Wag the Dog

EdsonNascimento

Have you seen this movie?

Why does the Benghazi thing feel like we are living that movie?

Not trying to make light of everything that is going on, but doesn't it seem that every time we are about to focus on the Administrations lies regarding Benghazi, something appears to distract us?

I mean they started off with the ole "politicizing" thing during the election (well, really they started with some flimsy story and jailing of a man on a probation violation), then to the good ole sex scandal (Which is always a great distraction to the American public) and ultimately now, a war - which is the basic plot of the movie.

(I know this is completely wrong and silly. But it does give one pause)

I mean, they are covering up the Obama Administration's complicity in the murder of a US Ambassador, and the media (And thus by extension the public) barely pays attention. The hearings are basically confirming what we all already knew - it was a terrorist action, and the intelligence knew that from the moment it happened. And we are doing nothing about it. Where's the outrage?

Folks still harp on the WMD intelligence, which by most reports all intelligence (however wrong) on BOTH sides had thought they knew. And regardless, we still took out a dictator that was killing tens of thousands of his own citizens every year. Yet, here we have a clear cover up of a clear determination of intelligence that any 4th grader knew was the case that lead to the murder of a US Diplomat and Seals, and nobody seems to care.

JimmyV

As I have said before, a wag-the-dog scenario would draw attention away from Benghazi, not draw attention to it. Forcing the Director of the CIA to resign does that how? This would be the absolute worst wag-the-dog in history.

We were attacked. Shame on you and anyone else who wants to place the blame for that anywhere other than on the radical Islamists who killed our people.

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

As I have said before, a wag-the-dog scenario would draw attention away from Benghazi, not draw attention to it. Forcing the Director of the CIA to resign does that how? This would be the absolute worst wag-the-dog in history.

We were attacked. Shame on you and anyone else who wants to place the blame for that anywhere other than on the radical Islamists who killed our people.

A) They had him resign in a SEX scandal. The biggest distractor known to the US population. I mean, hey!! the Kardashian girls just got the key to a city and it's front page news on msn.com!! Not sure which city, as I didn't click, but I found that funny.

I love the shame on you defense. I'm not BLAMING anyone anymore than Nixon was blamed for Water Gate. He did what he did. It should be feted and appropriately handled. If you want to ignore folks in charge motives and abilities, do it at your own peril. The blame fore the killing lies entirely with the Terrorists (a word we can't use in the US, I guess). But, blame for the lack of support to our citizens that we send abroad to represent and protect us does fall squarely on the Commander in Chief. Sorry. That's the job description. Talk to Ben Franklin and his buddies if you want to change that.

JimmyV

Yes, the sex scandal that stopped all discussion of Benghazi. Very effective.

Even for you this is ridiculous. And a little disgusting. My heart goes out to the victims and their families who have become paws in yet another right-wing smear campaign. You don't like the "shame on you" argument? Don't play this kind of political game.

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

Yes, the sex scandal that stopped all discussion of Benghazi. Very effective.

Even for you this is ridiculous. And a little disgusting. My heart goes out to the victims and their families who have become paws in yet another right-wing smear campaign. You don't like the "shame on you" argument? Don't play this kind of political game.

Why is this a political game? You don't want to know the facts in what the Administration knew and when they knew it? You don't think that exposing that is critical to making sure we don't repeat the (obvious) error that lead to these deaths?

You'd rather throw around talking points and say someone else is shameful than getting to the truth of what occurred? Who's the shameful one here?

Personally, I try to put myself in the victim's family shoes (as much as I possibly can which is not even remotely close). I know if my father, son, brother was killed, I'd want to know the facts. And if the facts prove incompetence, I would want that addressed.

JimmyV

This is a political game because you don't give two shits about what actually happened - only what you can spin. This is another opportunity to launch the same tired attacks and you sure as shit weren't going to miss out on it. So, again, shame on you.

Of course I want to know what happened, and I think for the most part we already do. I understand it doesn't fit what you so badly want it to, but too fucking bad. And by the way, Mitt Romney's political attack as the attacks were still happening politicized this issue.

