Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Unimportant Benghazi Update

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about a year and a half ago

User Journal 24

Despite the mostly amusing back-n-forth on Benghazi with the fellas, I'd like to hold fire on further exchanges until there is some no-kidding news on the topic.
Again, it's fine to flex the rhetorical muscles, but I'm just not able to devote the necessary time to keep throwing the fertilizer back at everybody, when the arguments have all reached stable circular orbits.
You can accuse me as desired, but accept in advance that I'm not likely to reply on this topic again until there is somDespite the mostly amusing back-n-forth on Benghazi with the fellas, I'd like to hold fire on further exchanges until there is some no-kidding news on the topic.
Again, it's fine to flex the rhetorical muscles, but I'm just not able to devote the necessary time to keep throwing the fertilizer back at everybody, when the arguments have all reached stable circular orbits.
You can accuse me as desired, but accept in advance that I'm not likely to reply on this topic again until there is something to talk about.
May the Almighty grant wisdom to all of our leaders, and help them articulate some sort of stable direction for society.

Cheers,
Chris

cancel ×

24 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good idea... Cut your losses while you can (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42420611)

So... How's the weather?

Re:Good idea... Cut your losses while you can (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421301)

I don't know what smitty said, but I do know the administration lied repeatedly about what happened, tried to divert attention away from what happened, and generally covered it up.

We knew immediately that this was a planned terrorist attack that, if related to the video at all, only was using the video as a proxy. Yet the White House said, very plainly and repeatedly, that this was only about the video and had nothing to do with American policies. In fact, it had nothing to do with the video, and everything to do with American policies.

They lied. We knew it at the time, and we know it now. The question is, why did they lie?

So far, it seems like they lied because they knew they failed to provide sufficient security and didn't want the blame for the deaths, when they could blame someone simply exercising his First Amendment right to free speech. Not only is that despicable, but they compounded this error by arresting him (yes, on an unrelated charge, but only because of the video), and sending a top military general to private citizens to pressure them to not similarly exercise their First Amendment rights.

If Bush had done any of this -- failed to provide sufficient security, lied about the attack, lied with motive to cover up the failure, arrested a filmmaker as part of the coverup, sent the military to pressure citizens to be quiet -- the left would be calling for impeachment, and not without justification. They would be screaming every night for his head. It would be the top news every night, for months.

But when Obama does it, well, nothing to see here! Move along!

You're a sad parody of yourselves.

Re:Good idea... Cut your losses while you can (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421755)

Yeah, they lied. So what? That's what politicians do to keep getting reelected, and are thus rewarded. They're only doing what is expected of them, and they profit handsomely for it. Mr. Smith here, and maybe you too, seems to insist that Obama and his party affiliation is different when he and they are not.

You what's neat about this? That nobody is talking about the real intrigue of the weapons running scheme to Syria that these people were/are involved in, or the ongoing war we are fomenting in the Congo, where Susan Rice has bloodied her hands. If you really want to hang the prez, nothing would beat an Iran/Contra type hearing. Unfortunately it would catch a few too many good ol' boys in that net, so we now present the...Fiscal Cliff! for your distraction

If Bush had done any of this -- failed to provide sufficient security, lied about the attack, lied with motive to cover up the failure...

He had done most of those things (I'd have to check to see who he may have had arrested).. only then the attack was on American soil, and the TV people hardly questioned him at all about it. They believed virtually every lie he told, and those who didn't were quickly tagged as nutcase 'conspiracy theorists' or 'terrorist sympathizers' by those very same TV people. The entire business was, and still is gung-ho for war. Actually Obama is getting pretty much the same treatment as Reagan, vilified by some and sanctified by others. Where the news in that?

Whether it's Bush, Obama, or whoever, this is all just another day in the life, and all you have yet to show that anything has changed.

That you also think I'm defending any of them only shows you're not paying attention nor reading what I'm writing. I never did, nor ever will vote for them. In fact, from the very beginning, I always recommended that you people seek out a better alternative. You cough up Romney, and then expect me not to laugh out loud? Please... Well, just so you know, despite that, I did not vote for Obama. Between those two, it just doesn't matter.

Question: Who y'all gonna run against Hillary in the next one?

Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421805)

He had done most of those things (I'd have to check to see who he may have had arrested).. only then the attack was on American soil, and the TV people hardly questioned him at all about it. They believed virtually every lie he told, and those who didn't were quickly tagged as nutcase 'conspiracy theorists' or 'terrorist sympathizers' by those very same TV people. The entire business was, and still is gung-ho for war. Actually Obama is getting pretty much the same treatment as Reagan, vilified by some and sanctified by others. Where the news in that?

