Quantcast
The three headed dragon against Obama

Forums - Politics Discussion - The three headed dragon against Obama

dsgrue3 said:
Ckmlb1 said:

 

 

I'm saying there a substantive difference between intelligence and talking points. Don't conflate the two. 

We have direct testiomy from Gregory Hicks confirming that the attack was indeed born of terrorism on that same day. It's highly ludicrous to suggest the CIA was unaware of this.

"No mention of the cable to Cairo, either?" Petraeus wrote after receiving Morell's edited version, developed after an intense back-and-forth among Obama administration officials. "Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this, then."

And disagreement from Patraeus himself.

But sure, go ahead and believe this was the CIA's fault, even though there is insurmountable evidence against that assertion.

I really don't care what you believe. I'm interested in the truth.


Once again, direct quote from CIA:  “[t]he currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US consulate and subsequently its annex.”

And deputy director of the CIA Morrell was the one that removed the references to previous warnings and the presence of extremists in what was then still considered a violent protest.  Can't pick and choose between your preferred members of the CIA. You should also notice that Petraeus concedes his point?

 I seem to not remember any heads at CIA or elsewhere rolling over 9/11 or the WMD fiasco, but now the president has to be impeached cause of faulty CIA intelligence? Bigger scandal than Watergate and Iran-Contra combined x10 apparently.

Gregory Hicks also said that fighter jets should do flyovers to scare away attackers, something that was impossible and pointless according to Republican defense secretary Gates.



XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb

Around the Network
badgenome said:
theprof00 said:

where does it say that?

http://news.yahoo.com/petraeus-email-objected-benghazi-talking-points-220924269.html

And the timing of Petraeus going public with his affair and stepping down was pretty suspicious, even more so in light of this.

That's a conspiracy theory without any proof. Petraeus was doing what he was doing, he wasn't set up or framed to be having an affair. 



XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb

badgenome said:
theprof00 said:

ACtually there was

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2007041861537264

"You have to remember," Mr. Lorenzi elaborates, "that in 2001, hijacking an airplane didn't mean the same thing as it did after September 11. At the time, it implied forcing a plane to land at an airport to conduct negotiations. We were used to dealing with that."

Besides that, is it really reasonable to compare protecting one singular consulate that was known to have security concerns with keeping every single flight from being hijacked?


Interesting, I don't rememebr any outrage against Bush or State Department when US embassies and consulates in danger zones were attacked under Bush several times. Attacks in Karachi, Pakistan (2002, 12 dead), Islamabad, Pakistan (2003, 2 dead), Saudi Arabia (2004, 9 dead), Karachi again (2006, 2 dead), Damascus, Syria (2006, 4 dead), Yemen (2008, 2 dead), Yemen again (2008, 16 dead). 



XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb

Ckmlb1 said:

That's a conspiracy theory without any proof. Petraeus was doing what he was doing, he wasn't set up or framed to be having an affair.

I'm not questioning whether he was having an affair, but it's suspicious that he decided to go public with it at that particular time. I don't think I have to have cold, hard proof to think that looks strange, and if that makes me a conspiracy theorist, then so be it.



Ckmlb1 said:

Interesting, I don't rememebr any outrage against Bush or State Department when US embassies and consulates in danger zones were attacked under Bush several times. Attacks in Karachi, Pakistan (2002, 12 dead), Islamabad, Pakistan (2003, 2 dead), Saudi Arabia (2004, 9 dead), Karachi again (2006, 2 dead), Damascus, Syria (2006, 4 dead), Yemen (2008, 2 dead), Yemen again (2008, 16 dead). 

I'm really not interested in playing the "Bush did it, too!" game with you.



Around the Network
badgenome said:
Ckmlb1 said:

Interesting, I don't rememebr any outrage against Bush or State Department when US embassies and consulates in danger zones were attacked under Bush several times. Attacks in Karachi, Pakistan (2002, 12 dead), Islamabad, Pakistan (2003, 2 dead), Saudi Arabia (2004, 9 dead), Karachi again (2006, 2 dead), Damascus, Syria (2006, 4 dead), Yemen (2008, 2 dead), Yemen again (2008, 16 dead). 

I'm really not interested in playing the "Bush did it, too!" game with you.

Glad it's a game for you, you said we can't compare the 9/11 attacks to an attack on a consulate in a dangerous zone of the world. So I gave you a 10 examples of attacks on US consulates and embassies specifically in dangerous countries (warzones, countries with abundant terrorists) that can be directly compared. Though I don't remember a single 'scandal' about them not being safe enough. Also forgot some apparently: Calcutta (2002, 5 dead), Tashkent (2004, 2 dead) and Istanbul (2008, 6 dead)

Also, Petraeus didn't decide to come out about his affair out of the blue. It was because it was discovered by an FBI investigation and the media was running with the story before he ever confessed.



XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb

Ckmlb1 said:

Glad it's a game for you, you said we can't compare the 9/11 attacks to an attack on a consulate in a dangerous zone of the world. So I gave you a 10 examples of attacks on US consulates and embassies specifically in dangerous countries (warzones, countries with abundant terrorists) that can be directly compared. Though I don't remember a single 'scandal' about them not being safe enough. Also forgot some apparently: Calcutta (2002, 5 dead), Tashkent (2004, 2 dead) and Istanbul (2008, 6 dead)

Also, Petraeus didn't decide to come out about his affair out of the blue. It was because it was discovered by an FBI investigation and the media was running with the story before he ever confessed.

I took issue with the comparison to 9/11 and theprof's inaccurate portrayal of what the French told us prior to the attacks. As for the rest, I don't give a shit what the Bush administration failed to do in a thread about Obama. It's an attempt to deflect. We shouldn't care about Obama fucking up and lying about it because Bush fucked up? No. I'm not going to get in some stupid partisan food fight. If you want to do that, go find a Republican to play with.

If there was a rumor of Petraeus' affair in the media before he resigned, I completely missed it. Maybe they were getting ready to run with the story either way and he decided to resign first, but if everyone who had an affair uncovered by an unrelated FBI investigation resigned, I don't think there would be anyone left in Washington. So it seems to me that Petraeus is gone because someone wanted him gone. It's entirely possible that that has nothing to do with Benghazi but intra-CIA power struggles or something instead, but the timing makes it stink.



The FBI was investigating Petraeus for months and interviewed both him and the woman he was having the affair with. Petraeus knew he was being investigated and after the president and Director of National Security were informed of the results he handed in his resignation http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/politics/petraeus-timeline

I'm not saying because it happened several times under Bush, it doesn't matter that it happened under Obama. I'm saying the people acting like the attack shows some huge errors by the administration are hypocrites if they never made a fuss about security of consulates and embassies that were attacked under Bush.

And for the people claiming that CIA intelligence failures are unbelievable, I pointed out much bigger intelligence failures in recent years (9/11, WMD) and not to mention the failure to see or stop the multitude of attacks on other US missions in the Bush years and twice before under Obama too.



XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/

Republicans altering quotes from the emails that were released (basically making stuff up and lying). Excerpt

The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

The GOP version of Nuland's comment, according to CBS News: The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

The White House email: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."



XBL Gamertag: ckmlb, PSN ID: ckmlb

Kasz216 said:
GameOver22 said:
dsgrue3 said:
GameOver22 said:

Because I don't think there is a truly objective viewpoint. Opinions are fine.....best example probably being Murrow's reporting on McCarthyism. The problem is, even with opinionated reporting, there will always be people who disagree. In some ways, I think the media often times tries to be too objective and doesn't call politicians out on their lies. They just try to take what politicians say and report it, with little to no fact checking. If there is anything we know, it's that politicians lie...... a lot....for meaningless reasons often times.

Sure there can.

"Airplane exploded today at 9:15 AM."

"Jim Boehner met with President Obama today to discuss (insert topic)" 

"Congressional Republicans vetoed the (insert bill) today by a margin of (insert vote)"

No need to add opinions to break the news to people.

I find you highly suspect now that you want the media's opinion about their own out of context quotations of politicians.

I think you're missing my point....I'm talking about philosophical objectivity....not whether the news can report a story without adding their opinion to it, which is why I don't like the term (I thinks it's a loaded term). I don't understand why its a bad thing for me to want politicians called out on their lies....it informs the public. If Obama starts citing some numbers to prove a point, I find it useful if the media can tell me whether those numbers are true or misconstrued. I personally find politifact to be one of the most useful news sources for this reason.....especially during debate season.


The only probably with Politifact is they often seem to have their answer first, and then work back what the poltician said.  Often lieng or taking out of context what was said to put in a false.  While making the point of difference for the other side.... and genrally just picking what stories they want that benefit them.

I stopped trusting Politifact a while ago, when I noticed they were paraphrasing and taking statements out of context to mean things that were never intended.  This doesn't help either...

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/02/selection_bias_politifact_rate.php

That's why there are so many fact checkers out there right now... they're all biased... and they generally have different answers about what's true, half true or false... even on the same statements.  They'll all give you plenty of numbers to back i up too.

 

Heck you even get blogs fact checking the fact checkers

http://www.politifactbias.com/2013/03/rand-paul-filibuster-you-should-have.html

I won't deny that they take things out of context sometimes. I've seen it a few times, but part of the problem is that context is often difficult to identify. For the most part, I think politifact errs on the side of giving false ratings and taking statements too literally (that's just my assessment). As for the study.....I'm not sure about it. Once again, its just a simple count with no statistical analysis. I imagine a lot of the reason for their findings is just the political context, meaning there is going to be more Republican criticism during Democratic control, and the criticisms are more likely to get covered and be false.

Just a hypothesis, but I imagine you would get similar results that showed more false ratings for Democrats if politifact is around when Republicans have control of the government. I think there is definitely a selection bias, but I think it's more along the lines of finding false/misleading statements rather than a partisan bias. It's just that the out-party has more incentive to go negative, especially under unified control, when the out-party is more removed from the legislative process.