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

This is a political game because you don't give two shits about what actually happened - only what you can spin. This is another opportunity to launch the same tired attacks and you sure as shit weren't going to miss out on it. So, again, shame on you.

Of course I want to know what happened, and I think for the most part we already do. I understand it doesn't fit what you so badly want it to, but too fucking bad. And by the way, Mitt Romney's political attack as the attacks were still happening politicized this issue.

What? Ok. So, we know what happened.

You don't believe there was a cover up?

If not,

If so, then what should be done about that? Honestly, I'm not sure I know the answer to that (other than I hope nobody even implies impeachment or anything like that, as that is more than a collosal waste of time).

However, quite frankly, my original post was targeted at 2 things:

1) How reminiscent our current situation is to that movie
2) How easy it is for us to be distracted, and why there is no outrage for the obvious cover up and the actions that led to that even being necessary?

No spin. Really just more curiousity.

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

Of course I want to know what happened, and I think for the most part we already do. I understand it doesn't fit what you so badly want it to, but too fucking bad. And by the way, Mitt Romney's political attack as the attacks were still happening politicized this issue.

And honestly, I think Romney shouldn't have backed off. So, what if he's accused of politicizing it?

This thing is bigger than most people are recognizing

A) We had a terrorist attack on our soil, and our President not only refuses to say the word, he tries to have his lackeys divert our attention via misrepresenting the facts they already had
We apparently knew enough to prevent it and did not. Where else are we exposed?

There. There's your "politicizing." Not the original intention, but since you insisted on that, I'll comply.

brianlux

I'm not convinced there was a cover up over this situation- there's a ton of information out there about it and none of what I've read leads me to believe there was an outright cover up. But I agree with the was the dog idea- the idea that we are easily distracted from bigger issues-- which goes well beyond, of course, this one incident. It goes the the very core of our cultures refusal to look at what is going on all over the world. Refusal to see that women and children are abused in great numbers. Refusal to see that we are changing the climate in dangerous ways- even after Sandy! Refusal to talk about the extreme danger that the Fukushima reactor in Japan poses to the health of many millions of people- maybe even the whole world. Refusal to understand that our civilization's means of living is dependent on large quantities of inexpensive energy in the form of oil and that this is a limited resource. Refusal to look at how we will live when that oil becomes more scarce. Refusal to acknowledge that the oceans are dying and if that happens, eventually us. Refusal to acknowledge that agriculture is unsustainable, especially on the massive scale by which it is carried out. Refusal to take the steps necessary to soften the blow of the collapse of civilization even though we know that will inevitably happen. And most of all refusal to acknowledge that we all play a role in all of this. That is the greatest wagging of the dog.

Wag the dog is who we are.

JimmyV

EdsonNascimento wrote:

1) How reminiscent our current situation is to that movie

Not very reminiscent at all, actually. Hiring a film crew to create and film a phony war is reminiscent to...what? The resignation of Petraeus? Keep trying.

EdsonNascimento wrote:

2) How easy it is for us to be distracted, and why there is no outrage for the obvious cover up and the actions that led to that even being necessary?

Why is it obvious that there is a cover-up other than that is what you desperately want to believe? Honestly, I don't see it.

EdsonNascimento wrote:

No spin. Really just more curiousity.

Right...

JimmyV

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Of course I want to know what happened, and I think for the most part we already do. I understand it doesn't fit what you so badly want it to, but too fucking bad. And by the way, Mitt Romney's political attack as the attacks were still happening politicized this issue.

And honestly, I think Romney shouldn't have backed off. So, what if he's accused of politicizing it?

This thing is bigger than most people are recognizing

A) We had a terrorist attack on our soil, and our President not only refuses to say the word, he tries to have his lackeys divert our attention via misrepresenting the facts they already had
We apparently knew enough to prevent it and did not. Where else are we exposed?

There. There's your "politicizing." Not the original intention, but since you insisted on that, I'll comply.