So, Benghazi == 9/11, and, because we didn't muster a witch hunt [wikipedia.org] that cashiered Bush over the Twin Towers/Pentagon (Lord rest LCDR Robert Elseth [blogspot.com] ), that somehow immunizes BHO from questioning over Benghazi.
Oh, flog me gently with a revving chainsaw, that's BRILLIANT!
As stated in the JE, I'll hold fire until there's something more concrete to discuss. But I must tip the hat to the Orwellian brilliance of your sweet, sweet formulation. Bravo.

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42422117)

...because we didn't muster a witch hunt that cashiered Bush over the Twin Towers/Pentagon (Lord rest LCDR Robert Elseth), that somehow immunizes BHO from questioning over Benghazi.

That trick is getting old and stale..

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42422541)

No, no, it's your trick and it's beautiful!
I just have this thing about remembering Elseth whenever 9/11 comes up. Highly personal note, not intended to inject anecdote and obscure the beauty of this argument for privileging BHO's record from review. Your argument kicks ass, teeth, and pretty much everything in between.

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42423887)

You win the internet

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42429851)

Sorry, how is that HIS trick?

I've already listed various crimes committed by Obama here.

You say they don't matter. And then claim you don't like Obama and are not picking sides.

And then you wonder why people don't believe you.

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42430223)

Again, you seem to assume that I approve of Obama because I don't see him as worse than all his predecessors. You couldn't be more wrong.

Sorry, how is that HIS trick?

I didn't say it was his trick. It's a tired old game of "If you're not against x, then you are for y". A minor variation of a third party vote being a wasted one. I quit playing that half a lifetime ago.

And I am not doubting Obama's crimes (though you all are listing the comparatively minor ones. A lot more innocents are being killed by his drones, and he's still a gun runner, but not much is being said about that...). I'm only saying that you and he are singling him out as something different from the others, and that you needn't bother. I'm not fooled by any of it. If crime was the issue, you all would have stood up a full generation ago, but it's not. It's pure politics you're playing and why none of you (including democrats and Obama worshipers) can be taken seriously.

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42430361)

So, as a result of all that, do you recommend
a) pursuing reform, or
b) cutting a deal, and getting on the gravy train?

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42438301)

Cut a deal? With whom?

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42438439)

Join a union. Start a scam. Get a federal bailout. Embrace kleptocracy.

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42430881)

Again, you seem to assume that I approve of Obama because I don't see him as worse than all his predecessors.

False. Nothing I say seems like that at all. It is not that you don't see him as worse than his predecessors, it is that you are downplaying the things he has done wrong. Worse for you and your claim that you don't like Obama better, you say Obama's lies are no big deal, while making a big deal out of Bush's alleged lies.

And I am not doubting Obama's crimes ...

I never said you did. Please stop making things up. I said you were saying they were no big deal, which you explicitly did.

A lot more innocents are being killed by his drones ...

Evidence? This is often alleged, but the claims are highly biased and almost completely untrustworthy. I am not saying it's not true; I am saying I, as an intelligent person who is objective on the subject -- I dislike Obama and much of his foreign policy and would love to see the drone program ended if it was wasteful and ineffective and harmful -- have no reason to believe it.

Frankly, this makes you seem nonserious, because you believe the worst about the drone program even without serious evidence to make you believe it. That says a lot about you, you know.

... he's still a gun runner ...

Yep, as the rightwing media has pointed out, and the leftwing media refuses to even mention. Especially the fact that Obama signed executive orders explicitly allowing the sale of guns to certain nations who use child soldiers, which is by default illegal under U.S. law. If Bush had done this, it would've been impeachment time. But Obama means well [huffingtonpost.com] .

I'm only saying that you and he are singling him out as something different from the others ...

And I already told you that you're wrong, and you've provided no evidence to back up this claim. So why should we, or anyone else, take this claim of yours seriously?

If crime was the issue, you all would have stood up a full generation ago, but it's not.

Shrug. You're a liar. I stood up against Bush immediately after the warrantless wiretapping was made public, for example. I stood up against Bush in all the same ways I've stood up against Obama, given the same circumstances. And I have defended both, given those same circumstances. I attacked both for high spending and deficits (although it's been much worse under Obama, I heavily criticized Bush's $450B deficit at the time), for unconstitutional expansions of government power (NCLB for Bush, and ACA for Obama), for violations of civil liberties (wiretapping and ignoring the rights of citizen "terrorists" and national security letters and so on under Bush, and similar under Obama).

It's funny that you falsely accused me of misunderstanding your positions (when I actually wasn't making any assumptions about you), but you're the one actually, and explicitly, doing that to me.

