Wag the Dog

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

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

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.

I'll simplify my original post (with annotations):

1) Doesn't it seem like we are in a Wag the Dog scenario (not that Obama caused everything. But, stuff happened similar to the movie - including the war which was/is in the Middle East) that has distracted us from a critical issue

2) Why do we let other issues (no matter how big or small) distract us from an important issue such as wtf happened in Benghazi?

If you think there should be no outrage, or there was no cover up, then so be it. But, I did not mean to say that Obama and his Admnistration orchestrated EVERYTHING - or anything (though I understand that's what happened in the movie). Just that what was happening (including a war) seems to be distracting us from something that at least to me seems very critical to getting to the bottom of so at the very least we don't repeat the errors that led to people's deaths.

And, not to drag him into it, but that meaning of the analogy was not lost on at least 1 person in this community (Thank you, Brian).

The fact that you wanted to bring up buzz words like politicize to distract from a very simple point is wagging the dog itself. So, it is fairly ironic. (yes I did allude to the word as to how Obama successfully thwarted any hope of bringing up this issue in the election run up. Brilliant on his team's part - beat them to the punch.)

JimmyV

Well, geez, man. Why didn't you just that in the first place?

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I'll simplify my original post (with annotations):

1) Doesn't it seem like we are in a Wag the Dog scenario (not that Obama caused everything. But, stuff happened similar to the movie - including the war which was/is in the Middle East) that has distracted us from a critical issue

To me it doesn't because I haven't noticed a decrease in the coverage of Benghazi. That is a story that isn't going away. Nor should it.

EdsonNascimento wrote:

2) Why do we let other issues (no matter how big or small) distract us from an important issue such as wtf happened in Benghazi?

If you think there should be no outrage, or there was no cover up, then so be it. But, I did not mean to say that Obama and his Admnistration orchestrated EVERYTHING - or anything (though I understand that's what happened in the movie). Just that what was happening (including a war) seems to be distracting us from something that at least to me seems very critical to getting to the bottom of so at the very least we don't repeat the errors that led to people's deaths.

I do think there should be outrage because it does seem like that embassy was not properly protected. Particularly if there were cloak and dagger CIA operations being carried out there. The victims families deserve answers and, as you say, preventing these mistakes from being repeated should be paramount. But I just don't agree there was a coverup.

EdsonNascimento wrote:

And, not to drag him into it, but that meaning of the analogy was not lost on at least 1 person in this community (Thank you, Brian).

The fact that you wanted to bring up buzz words like politicize to distract from a very simple point is wagging the dog itself. So, it is fairly ironic. (yes I did allude to the word as to how Obama successfully thwarted any hope of bringing up this issue in the election run up. Brilliant on his team's part - beat them to the punch.)

I didn't want to bring up buzzwords like politicize. I took that word from your original post. There were two particular points that I felt needed to be addressed, and that was one of them. They didn't distract from a very simple point, they became the point. The very simple point you are trying to make now could have been much better made originally without the politicization and sex-scandal-as-wag-the-dog charges.

I think it is quite clear you and I are not going to agree on this, and that is fine. But reading this last post, had it been your original post, I'm not sure it would have drawn any response from me at all. I certainly would not have come out guns blazing like I did.

Anyway, I think this horse might be dead so we should stop beating it.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

mickeyrat

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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.

So an ambassadors job is to protect us? Hmm, I suppose in some sort of indirect way thats true. I just wonder how that is really done inside a fortress with private security like blackwater fuckups causing international incidents.

I would tend to believe the career diplomats that understand the dangerous nature of this job. Further , it is an agreed to situation that local governmebts are to provide the majority of security.


What I've heard is a recommendation of security not an actual request for. But even thats hard to say when you have a bucnh of fucking blowhards jumping to conclusions with even the slightest chance of an investigation to uncover pertinant facts that would give a reasonable basis to pass judgement.

Leave the armchair quaterbacking to sundays.