In your first post you wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Not trying to make light of everything that is going on, but doesn't it seem that every time we are about to focus on the Administrations lies regarding Benghazi, something appears to distract us?

I mean they started off with the ole "politicizing" thing during the election (well, really they started with some flimsy story and jailing of a man on a probation violation), then to the good ole sex scandal (Which is always a great distraction to the American public) and ultimately now, a war - which is the basic plot of the movie.

Clearly you claimed that the Administration was responsible for the politicizing of this issue, despite this being miles from the truth. That you can then claim that this was not your original intent is laughable.

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

1) How reminiscent our current situation is to that movie

Not very reminiscent at all, actually. Hiring a film crew to create and film a phony war is reminiscent to...what? The resignation of Petraeus? Keep trying.

EdsonNascimento wrote:

2) How easy it is for us to be distracted, and why there is no outrage for the obvious cover up and the actions that led to that even being necessary?

Why is it obvious that there is a cover-up other than that is what you desperately want to believe? Honestly, I don't see it.

Umm. There is a war going on right now in case you hadn't heard. And,no I am not suggesting there's a movie crew involved or that Obama is in any way orchestrating that (And BTW, in the movie, it is implied/said that they have or would try other methods, but the war was best for THAT situation. Try not to take everything so literal). See Brian's post above. My point wasn't missed by others.

To the last part - umm.. Okay.

JimmyV

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

1) How reminiscent our current situation is to that movie

Not very reminiscent at all, actually. Hiring a film crew to create and film a phony war is reminiscent to...what? The resignation of Petraeus? Keep trying.

EdsonNascimento wrote:

2) How easy it is for us to be distracted, and why there is no outrage for the obvious cover up and the actions that led to that even being necessary?

Why is it obvious that there is a cover-up other than that is what you desperately want to believe? Honestly, I don't see it.

Umm. There is a war going on right now in case you hadn't heard. And,no I am not suggesting there's a movie crew involved or that Obama is in any way orchestrating that (And BTW, in the movie, it is implied/said that they have or would try other methods, but the war was best for THAT situation. Try not to take everything so literal). See Brian's post above. My point wasn't missed by others.

To the last part - umm.. Okay.

Others may choose to take you at your word. That is fine. But I have read your posts and to my mind you have no credibility. So it is no surprise to me that you can offer no evidence of this supposed cover-up, and that you have chosen to skip over the point about politicizing this attack.

And thanks, yes, I am well aware there is a war going on. The movie you reference used a war to cover up a presidential sex scandal. My original point remains: David Petraeus falling victim to a sex scandal did nothing to take the focus off of Benghazi. Nothing. Do you know why? BECAUSE HE WAS THE DIRECTOR OF THE CIA AND ABOUT TO GIVE TESTIMONY ABOUT BENGHAZI! Every article about the affair referenced Benghazi. No one lost focus on that. All this "scandal" did was allow political partisans to pretend there was some illicit cover up underway while offering zero evidence to support their claims. If this is a wag the dog it is the worst wag the dog in history.

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

Others may choose to take you at your word. That is fine. But I have read your posts and to my mind you have no credibility. So it is no surprise to me that you can offer no evidence of this supposed cover-up, and that you have chosen to skip over the point about politicizing this attack.

And thanks, yes, I am well aware there is a war going on. The movie you reference used a war to cover up a presidential sex scandal. My original point remains: David Petraeus falling victim to a sex scandal did nothing to take the focus off of Benghazi. Nothing. Do you know why? BECAUSE HE WAS THE DIRECTOR OF THE CIA AND ABOUT TO GIVE TESTIMONY ABOUT BENGHAZI! Every article about the affair referenced Benghazi. No one lost focus on that. All this "scandal" did was allow political partisans to pretend there was some illicit cover up underway while offering zero evidence to support their claims. If this is a wag the dog it is the worst wag the dog in history.

I apologize for using an analogy and not an exact replica of the current situation. It was clearly too convoluted. My bad.

