If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Liberal columnist agrees with Benghazi theory. We're through the looking glass, people   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 55
    More: Interesting, Benghazi, Steve Malzberg, safe rooms, Eleanor Clift  
•       •       •

1337 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2014 at 10:10 AM (15 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-15 08:51:48 AM
Repeat.
 
2014-05-15 08:54:43 AM
fta If there's a more sure-fire way to troll conservatives on their biggest obsession, we probably haven't heard it yet.

Keeping wingnut heads on fire for another 2 1/2 years won't be easy, but this is certainly worth a try. I imagine that when it's time to vote for Hillary, only a few ears will perk up to this dog whistle.
 
2014-05-15 09:12:56 AM
I don't know what Subby's on about.  But it sounds like Clift is just trying to dispel the idea that we left the front door open with no security and the attackers marched right in and shot Stevens point blank in his head.

Sure, she's stirring the pot a bit.  But what she's saying is that the situation was not that simple.  And she doesn't want this oversimplification get in the way of sorting out the mess that happened.  Since the Republicans don't seem interested in the full details and just want pin it all on Obama or use it against Hillary if she runs.

But what I really want to know is if McLaughlin looked at her and just said:  "WRONG!  Pat...?"

themoderatevoice.com
 
2014-05-15 09:14:49 AM
Um, no she didn't.  if anything, her mental gymnastics to avoid calling it a murder or assassination just perpetuates the aura that there was a concerted effort of cover up at work here.  the way she describes it, Stevens died in an accidental fire.
 
2014-05-15 09:23:15 AM

SlothB77: Um, no she didn't.  if anything, her mental gymnastics to avoid calling it a murder or assassination just perpetuates the aura that there was a concerted effort of cover up at work here.  the way she describes it, Stevens died in an accidental fire.


An extreme and simplified contrast to highlight the other side's extreme and simplified characterization, as I said.

This is no more than differentiating a cause of death from the cause of the accident.  You don't list "train" as the cause of death if you're hit by a train.  Similarly, you wouldn't list "terrorism."
 
2014-05-15 09:46:43 AM

SlothB77: if anything, her mental gymnastics to avoid calling it a murder or assassination just perpetuates the aura that there was a concerted effort of cover up at work here.


No, it doesn't.
 
2014-05-15 10:14:38 AM
Benghazi is a theory now?  I thought it was basically just a slogan.  I use it for my safe word.
 
2014-05-15 10:15:39 AM

Diogenes: SlothB77: Um, no she didn't.  if anything, her mental gymnastics to avoid calling it a murder or assassination just perpetuates the aura that there was a concerted effort of cover up at work here.  the way she describes it, Stevens died in an accidental fire.

An extreme and simplified contrast to highlight the other side's extreme and simplified characterization, as I said.

This is no more than differentiating a cause of death from the cause of the accident.  You don't list "train" as the cause of death if you're hit by a train.  Similarly, you wouldn't list "terrorism."


Calling it an assassination is just cracked inspired bullshiat pulled out of someones ass.  And, frankly, I think it's a legitimate argument (but pointless and meaningless) on using killed vs. died vs. murdered.

Would you consider, say, every combat death from insurgents in Iraq to be murdered?
 
2014-05-15 10:15:46 AM

whatsupchuck: Benghazi is a theory now?  I thought it was basically just a slogan.  I use it for my safe word.


Based on what the GOP is claiming happened, that seems like asking for trouble!
 
2014-05-15 10:15:58 AM

whatsupchuck: Benghazi is a theory now?  I thought it was basically just a slogan.  I use it for my safe word.


It's code for chicken sex.  Be careful.
 
2014-05-15 10:18:58 AM
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-15 10:19:57 AM
I'm honestly beginning to believe they're holding onto this whole mess of stupid just so they can make their enemies point out that it happened a number of years ago and that people have moved on. Sort of a way of trying to make the Bush disaster of a presidency no longer relevant.
 
2014-05-15 10:21:01 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Calling it an assassination is just cracked inspired bullshiat pulled out of someones ass.  And, frankly, I think it's a legitimate argument (but pointless and meaningless) on using killed vs. died vs. murdered.

Would you consider, say, every combat death from insurgents in Iraq to be murdered?


