying on the host government to provide a stable enough area.

Generally that makes sense (as it did in Iran) but we certainly didn't make such a reliance in our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.  To act as if we could rely on the nascent Lybia government to provide security, make Obama look grossly incompetent.

Quote
If you do not feel that is sufficient, yet feel it necessary to maintain a presence there, you suddenly need to decide how much of a defense you CAN provide, are willing to provide, are allowed to provide and want obvious to others. 

Then THERE is an argument.  If that's the truth, then make that fragging argument:  "We knew that Chris Stephens was at risk and he knew it too but he and we all felt that it was worth the risk."

But if that was the truth, then let's cut the crap with the lies of, it was that damned video and we could not reasonably have known that the Ambassador's life was in danger; we trusted that Lybia could provide security, etc.

My feeling on this?  Obama dropped the ball, and Hillary's covering for him.  That's all very loyal and sweet, but it's going to cost her.  If Obama wants to clear Hillary on this, then like I said, he needs to pull on his big boy pants.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on June 28, 2016, 11:27:31 PM
The money spent is miniscule, but the opportunity cost is monumental.  Imagine what useful work those Congressmen could have done with their time that would have helped all of us instead...

Republican Congressmen?   ;D
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on June 29, 2016, 12:38:53 PM
As I understand it, the State Department is responsible for making decisions about embassy security. They also don't have the funds to do the job properly because Congress keeps cutting their budget. That's why the site was relying on locally-hired security rather than Marines.

Part of the problem is that the CIA et al. were looking for non-local threats, such as Al-Qaeda operatives coming in from outside the country. They knew it was dangerous, they were just looking in the wrong direction since the attack came from local elements. Which is pretty similar to one of the explanations for 9/11, actually. The US intelligence agencies like to pretend they know everything but they still need to be looking in the right direction.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Fenring on June 29, 2016, 01:00:50 PM
Which is pretty similar to one of the explanations for 9/11, actually.

What's that?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on June 29, 2016, 01:13:18 PM
The security agencies were looking for planes/attackers coming in from outside the US (IRRC what I read from the commission). They weren't paying enough attention to potential hijackers that were already here.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Fenring on June 29, 2016, 01:15:03 PM
The security agencies were looking for planes/attackers coming in from outside the US (IRRC what I read from the commission). They weren't paying enough attention to potential hijackers that were already here.

But the hijackers did come from outside the U.S...
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on June 29, 2016, 01:18:36 PM
But they got on planes that took off in the US. And hadn't they been here for awhile before the attacks?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Fenring on June 29, 2016, 01:23:32 PM
But they got on planes that took off in the US. And hadn't they been here for awhile before the attacks?

Yeah, a little while. But they weren't unprepared for a local plane hijacking; they had, in fact, just run a series of drills on precisely that scenario a few months prior.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on June 29, 2016, 04:12:05 PM
As I understand it, the State Department is responsible for making decisions about embassy security. They also don't have the funds to do the job properly because Congress keeps cutting their budget. That's why the site was relying on locally-hired security rather than Marines.

If that's the truth, then Clinton should hire you, since it seems no one on her staff knows how to deploy the actual facts that support her case.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Fenring on June 29, 2016, 04:18:36 PM
If that's the truth, then Clinton should hire you, since it seems no one on her staff knows how to deploy the actual facts that support her case.

The problem is that political leaders no longer deal in facts but rather in narratives. Rather than merely tell the truth except when security prevents it, instead they are always looking for the most effective narrative that people will accept. "Best", in this case, being defined as not so inconsistent with facts that it will be obvious, but stronger than the truth in terms of PR and spin. This practice has become so standardized that I doubt they even debate about whether to create a narrative or not any more - or as Garak on DS9 put it, "the truth is usually just an excuse for lack of imagination." Problems begin to arise when narratives contradict each other and are dropped in favor of new narratives on the same subject (see: Assad in Syria for multiple examples of this). Most of the time people either don't notice, or if they do they assume the situation has changed, when in fact all that's changed is the narrative put out.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on June 29, 2016, 06:18:15 PM
[emphasis added by Pete]
If that's the truth, then Clinton should hire you, since it seems no one on her staff knows how to deploy the actual facts that support her case.

