Obama lied about Benghazi

Page 37 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
If you're not willing to discuss this issue and keep copy\pasting others comments without supporting what you believe they have to say, simply your ass should get a timeout....

\want to discuss it, or not?
Not only that, but he continues to post copyrighted material without proper attribution, or as in this most recent example, with false attribution. That particular piece was copied from The Weekly Standard, not ABC News. The Weekly Standard would never go after him or Anandtech, of course, but they could. IGBT reminds me of Riprorin, who was also a "drive-by drooler" as Charles so eloquently put it, copying articles and posting them without any commentary or further participation. The whole rule about "must provide commentary" was triggered by Riprorin's persistent abuses (at least as I remember it).
 
Last edited:

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Not only that, but he continues to post copyrighted material without proper attribution, or as in this most recent example, with false attribution. That particular piece was copied from The Weekly Standard, not ABC News. The Weekly Standard would never go after him or Anandtech, of course, but they could. IGBT reminds me of Riprorin, who was also a "drive-by drooler" as Charles so eloquently put it, copying articles and posting them without any commentary or further participation. The whole rule about "must provide commentary" was triggered by Riprorin's persistent abuses (at least as I remember it).

This is why he should get a timeout.... If he wishes to keep presenting a falsehood, then he has no place in honest debate..
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
I not shocked by your responce.

"41% of the GOP thinks this is the worst scandal in the history of the US ever. (LOL)

But 39% of those don't even know where Benghazi is!"


Which means 61% do know where it is.

From that link: Nearly one-third of young Americans recently polled couldn’t locate Louisiana on a map and nearly half were unable to identify Mississippi.

If 61% of them know where Benghazi is but 1/2 of America doesn't even know where Missisippi is, you still gonna call them ignorant?

Yup. For either case:

-A GOP troll who blindly believes Benghazi is the worst scandal ever, but can't even say where it is

-US citizen who can't tell me where a state is

But both are equally ignorant. I guess you could try and argue the GOP'ers are worse, since they claim to care, but still don't know, while some people could claim there don't care where certain states are.

Is there a point you have, other then admitting that you and others are ignorant?
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,282
36,406
136
Apparently, the latest spin is that Obama deceived the American people by calling it an "act of terror" instead of a "terrorist attack".

I'm not sure I can even see the goalposts anymore. The Republicans really need to stop fucking this particular chicken..


This needs repeating.

Having watched and listened to the GOP use 9/11 for political benefit throughout 2001-2004, this surge of indignation on their part is easier than normal to dismiss.

Time to try for another scandal GOP, maybe that whole IRS thing will bear turds for you to throw?
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Yup. For either case:

-A GOP troll who blindly believes Benghazi is the worst scandal ever, but can't even say where it is

-US citizen who can't tell me where a state is

But both are equally ignorant. I guess you could try and argue the GOP'ers are worse, since they claim to care, but still don't know, while some people could claim there don't care where certain states are.

Is there a point you have, other then admitting that you and others are ignorant?

Going to go down swingin huh?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,033
48,019
136
Going to go down swingin huh?

You realize that he's right... right?

If you think something is the largest scandal that has ever taken place in more than two centuries in the most powerful country on Earth, it seems odd that so many of them don't even know where it took place.

Someone who has never professed the slightest care about Louisiana not knowing where Louisiana is... not terribly big news.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
You realize that he's right... right?

If you think something is the largest scandal that has ever taken place in more than two centuries in the most powerful country on Earth, it seems odd that so many of them don't even know where it took place.

Someone who has never professed the slightest care about Louisiana not knowing where Louisiana is... not terribly big news.

No, he's not right. Nice spin BTW. He is calling people ignorant who 61% of know where a place in Libya is when half the US population doesn't even know where Mississippi is. I wouldn't expect you to see it any differently. He is calling conservatives ignorant. You will look for any angle you can to try and justify it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,033
48,019
136
No, he's not right. Nice spin BTW. He is calling people ignorant who 61% of know where a place in Libya is when half the US population doesn't even know where Mississippi is. I wouldn't expect you to see it any differently. He is calling conservatives ignorant. You will look for any angle you can to try and justify it.

39% of people didn't know who said this is the largest scandal in the 200+year history of the US.

Someone can reasonably be expected to have a higher level of knowledge about an issue that they believe is extremely important as compared to those who have never expressed an interest in a topic.

Nice attempt to spin, btw.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
39% of people didn't know who said this is the largest scandal in the 200+year history of the US.

Someone can reasonably be expected to have a higher level of knowledge about an issue that they believe is extremely important as compared to those who have never expressed an interest in a topic.

Nice attempt to spin, btw.

How many people who thought Watergate was the biggest scandal in US history actually knew where the hell it was?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,033
48,019
136
How many people who thought Watergate was the biggest scandal in US history actually knew where the hell it was?