I will ask 1 question - so if the Administration KNEW it was a terrorist act, but insisted for 2 weeks it was about You Tube, what do you call that?

aerial

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Others may choose to take you at your word. That is fine. But I have read your posts and to my mind you have no credibility. So it is no surprise to me that you can offer no evidence of this supposed cover-up, and that you have chosen to skip over the point about politicizing this attack.

And thanks, yes, I am well aware there is a war going on. The movie you reference used a war to cover up a presidential sex scandal. My original point remains: David Petraeus falling victim to a sex scandal did nothing to take the focus off of Benghazi. Nothing. Do you know why? BECAUSE HE WAS THE DIRECTOR OF THE CIA AND ABOUT TO GIVE TESTIMONY ABOUT BENGHAZI! Every article about the affair referenced Benghazi. No one lost focus on that. All this "scandal" did was allow political partisans to pretend there was some illicit cover up underway while offering zero evidence to support their claims. If this is a wag the dog it is the worst wag the dog in history.

I apologize for using an analogy and not an exact replica of the current situation. It was clearly too convoluted. My bad.

I will ask 1 question - so if the Administration KNEW it was a terrorist act, but insisted for 2 weeks it was about You Tube, what do you call that?

1. A lie
2. A cover up.

catefrances

why does a sex scandal make patraeus incapable of testifying in the benghazi inquiry?

Drowned Out

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I mean they started off with the ole "politicizing" thing during the election (well, really they started with some flimsy story and jailing of a man on a probation violation), then to the good ole sex scandal (Which is always a great distraction to the American public) and ultimately now, a war - which is the basic plot of the movie.

Lets assume for a moment that there is a coverup and negligence on the part of the Obama administration....
You think they're using the war in Gaza as a distraction? wow, ok....

Wouldn't it make more sense to infer that the air time given to the Benghazi/Patraeus scandal is being used as a distraction from the wholesale slaughter of civilians in Gaza, in which America is not just negligent, but complicit?

JimmyV

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Others may choose to take you at your word. That is fine. But I have read your posts and to my mind you have no credibility. So it is no surprise to me that you can offer no evidence of this supposed cover-up, and that you have chosen to skip over the point about politicizing this attack.

And thanks, yes, I am well aware there is a war going on. The movie you reference used a war to cover up a presidential sex scandal. My original point remains: David Petraeus falling victim to a sex scandal did nothing to take the focus off of Benghazi. Nothing. Do you know why? BECAUSE HE WAS THE DIRECTOR OF THE CIA AND ABOUT TO GIVE TESTIMONY ABOUT BENGHAZI! Every article about the affair referenced Benghazi. No one lost focus on that. All this "scandal" did was allow political partisans to pretend there was some illicit cover up underway while offering zero evidence to support their claims. If this is a wag the dog it is the worst wag the dog in history.

I apologize for using an analogy and not an exact replica of the current situation. It was clearly too convoluted. My bad.

I will ask 1 question - so if the Administration KNEW it was a terrorist act, but insisted for 2 weeks it was about You Tube, what do you call that?

Still refusing to own your "politicizing" comment? Gotta love that sense of conservative responsibility.

I'm not sure what you mean by "it was about You Tube", but if you don't believe that every administration, regardless of party, knows more than they tell the media then you are incredibly naive. Secrets are part of the job but they don't always equal a cover up.

And you shouldn't be sorry for using a poor analogy, you should be sorry for gleefully wielding the murder of Americans as a weapon because you don't like the president. I stated early on shame on you. That statement still stands.

JimmyV

catefrances wrote:

why does a sex scandal make patraeus incapable of testifying in the beghazi inquiry?

It doesn't and it didn't - Petraeus testified last week. That was just another bit of conspiracy mongering.

JimmyV

aerial wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Others may choose to take you at your word. That is fine. But I have read your posts and to my mind you have no credibility. So it is no surprise to me that you can offer no evidence of this supposed cover-up, and that you have chosen to skip over the point about politicizing this attack.