It's pure politics

Look in the mirror. It is, in fact, "pure politics" that is driving your false claims about me.

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42432013)

I said you were saying they were no big deal, which you explicitly did.

Where?

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42433411)

I said you were saying they were no big deal, which you explicitly did.

Where?

Heh.

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42434513)

That's not downplaying. It was merely an observation of how the voters feel, with just a touch of sarcasm and ridicule towards them. They are the ones downplaying the lies and crimes with their votes. Plus, I wasn't singling out Obama. Politicians have to lie to win, and 98% of the voters approve. If they didn't, we would have an entirely different crowd in the capitol building and the white house. Even if the post could be considered 'downplaying', my vote sure can't be. I always 'waste' my vote on somebody else and watch the mainstreamers fight amongst themselves.

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42434689)

That's not downplaying. It was merely an observation of how the voters feel

It was presented precisely as a statement of how you feel.

Even if the post could be considered 'downplaying', my vote sure can't be.

Yes, your vote does not "downplay" things you didn't say your vote was associated with. So?

Look: your entire series of comments is based on a lie. From the beginning you tried to make the case -- without any evidence -- that I was holding Obama to a different standard. This has been reasonably proven false. Why did you not even make mention of this fact? Instead, you just try to avoid the fact that you were completely wrong. Again, why?

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42435151)

From the beginning you tried to make the case... I was holding Obama to a different standard.

Oh, there's no doubt that you and Mr. Smith are doing that. Never heard word one during the previous regimes when they lied. And when another one of your favorite republicans gets in, you will, of course, do the same thing again while accusing the 'other' side of playing politics. It's inevitable. It's what all of you people on both sides do.

Anyway, you get last word, nice chattin' with ya

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42435485)

From the beginning you tried to make the case... I was holding Obama to a different standard.

Oh, there's no doubt that you and Mr. Smith are doing that.

If you ignore the facts, right.

Never heard word one during the previous regimes when they lied.

I asked you for examples of lies. You didn't respond. I can guess the reason. If you can show me where Bush lied, I will address it. But if you can't give an example, you can't use it as evidence. That's pretty damned obvious.

And regardless, if you were following me the past several years, you did hear words from me criticizing Bush for many, many things, as I mentioned in the previous comments. I have a journal on here the very week that the warrtantless wiretapping thing came out, saying it was likely unconstitutional and wrong. I criticized taking away due process from Jose Padilla. I criticized NCLB as an unconstitutional taking of states' rights. I attacked the high deficits.

I even criticized Bush, during the 2004 campaign, for criticizing Kerry over the war funding stuff. I defended Kerry, saying it was perfectly reasonable for him to vote against the war funding based on the method of funding, and that it was false to claim this meant he was against the funding itself.

Yes, I criticize Obama more, because I disagree with him more. But I did not withhold criticism from Bush because he was on my side, and do not give extra criticism to Obama because he's on the other side. I base my posted criticism solely on three criteria: whether I disagree, the depth of my disagreement, and my availability to comment on it. That's it.

Similarly, I've defended Obama. I demand evidence that he has killed many civilians with drones, before I condemn. I shut down people, including personal friends, who incorrectly claim that Obama's proper birth certificate has not been released. I defend Obama exactly as I defended Bush.

And when another one of your favorite republicans gets in, you will, of course, do the same thing again while accusing the 'other' side of playing politics.

Yes, I will do the same thing to them as I did to Bush. Exactly. I will criticize them when they do something I disagree with sufficiently, as I did with Bush, often.

It's inevitable.

Agreed. It is inevitable that I will treat the next Republican the same as I have treated both Obama and Bush.

You're just full of it, and the sad thing is, you know it. That's why you backed down. But when I brought it up again, your pride wouldn't let you admit it.

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42437191)

That's more or less what I'm getting from these two. They are as frogs ferrying scorpions, sort of knowing they've shanked it, but unable to admit fault, and too frightened to buck the thing into the drink.

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42429649)

So, Benghazi == 9/11, and, because we didn't muster a witch hunt that cashiered Bush over the Twin Towers/Pentagon

You're saying that an ambassador and three state department employees getting killed in a Libyan consulate is the same thing as 3000 people getting incinerated in downtown Manhattan, an attack on the Pentagon and three airliners crashed into US soil?

Finally, the Right can say, "9/11 happened on Obama's watch". Admit it, it's been your fantasy since November of 2008.

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42429869)

You're saying that an ambassador and three state department employees getting killed in a Libyan consulate is the same thing as 3000 people getting incinerated in downtown Manhattan, an attack on the Pentagon and three airliners crashed into US soil?

