A comprehensive guide to Republican abuse of Benghazi

[Pete at Home]

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.

[Seriati]

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. 

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.

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.

[AI Wessex]

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".

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?

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

I think you have it backward:

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.

[Seriati]

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. 

[AI Wessex]

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.

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.

[Seriati]

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

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

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.

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.

[AI Wessex]

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. 

[Seriati]

That was December 2013, not 2016.

[AI Wessex]

OK, I read your post and the letters you included:

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 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:

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 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.

[Seriati]

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.

[AI Wessex]

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.

[Seriati]

They didn't cut them.

They sent a letter of termination.  Forcing a short term solution.  True or False?

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?

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.

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?

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).

[AI Wessex]

You really need to cut down on your snipping.  I'm not going to bother responding to most of your comments, but...

They sent a letter of termination.  Forcing a short term solution.  True or False?

Negotiating?  You're familiar with that process, yes?

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.

[Seriati]

I don't even know how to respond to you at this point. 

[Pyrtolin]

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

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.

[AI Wessex]

I don't even know how to respond to you at this point.

Understandable.

[Seriati]

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.

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.

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).

[Seriati]

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.

[AI Wessex]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

...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.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

[AI Wessex]

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.

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?

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?

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.

[Pyrtolin]

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.

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.

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.

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

[AI Wessex]

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.

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. 

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[AI Wessex]

The state commission Governor Snyder appointed to analyze the Flint water crisis issued its report:

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.

[D.W.]

That condemnation has all the sternness of an on stage spanking by a stripper at a bachelor party... 

[AI Wessex]

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):

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.

[Wayward Son]

700 days of the House Republican's Benghazi Committee just passed.  $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...

[AI Wessex]

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:

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.

[cherrypoptart]

So did we ever find out what President Obama was doing while all this was happening? What orders did he give?

[TheDeamon]

\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.

[AI Wessex]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

Why do we need an investigation?

Why can't he just tell us?

[TheDeamon]

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.

[AI Wessex]

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?

[cherrypoptart]

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?

[TheDeamon]

He was tied up at the time.... Literally. 

[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. 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.

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.

[Wayward Son]

\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.

[AI Wessex]

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"?

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.

[Seriati]

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.

[Wayward Son]

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.

[Seriati]

Not sure what the Right Wing Media is, but that is definitely true about Right Wing politicians.

[AI Wessex]

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*.

[AI Wessex]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[AI Wessex]

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?

[NobleHunter]

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?