And thanks, yes, I am well aware there is a war going on. The movie you reference used a war to cover up a presidential sex scandal. My original point remains: David Petraeus falling victim to a sex scandal did nothing to take the focus off of Benghazi. Nothing. Do you know why? BECAUSE HE WAS THE DIRECTOR OF THE CIA AND ABOUT TO GIVE TESTIMONY ABOUT BENGHAZI! Every article about the affair referenced Benghazi. No one lost focus on that. All this "scandal" did was allow political partisans to pretend there was some illicit cover up underway while offering zero evidence to support their claims. If this is a wag the dog it is the worst wag the dog in history.

I apologize for using an analogy and not an exact replica of the current situation. It was clearly too convoluted. My bad.

I will ask 1 question - so if the Administration KNEW it was a terrorist act, but insisted for 2 weeks it was about You Tube, what do you call that?

1. A lie
2. A cover up.

Another fair and balanced source heard from.

catefrances

JimmyV wrote:

catefrances wrote:

why does a sex scandal make patraeus incapable of testifying in the beghazi inquiry?

It doesn't and it didn't - Petraeus testified last week. That was just another bit of conspiracy mongering.

okey dokey. thanx.

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

aerial wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I will ask 1 question - so if the Administration KNEW it was a terrorist act, but insisted for 2 weeks it was about You Tube, what do you call that?

1. A lie
2. A cover up.

Another fair and balanced source heard from.

Who cares who said it? Is he wrong? If so, please provide YOUR answer (which you've conveniently forgotten to do depite quoting the question twice now.)

JimmyV

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Who cares who said it? Is he wrong? If so, please provide YOUR answer (which you've conveniently forgotten to do depite quoting the question twice now.)

You refuse to own any responsibility for your own comments on politicizing - ignoring a point which has been brought to your attention twice - but I am supposed to jump when you ask a question? OK then.

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Who cares who said it? Is he wrong? If so, please provide YOUR answer (which you've conveniently forgotten to do depite quoting the question twice now.)

You refuse to own any responsibility for your own comments on politicizing - ignoring a point which has been brought to your attention twice - but I am supposed to jump when you ask a question? OK then.

I haven't refused anything. I'm not politicizing. I'm supossed to agree to something because you decide it is? It is your OPINION I am politicizing. I agree that's your OPINION.

Now, for the 3rd time I've responded to your "question." Now, I ask - please - what's the answer to mine? It's a simple question really. Even if you think I'm the devil, you should be able to answer it. Here it is again:

I will ask 1 question - so if the Administration KNEW it was a terrorist act, but insisted for 2 weeks it was about You Tube, what do you call that?

EDIT: I am editing to clarify the fact that you didn't understand the You Tube reference - The Administration's official positon was that the attack was precipitated by anger over a short anti-Islamic movie that had been on You Tube for about 6 months or so).

JimmyV

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Who cares who said it? Is he wrong? If so, please provide YOUR answer (which you've conveniently forgotten to do depite quoting the question twice now.)

You refuse to own any responsibility for your own comments on politicizing - ignoring a point which has been brought to your attention twice - but I am supposed to jump when you ask a question? OK then.

I haven't refused anything. I'm not politicizing. I'm supossed to agree to something because you decide it is? It is your OPINION I am politicizing. I agree that's your OPINION.

Now, for the 3rd time I've responded to your "question." Now, I ask - please - what's the answer to mine? It's a simple question really. Even if you think I'm the devil, you should be able to answer it. Here it is again:

I will ask 1 question - so if the Administration KNEW it was a terrorist act, but insisted for 2 weeks it was about You Tube, what do you call that?

My god man. The issue is not whether you are politicizing, even though you blatantly are. The issue is that you accused Obama of politicizing the situation in your original post but when it was pointed out to you that it was actually Romney who started that train down the tracks, your response was essentially "Good, he should have." Care to address the hypocrisy of that?