Since we're talking about just being able to pinpoint the country where it occurred... probably just about all of them.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Since we're talking about just being able to pinpoint the country where it occurred... probably just about all of them.

I guess you got me then. I guess people who don’t know the geography of North Africa are more ignorant that people who don’t know their own 50 States. And to be upset about what they feel is a scandal they better know the geography of the area or they are just idiots.

Along those same lines, to be upset about the bombing in Boston, you better be able to find the exact location on a map. To be upset about the guy who held 3 women hostage for 10 years you better know the address of the house.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Since we're talking about just being able to pinpoint the country where it occurred... probably just about all of them.

To be fair, ignorance is bipartisan.

Look at how many liberals swear that Saddle Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,033
48,019
136
I guess you got me then. I guess people who don’t know the geography of North Africa are more ignorant that people who don’t know their own 50 States. And to be upset about what they feel is a scandal they better know the geography of the area or they are just idiots.

Along those same lines, to be upset about the bombing in Boston, you better be able to find the exact location on a map. To be upset about the guy who held 3 women hostage for 10 years you better know the address of the house.

Yes, if you thought that the Boston bombing was the greatest terrorist attack in history you might look sort of dumb if you didn't know what country Boston was in.

Similarly, if you thought that kidnapping was the greatest crime ever committed by man it might be reasonable to expect you knew what country his house was in as well.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,072
1,476
126
No, he's not right. Nice spin BTW. He is calling people ignorant who 61% of know where a place in Libya is when half the US population doesn't even know where Mississippi is. I wouldn't expect you to see it any differently. He is calling conservatives ignorant. You will look for any angle you can to try and justify it.

So 61% of a group is enough to make something right then? Because the 54 Senators that voted for expended background checks represent a population of 62% of the nation. So you're pro background checks now I assume?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Obama lied, but he had a good reason to do it.
Obama lied, but his own people misinformed him.
Obama lied, but only political hacks care.
Obama lied, but only 4 Americans died.
Obama lied, but Bush was worse.
Obama lied, but it really was a bad Youtube video.
Obama lied, but it's all about Hillary.
Obama lied, but all politicians do it.
Obama lied, but you're a troll if you say so.
Obama lied, but he was only wrong. (ty to Thraash)

Any excuses I missed?
 
Last edited:

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,072
1,476
126
Obama lied, but he had a good reason to do it.
Obama lied, but his own people misinformed him.
Obama lied, but only political hacks care.
Obama lied, but only 4 Americans died.
Obama lied, but Bush was worse.
Obama lied, but it really was a bad Youtube video.
Obama lied, but it's all about Hillary.
Obama lied, but all politicians do it.
Obama lied, but you're a troll if you say so.

Any excuses I missed?

Um, how about he didn't lie. He referred to it as an act of terror a couple times in the following days. Past that he focused on the information he had been given. Even if that was incorrect, a lie requires you to know what you're saying is untrue. Obama was wrong, not lying. If being wrong about information is all that 's required to lie, then you lie in P&N 30 times a week, because there's only a few people on here that can keep pace with the rate at which you're wrong. And not surprisingly, those people are conservatives too.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
So 61% of a group is enough to make something right then? Because the 54 Senators that voted for expended background checks represent a population of 62% of the nation. So you're pro background checks now I assume?

The Enterprise crew wishes their deflectors were as strong as yours.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
/sigh

More than that, I expressly allowed that the White House might have been directly involved but was smart enough to avoid a written trail. That's not the point. The point is this ABC story that had some of the boys soiling themselves in glee does not prove what they think it proves. Indeed, it explicitly contradicts one of their key allegations, that the "Internet tape" talking point came from the White House. It also documents a plausible alternative explanation of the revisions, contradicting their claims this was all about the election. In short, for those who can read for themselves, the ABC story is simply not the smoking gun the Obama haters crave.
The White House shouldn't have had to get personally involved at all - that's why Presidents appoint political operatives rather than career professionals to Cabinet and agency head posts, to watch out for their political interests. That was my point, that at the highest level State and the DoD are on the same team politically which is a far stronger motivation than is being on the same team for the country. The ABC document shows that the lie and subsequent cover-up was completely for political purposes.

The talking points were edited to provide a false narrative about what occurred and what led to 4 deaths. It's becoming clear that this was done to avoid backlash over failures of policy and chain of command in dealing with a terrorist attack that had warning signs prior to the attack. Folks entrusted in a position of leadership do not get a pass for their conduct here simply because the deaths are at this point irreversible.
This is true. I doubt however that this is all that unusual. Politicians are always going to select the most politically advantageous explanation that is marginally plausible. We reward them for this behavior. At the end of the day there is a huge difference between pushing the most politically advantageous marginally plausible narrative, even if everyone knows it isn't so at the time, and a Watergate-level or even Monicagate-level warping of government to protect against being held accountable for criminal activity. Benghazi is in my opinion just politics as usual, on both sides.