No, he is not. Please try to keep up.

Finally, the Right can say, "9/11 happened on Obama's watch". Admit it, it's been your fantasy since November of 2008.

No one wished any such thing. On the contrary: the fantasy here is that you and other leftists want to believe that the right wants the country to fail to win political points. There's no evidence of this, and there never has been. But you keep looking, because you're disgusting people.

Re:Credit where due: that is lovely (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42429927)

That was a re-interpretation of fustakrakich's statement, made for rhetorical effect.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you're not deliberately putting an original false equivalence in my mouth.

Re:Good idea... Cut your losses while you can (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42429839)

Yeah, they lied. So what?

I don't understand the question. "Yeah, John Doe killed 13 people. So what?" Please explain.

That's what politicians do to ...

Are you implying that makes it acceptable behavior? I don't understand.

Mr. Smith here, and maybe you too, seems to insist that Obama and his party affiliation is different when he and they are not.

I imply, nor insist, any such thing. I do insist that Obama is treated differently by the most of the mass media and much of the public in large part because of his party affiliation, and probably also because of his "race." (Well, half of it.) Again, if this were Bush, the press and public would be all over him, in much greater numbers and volume, as they often were for far, far less.

If you really want to hang the prez, nothing would beat an Iran/Contra type hearing. Unfortunately it would catch a few too many good ol' boys in that net, so we now present the...Fiscal Cliff! for your distraction

No argument here. In a sane world, John Kerry would be a tough challenge for Secretary of State, because of many of his missteps and terrible statements about America. I mean, honestly, a Secretary of State who accused, without evidence, his fellow soldiers of rape and murder and other terrible acts? That's ridiculous to consider, no matter how long ago it was. But because he is a Senator, he will pass muster without any serious opposition, because Senators stick together, in large part because they all know where each other's bodies are buried. Yet another argument for term limits.

If Bush had done any of this -- failed to provide sufficient security, lied about the attack, lied with motive to cover up the failure...

He had done most of those things

No, he didn't. He didn't do any of them, that I am aware of. Maybe he lied about some national security thing, but I can think of no instance of it. He certainly didn't try to scapegoat private people in America, nor jail them to help cover it up. I suppose he certainly did try to spin the evidence of 9/11 so no blame would fall on him, but that story is mostly true: very little blame was deserved by him or his administration. At most, in my opinion, you could say Bush should have done better than Clinton had in listening to Richard Clarke ... and while that was certainly a failure in retrospect, it is not at all clear to most people that it was reasonably considered an obvious mistake at the time (unless you are Richard Clarke).

only then the attack was on American soil, and the TV people hardly questioned him at all about it.

What crack are you smoking? This was one of the biggest topics of the 2004 election, and the sad thing is that Bush was telling the truth -- that we had intelligence failures, essentially -- but no one wanted to believe it, just because there was an extremely vague memo that such an attack as that could happen at some point, but no real way to act on it. But in Benghazi, we had the intelligence, and it was specific, and we could easily have acted on it, and there were specific pleadings from the ambassador to do so, and we didn't.

They believed virtually every lie he told ...

Such as? (This oughtta be good.)

Actually Obama is getting pretty much the same treatment as Reagan, vilified by some and sanctified by others. Where the news in that?

Even if that is true -- and it's not, as the media was by far mostly against Reagan, whereas they are by far mostly for Obama -- so what?

Whether it's Bush, Obama, or whoever, this is all just another day in the life, and all you have yet to show that anything has changed.

Except for the extremely obvious fact that Obama is getting the kid gloves treatment by the press where Bush would not have, I have not tried to show that anything changed.

That you also think I'm defending any of them only shows you're not paying attention nor reading what I'm writing.

I thought no such thing. The only thing I said directed at you was that you are a sad parody of yourself, which you are, because you told him to "cut his losses" on a topic where there's actually a lot of things Obama has done that are very, very wrong.

You cough up Romney, and then expect me not to laugh out loud? Please...

Romney would have made an excellent President. I do not expect you to be wise or smart enough to see that, no.

Question: Who y'all gonna run against Hillary in the next one?

Hopefully, someone who, unlike almost every Democrat, loves liberty. Yes, Republicans love liberty significantly more than Democrats do. There is a marked difference. Republicans say, "you cannot do that because it violates liberty." Democrats say, "we don't care because it accomplishes some other goal we find to be more important." That's the real difference between the parties, frankly. That's not to say Republicans all love liberty, but they do in far greater numbers and to far greater degrees. Romney is a great example: he was a big government guy in some ways, but compared to Obama, he was freaking Ron Paul.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>