As for your question, and as I believe I pointed out earlier, I have NO IDEA what ridiculous talking point you are referencing when you say "it was about You Tube." Your question makes no sense. As for the first part, it is either a blatant lie or a distortion, so that is what I would call it. And for the record...

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." - President Barack Obama, September 12th 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/benghazi ... z2CsDmklsJ

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

My god man. The issue is not whether you are politicizing, even though you blatantly are. The issue is that you accused Obama of politicizing the situation in your original post but when it was pointed out to you that it was actually Romney who started that train down the tracks, your response was essentially "Good, he should have." Care to address the hypocrisy of that?

As for your question, and as I believe I pointed out earlier, I have NO IDEA what ridiculous talking point you are referencing when you say "it was about You Tube." Your question makes no sense. As for the first part, it is either a blatant lie or a distortion, so that is what I would call it. And for the record...

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." - President Barack Obama, September 12th 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/benghazi ... z2CsDmklsJ

My first post didn't accuse anyone of anything. You honestly believe I think Obama created the Israeli-Hamas conflict to divert attention from Benghazi? All it was was a commentary of life immitating art (if not in the LITERAL sense). Any deeper meaning, you are reading into it. I understand AMT is highly politicized, so it's hard to take things at face value, so that I take responsibility for. But, otherwise, the rest is on how one interprets what they are reading.

Yes, I think Romney should have pointed out the Administration's failing for our Ambassador and the other Americans and then tried to cover it up. If that's "politicizing" a horrendous event, then so be it. But, as they say, it is what it is, and he should have been sure that the American voting public was clear on the Administration's failings. (But, again, that had NOTHING to do with my original post. You directed the thread in that vein. However, I am more than happy to answer you query.)

To the final part - nice speech (as usual for Obama), but yet, when he and his Administration spoke directly about the attack (and not in a general speech that could have been given on any day in the calendar), they deferred to the reasoning that it was about the movie and could not call it a Terrorist act.

To go back to your admission (which was pretty obvious to everyone anyway) that the answer to my question is that it was a lie - my follow up would be - why would they lie/cover up an event that had already happened? It's one thing to not reveal intelligence/strategy to the public (I'm all for that quite frankly) in ADVANCE of something happening. It's quite another to divert the reasoning for an event that was obviously going to become crystal clear to anyone with at least 1 brain cell in a nano-second that had already happened.

So, I repeat - why even attempt to lie/cover up something that couldn't be covered up?

JimmyV

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

My god man. The issue is not whether you are politicizing, even though you blatantly are. The issue is that you accused Obama of politicizing the situation in your original post but when it was pointed out to you that it was actually Romney who started that train down the tracks, your response was essentially "Good, he should have." Care to address the hypocrisy of that?

As for your question, and as I believe I pointed out earlier, I have NO IDEA what ridiculous talking point you are referencing when you say "it was about You Tube." Your question makes no sense. As for the first part, it is either a blatant lie or a distortion, so that is what I would call it. And for the record...

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." - President Barack Obama, September 12th 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/benghazi ... z2CsDmklsJ

My first post didn't accuse anyone of anything. You honestly believe I think Obama created the Israeli-Hamas conflict to divert attention from Benghazi? All it was was a commentary of life immitating art (if not in the LITERAL sense). Any deeper meaning, you are reading into it. I understand AMT is highly politicized, so it's hard to take things at face value, so that I take responsibility for. But, otherwise, the rest is on how one interprets what they are reading.

Yes, I think Romney should have pointed out the Administration's failing for our Ambassador and the other Americans and then tried to cover it up. If that's "politicizing" a horrendous event, then so be it. But, as they say, it is what it is, and he should have been sure that the American voting public was clear on the Administration's failings. (But, again, that had NOTHING to do with my original post. You directed the thread in that vein. However, I am more than happy to answer you query.)

To the final part - nice speech (as usual for Obama), but yet, when he and his Administration spoke directly about the attack (and not in a general speech that could have been given on any day in the calendar), they deferred to the reasoning that it was about the movie and could not call it a Terrorist act.