Impeaching Obama is nonsense. I do however think he deserves some level of blame. That does not mean he was directly responsible for any wrongdoing, however subordinates know what is permissible by the tone set by their leader. If this sort of thing was unacceptable then people at the level involved would have already have know that. We're talking about the President of the United States here, the leader of the Executive Branch. We hold those elected to too low a standard, and indeed they don't seem to hold to a sufficient one themselves. It's always Bush or Obama, whoever is not our own. No, the person in office is the one who is responsible for his own actions, but unfortunately it's responsibility without real accountability. That's one of the things I would like to see change in our system.
Blame, certainly. Someone in his chain of command screwed up royally, whether to present the illusion that Libya was peaceful or to serve some secret CIA purpose or for some other purpose they thought (at the time) worth the considerable risk. I'm all for breaking the "screw up move up" philosophy in government, although always remembering that sometimes people make bad decisions honestly. Won't happen though, because one political party is consumed with making this a blue-sky lightning strike no one could have prevented and the other side is consumed with making this an impeachable offense.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,313
1,214
126
the bottom line is 4 Americans were murdered in a 6+ hour long fight and NOBODY helped when they were pleading for help. period end of story.

I guess you never heard about the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. That was planned attack that went bad with a military base a mere stones throw away. They were trapped for more than 10 hours PLEADING and BEGGING for help which they didn't get. Actually two special forces operatives tried to help out and got killed for their efforts.... while saving nobody (both received the medal of honor).

It wasn't some grand conspiracy or political ineptness, (I happen to agree with our ACTUAL military leaders on this) it is the reality of our military. Conservatives apparently live in a fantasyland where our military are like firemen, standing ready, armed to the teeth and waiting for some alarm to go off. If only the evil president hadn't stopped the millions plus army of special forces operatives that was just itching to go in and save the day..... oh if only he hadn't stopped them..... he is just soooo evil..... yeah right!

Armchair conservative chicken hawks have a lot of nerve pretending that they know more about our military capability than our actual battle hardened military leaders.
 
Last edited:

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Actually two special forces operatives tried to help out and got killed for their efforts.... while saving nobody (both received the medal of honor).

The giant hole in your entire point.

A call for help was acknowledged and an attempt was made in 1993.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I guess you never heard about the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. That was planned attack that went bad with a military base a mere stones throw away. They were trapped for more than 10 hours PLEADING and BEGGING for help which they didn't get. Actually two special forces operatives tried to help out and got killed for their efforts.... while saving nobody (both received the medal of honor).

It wasn't some grand conspiracy or political ineptness, (I happen to agree with our ACTUAL military leaders on this) it is the reality of our military. Conservatives apparently live in a fantasyland where our military are like firemen, standing ready, armed to the teeth and waiting for some alarm to go off. If only the evil president hadn't stopped the millions plus army of special forces operatives that was just itching to go in and save the day..... oh if only he hadn't stopped them..... he is just soooo evil..... yeah right!

Armchair conservative chicken hawks have a lot of nerve pretending that they know more about our military capability than our actual battle hardened military leaders.
Actually, this is not at all accurate. Military leaders had a quick reaction force standing by, which was thoroughly prepared and went in instantly when help was requested. One company of the 10th Mountain Division (an elite light infantry unit) was always on immediate call, with another on (IIRC) four hour call and a third training up but on 24 hour call. The 2d battalion commander was monitoring the fight (about which he was completely uninformed until it began) and had his first echelon as prepared and as briefed as was possible given his state of ignorance, and he got his second and third echelon forces operational well under his mandate. There were two major problems, one military and one political. The military problem was that, for operational reasons, the Special Forces contingent kept the UN and even the 10th Mountain completely in the dark as to where they were operating, the immediate operational environment, and the opposing forces. The political problem was that, to maintain the fiction that this was not a civil war, the DoD & White House denied the requests for armor and heavy air support. The net result was that, although a battalion of the 10th Mountain is certainly a capable combat unit, it was forced to make ad hoc arrangements with local UN armor to complete its mission of saving and evacuating the SF operators and Rangers. This was not at all a case of failing to make adequate contingency plans, but a case of those contingency plans being hampered by too-rosy projections (for non-domestic political purposes) and a combination of institutional jealousies spreading legitimate security concerns beyond a reasonable limit. That is quite different from using too-rosy projections (for non-domestic political purposes) as an excuse to have no real security and no contingency plans whatsoever. The one similarity is that in both cases, quite reasonable requests were denied for non-domestic political purposes and Americans died as a result.