The problem is that political leaders no longer deal in facts but rather in narratives. Rather than merely tell the truth except when security prevents it, instead they are always looking for the most effective narrative that people will accept. "Best", in this case, being defined as not so inconsistent with facts that it will be obvious, but stronger than the truth in terms of PR and spin. This practice has become so standardized that I doubt they even debate about whether to create a narrative or not any more - or as Garak on DS9 put it, "the truth is usually just an excuse for lack of imagination." Problems begin to arise when narratives contradict each other and are dropped in favor of new narratives on the same subject (see: Assad in Syria for multiple examples of this). Most of the time people either don't notice, or if they do they assume the situation has changed, when in fact all that's changed is the narrative put out.

Points for quoting Garak on DS9, but your caveat on security also struck me, since I still am sensitive to possible defenses: is it possible that Mrs. Clinton and President Obama have avoided discussing the budget-induced weakness in embassy security, for security reasons?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Fenring on June 29, 2016, 06:28:00 PM
is it possible that Mrs. Clinton and President Obama have avoided discussing the budget-induced weakness in embassy security, for security reasons?

In particular, I have no idea. Broadly speaking, the nu-think seems to be that pretty much everything to do with government can now be written off as "security reasons", and the standard procedure is that it's always in the interest of security to never tell the public the full truth, even when there's nothing to lose in so doing. Once such things become bureaucratic standards they're hard to break.

Why, for instance, has the government been so thrifty with details on the Orlando shooting, when by all rights it seems to have been a by-the-numbers nutcase who shot the place up? What possible reason could there be to conceal anything about that, including the laughable redacted text of Mateen's phone call?
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Pete at Home on June 29, 2016, 06:35:04 PM
is it possible that Mrs. Clinton and President Obama have avoided discussing the budget-induced weakness in embassy security, for security reasons?

In particular, I have no idea. Broadly speaking, the nu-think seems to be that pretty much everything to do with government can now be written off as "security reasons", and the standard procedure is that it's always in the interest of security to never tell the public the full truth, even when there's nothing to lose in so doing. Once such things become bureaucratic standards they're hard to break.

Why, for instance, has the government been so thrifty with details on the Orlando shooting, when by all rights it seems to have been a by-the-numbers nutcase who shot the place up? What possible reason could there be to conceal anything about that, including the laughable redacted text of Mateen's phone call?

Absolutely agreed.  When they *say* security reasons, it's always afaik been a cover for political reasons.  And they obfuscated Orlando so that they could spin it for gun control and to generally convey the sense that any people who opposed same - sex marriage are guilty as a group for Orlando.

But here, they didn't say security reasons.  And if there was a weakness across a number of embassies because of budgets, with ISIS on the rise, seems that it would make sense NOT to draw attention to it.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on September 13, 2017, 11:28:54 AM
Sorry about the resurrection, but check this out:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/13/clinton-state-department-silenced-them-on-benghazi-security-lapses-contractors-say.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/13/clinton-state-department-silenced-them-on-benghazi-security-lapses-contractors-say.html)

The change in and use of the specific security company based on low bids is less troubling to me than the direction not to speak to officials about it.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: TheDrake on September 13, 2017, 11:37:20 AM
Benghazi was a mistake. Not a conspiracy. Not a gross lapse in judgement. Not a coverup.

Can you imagine that any WH would be telling insiders to blab about anything?

Not to mention linking a story about a company that was only involved days prior to the attack, and disgruntled because they didn't win the original contract.

Zombie, stay dead!
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: NobleHunter on September 13, 2017, 11:53:22 AM
And disgruntled because they've been consistently losing contracts since.

Given Trump's notable aversion to paying for what he gets, I'd be surprised if he pushes for a change to the bidding rules.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: TheDrake on September 13, 2017, 12:07:11 PM
Quote
Torres-Advanced Enterprise Solutions, LLC (Torres), of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SAQMMA15R0282, issued by the Department of State for diplomatic security and protective services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of past performance.
We deny the protest.