To go back to your admission (which was pretty obvious to everyone anyway) that the answer to my question is that it was a lie - my follow up would be - why would they lie/cover up an event that had already happened? It's one thing to not reveal intelligence/strategy to the public (I'm all for that quite frankly) in ADVANCE of something happening. It's quite another to divert the reasoning for an event that was obviously going to become crystal clear to anyone with at least 1 brain cell in a nano-second that had already happened.

So, I repeat - why even attempt to lie/cover up something that couldn't be covered up?

These are your words, no one else's:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Not trying to make light of everything that is going on, but doesn't it seem that every time we are about to focus on the Administrations lies regarding Benghazi, something appears to distract us?

I mean they started off with the ole "politicizing" thing during the election (well, really they started with some flimsy story and jailing of a man on a probation violation), then to the good ole sex scandal (Which is always a great distraction to the American public) and ultimately now, a war - which is the basic plot of the movie.

If you'll read back through my posts you will notice that at no time have I referenced Israel, Hamas, or Gaza. Nor have I accused you of accusing Obama of somehow staging that conflict. My two points of contention have been that you a) accused Obama of politicizing Bengazi when that actually came from Romney and b) that you insinuated the Petraeus resignation was some sort of wag-the-dog. It is pretty clear from your own words quoted above that you in fact did do both of these things. This was not me directing anything. It was what you wrote and, I argue, what you intended at the time. Deny away, but I think we both know that is the truth.

EdsonNascimento wrote:

To the final part - nice speech (as usual for Obama), but yet, when he and his Administration spoke directly about the attack (and not in a general speech that could have been given on any day in the calendar), they deferred to the reasoning that it was about the movie and could not call it a Terrorist act.

To go back to your admission (which was pretty obvious to everyone anyway) that the answer to my question is that it was a lie - my follow up would be - why would they lie/cover up an event that had already happened? It's one thing to not reveal intelligence/strategy to the public (I'm all for that quite frankly) in ADVANCE of something happening. It's quite another to divert the reasoning for an event that was obviously going to become crystal clear to anyone with at least 1 brain cell in a nano-second that had already happened.

So, I repeat - why even attempt to lie/cover up something that couldn't be covered up?

My "admission" was not that the Administration lied about anything. My point was that your question was both a lie and a distortion. Perhaps lie was not the best word choice given the context, and I do take that back. But I stand by distortion.

My own opinion is that the President referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror on 9/12. Given that, I do not believe it has ever been covered up. I have heard theories (both here and elsewhere) that Benghazi was triggered by the CIA snatching and interrogating Libyan militia members suspected of having terrorist ties. I am going to venture a guess that you and I agree the CIA should be snatching and interrogating any foreign hostile it believes to have valuable information, yes? With that in mind, I don't consider the White House not shouting that fact from the treetops to equal a cover up. Maybe we agree to disagree on that point and maybe I am making too fine a distinction, but that is what I honestly believe.

JimmyV

Kinda disappointed we haven't had anyone drop the popcorn smilie into this thread yet.

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

If you'll read back through my posts you will notice that at no time have I referenced Israel, Hamas, or Gaza. Nor have I accused you of accusing Obama of somehow staging that conflict. My two points of contention have been that you a) accused Obama of politicizing Bengazi when that actually came from Romney and b) that you insinuated the Petraeus resignation was some sort of wag-the-dog. It is pretty clear from your own words quoted above that you in fact did do both of these things. This was not me directing anything. It was what you wrote and, I argue, what you intended at the time. Deny away, but I think we both know that is the truth.

You're exhausting. I didn't say YOU mentioned the war. That was the war I was referencing in my original post which you ignored.

It was not literal. Instead of :corn: I will end with :fp:

JimmyV

Right. OK, then. :roll:

I ignored the war because it was a point not worth discussing. The other two points were. Again, these are all your words. If you don't want to own them, that is on you.

Cliffy6745

Edson usually holds his own. Not so much here

When McCain is backtracking, you know it's over. Dude will make anything political