Mogadishu is a good case though for the dangers of sending in a response without adequate preparation and operational knowledge. A quick reaction force not only has to be available and on call, it also has to be properly equipped and kept up to the minute on exact ground conditions. Send in a force that is not properly equipped and/or not properly prepared for the threat and the exact terrain and it may well become another element needing to be rescued, even if it's a whole elite US combat battalion. Once the initial failure is called due, there is a legitimate struggle between the moral requirement to send help and the moral requirement to not throw in more forces you cannot support. You don't leave Americans to die, and you don't unnecessarily send in Americans to die, but if you don't prepare properly up front, one or both of those terrible things is likely to happen.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
I guess you never heard about the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. That was planned attack that went bad with a military base a mere stones throw away. They were trapped for more than 10 hours PLEADING and BEGGING for help which they didn't get. Actually two special forces operatives tried to help out and got killed for their efforts.... while saving nobody (both received the medal of honor).

It wasn't some grand conspiracy or political ineptness, (I happen to agree with our ACTUAL military leaders on this) it is the reality of our military. Conservatives apparently live in a fantasyland where our military are like firemen, standing ready, armed to the teeth and waiting for some alarm to go off. If only the evil president hadn't stopped the millions plus army of special forces operatives that was just itching to go in and save the day..... oh if only he hadn't stopped them..... he is just soooo evil..... yeah right!

Armchair conservative chicken hawks have a lot of nerve pretending that they know more about our military capability than our actual battle hardened military leaders.

I know all about Mogadishu and probably know more about it than you who has only watched a movie about it. and it appears that werepossum just spanked your sorry ignorant liberal ass.


Conservatives apparently live in a fantasyland where our military are like firemen, standing ready, armed to the teeth and waiting for some alarm to go off

are you really this stupid? that is their job shit for brains.
 
Last edited:

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Actually, this is not at all accurate. Military leaders had a quick reaction force standing by, which was thoroughly prepared and went in instantly when help was requested. One company of the 10th Mountain Division (an elite light infantry unit) was always on immediate call, with another on (IIRC) four hour call and a third training up but on 24 hour call. The 2d battalion commander was monitoring the fight (about which he was completely uninformed until it began) and had his first echelon as prepared and as briefed as was possible given his state of ignorance, and he got his second and third echelon forces operational well under his mandate. There were two major problems, one military and one political. The military problem was that, for operational reasons, the Special Forces contingent kept the UN and even the 10th Mountain completely in the dark as to where they were operating, the immediate operational environment, and the opposing forces. The political problem was that, to maintain the fiction that this was not a civil war, the DoD & White House denied the requests for armor and heavy air support. The net result was that, although a battalion of the 10th Mountain is certainly a capable combat unit, it was forced to make ad hoc arrangements with local UN armor to complete its mission of saving and evacuating the SF operators and Rangers. This was not at all a case of failing to make adequate contingency plans, but a case of those contingency plans being hampered by too-rosy projections (for non-domestic political purposes) and a combination of institutional jealousies spreading legitimate security concerns beyond a reasonable limit. That is quite different from using too-rosy projections (for non-domestic political purposes) as an excuse to have no real security and no contingency plans whatsoever. The one similarity is that in both cases, quite reasonable requests were denied for non-domestic political purposes and Americans died as a result.

Mogadishu is a good case though for the dangers of sending in a response without adequate preparation and operational knowledge. A quick reaction force not only has to be available and on call, it also has to be properly equipped and kept up to the minute on exact ground conditions. Send in a force that is not properly equipped and/or not properly prepared for the threat and the exact terrain and it may well become another element needing to be rescued, even if it's a whole elite US combat battalion. Once the initial failure is called due, there is a legitimate struggle between the moral requirement to send help and the moral requirement to not throw in more forces you cannot support. You don't leave Americans to die, and you don't unnecessarily send in Americans to die, but if you don't prepare properly up front, one or both of those terrible things is likely to happen.

Man, just shut up you Monday morning conservative armchair general wannabe idiot.

:D
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I know all about Mogadishu and probably know more about it than you who has only watched a movie about it. and it appears that werepossum just spanked your sorry ignorant liberal ass.

are you really this stupid? that is their job shit for brains.
Speaking of "shit for brains", did you actually bother to read what Werepossum wrote? Specifically, "Mogadishu is a good case though for the dangers of sending in a response without adequate preparation and operational knowledge." If those words are too hard for you, let me summarize: He just spanked your sorry ignorant wing-nut ass.

In short, while he challenged some of the details presented by Bshole, he reiterated the conclusion. You're welcome.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Speaking of "shit for brains", did you actually bother to read what Werepossum wrote? Specifically, "Mogadishu is a good case though for the dangers of sending in a response without adequate preparation and operational knowledge." If those words are too hard for you, let me summarize: He just spanked your sorry ignorant wing-nut ass.

In short, while he challenged some of the details presented by Bshole, he reiterated the conclusion. You're welcome.


if you say so skippy.