Quote
AR, Tab 7, Initial TEP Report, at 1. The TEP further explained that “[t]he negative
comments covered a wide range of performance criteria, but the vast majority were
managerial and administrative shortfalls.” Id. The TEP noted, that “[t]hese
managerial problems appear even on contracts that received ‘satisfactory’ ratings
for the quality of the guards.” Id. at 2. The TEP concluded that “[l]ooking at Torres’
recent/relevant performance record as a whole, with both the positive and negative
past performance, the multiple negative past performance ratings at multiple
U.S. Embassies proved to the TEP that substantial doubt exists that the offeror will
be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Quote
One of the major deficiencies by the contractor is the accuracy and
timeliness of the invoices (period July 2014 – January 2015). For
example, the contractor omitted major line items for MONTHS, used
incorrect rates, template failures resulting in wrong amounts etc. This
required a great deal of staff time to identify the mistakes, work with
the financial office on resolving obligated funds, and created major
budgeting issues. And despite multiple emails from the Consulate,
Torres HQ took their time to resolve the issues. Post is still not
confident that the invoicing was done correctly.

full report (http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678751.pdf)

Ha, ha! - Nelson, "The Simpsons"
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on September 13, 2017, 12:52:35 PM
Benghazi was a mistake. Not a conspiracy. Not a gross lapse in judgement. Not a coverup.

Agree with everything except that it wasn't a coverup.  It literally was.

Quote
Can you imagine that any WH would be telling insiders to blab about anything?

To media sure, but telling people not to speak to officials (ie those investigating it) is well beyond okay.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: TheDrake on September 13, 2017, 01:05:55 PM
I agree. Do we have anything but the suspect word of a disgruntled contractor that they did say not to speak to officials? And even so, they might well have not wanted that discussion to happen absent a subpoena - particularly if they considered Torres incompetent.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on September 13, 2017, 02:51:07 PM
It would be odd, if they considered them incompetent to ask them to come into fix the situation the other contractor had created don't you think?

Honestly, given the way government bids work, and the corruption involved, I'd think any contractor would be highly nervous of criticizing procurement, at all.  Do you find the procurement officials to be credible?  I suspect that you can find "disqualifying" factors with respect to any of the bidders if you choose to do so.  What assurance do we have with a partial disclosure that other bidders aren't equal or worse?  I do take your point, that  a salty contractor also may have an incentive to be critical.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: TheDrake on September 13, 2017, 03:00:12 PM
I don't have a second source on any of this. Did they actually ask the contractor to come fix the situation?

The Fox link is clinton-state-department-silenced-them-on-benghazi-security-lapses-contractors-say.html

Hmm. Contractors say.

I did find this:

Quote
The latest batch of documents obtained by JW include a scandalous email from a State Department contracting officer named Jan Visintainer to an unidentified executive at Blue Mountain Group (BMG), the inexperienced foreign company hired to protect the U.S. mission in Benghazi. In the email, dated September 26, 2012, Visintainer writes: “Thank you so much for informing us about the media inquiries. We notified our public affairs personnel that they too may receive some questions. We concur with you that at the moment the best way to deal with the inquiries is to either be silent or provide no comments.”

So, I don't see anything here about speaking with officials. Just telling them to provide no comment. Note the line about "concur with you" which rather suggests that it was the suggestion of the contractor's rep
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on September 13, 2017, 05:50:35 PM
Well the link is busted now, maybe they pulled the story.  In this day and age, certainly a possibility.

When I read it, there was both a paragraph saying that this company had been called to take over the security for the other group within 30 days prior to Benghazi.  And a statement that said they were directed not to talk to media or officials.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: TheDrake on September 13, 2017, 07:09:27 PM
Yes, those statements were in the story. Both of them were made by the guy from the company with no additional backup. I'm not ready to take his word for it.
Title: Re: A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi
Post by: Seriati on September 14, 2017, 09:17:54 AM
Fair enough, there's likely to be physical evidence of the first.  No one gets any kind of contract with the government on an oral basis.

The latter though is almost certainly spoken word only (or at best a reminder of a generic policy).  I can't say that I find the idea that a corrupt (assuming they are corrupt) procurement officer would be likely to tell the truth if it made them look bad, but I also think it's reasonable not to take the word of a salty (assuming they're being spiteful and willing to lie) contractor that hasn't won many government bids recently.