Well, I'd have to watch the whole piece to be certain.  But it makes me wonder if that isn't exactly what Clift was getting at.  The arbitrariness of the terminology used to "explain" what happened.  Because most of the people who are on tilt over it seem to be fixated on whether or not the administration characterized it as an act of "terrorism" or not.

Call it whatever the fark you want.  It was a tinderbox and security and support were inadequate.  But there's shared accountability there.  And it's clear the GOP doesn't want to own their piece of the failure.
 
2014-05-15 10:21:02 AM

SlothB77: the way she describes it, Stevens died in an accidental fire.


no, she doesn't.
 
2014-05-15 10:21:43 AM
Sure, if you believe that they weren't trying to kill him and they just wanted to send him a smoke signal.
 
2014-05-15 10:21:54 AM

Diogenes: I don't know what Subby's on about.  But it sounds like Clift is just trying to dispel the idea that we left the front door open with no security and the attackers marched right in and shot Stevens point blank in his head.

Sure, she's stirring the pot a bit.  But what she's saying is that the situation was not that simple.  And she doesn't want this oversimplification get in the way of sorting out the mess that happened.  Since the Republicans don't seem interested in the full details and just want pin it all on Obama or use it against Hillary if she runs.

But what I really want to know is if McLaughlin looked at her and just said:  "WRONG!  Pat...?"


God, I miss that show.
 
2014-05-15 10:23:12 AM

MFAWG: God, I miss that show.


I had a Philosophy professor who used the same style.  He was a riot.
 
2014-05-15 10:23:22 AM
So he wasn't "first-degree murdered", or even really "second-degree murdered". More like "manslaughtered", if you squint just right - an "arsonist who sets fire to an 'empty' building killing a homeless guy" sort of thing.

Or, as most sane people might colloquially term it: "murder".

// technicallycorrect.jpg
 
2014-05-15 10:24:47 AM
1.  Republicans proposed and then voted to slash funding for security.
2.  Stevens refused additional military security twice.

I want these points hammered home by the "liberal MSM mainstream media" until Republicans and their voters choke on them.
 
2014-05-15 10:26:41 AM
Has the Republicans' latest investigation turned up anything that hasn't been known for almost two years yet?
 
2014-05-15 10:27:29 AM

Diogenes: MFAWG: God, I miss that show.

I had a Philosophy professor who used the same style.  He was a riot.


DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM, EXPLAIN!
 
2014-05-15 10:29:53 AM

born_yesterday: 1.  Republicans proposed and then voted to slash funding for security.


But you see, this actually makes it Obama's fault, because if he thought extra embassy security was necessary he should have ignored the Congressionally mandated budget and diverted funds to embassy security.
 
2014-05-15 10:30:21 AM

Diogenes: Well, I'd have to watch the whole piece to be certain. But it makes me wonder if that isn't exactly what Clift was getting at. The arbitrariness of the terminology used to "explain" what happened. Because most of the people who are on tilt over it seem to be fixated on whether or not the administration characterized it as an act of "terrorism" or not.

Call it whatever the fark you want. It was a tinderbox and security and support were inadequate. But there's shared accountability there. And it's clear the GOP doesn't want to own their piece of the failure.


Dr Dreidel: So he wasn't "first-degree murdered", or even really "second-degree murdered". More like "manslaughtered", if you squint just right - an "arsonist who sets fire to an 'empty' building killing a homeless guy" sort of thing.

Or, as most sane people might colloquially term it: "murder".


But, again, where do you draw the line between what would be considered combat deaths and criminal murder?  We've largely been treating fighting with terrorists and insurgents to be a military matter.  Usually you don't call deaths from a military attack murder.
 
2014-05-15 10:30:52 AM
Satanic_Hamster:

Calling it an assassination is just cracked inspired bullshiat pulled out of someones ass.  And, frankly, I think it's a legitimate argument (but pointless and meaningless) on using killed vs. died vs. murdered.

Pointless and meaningless to you at least. However, to millions of less infromed people, the right vernacular and semantics paints a very different world view. The phrase "murdered by terrorists" is much more lurid and scary than "died of smoke inhalation while hiding in a safe room." It's done intentionally to shape the argument and it should be revealed for the manipulation it shows.
 
2014-05-15 10:32:38 AM

qorkfiend: born_yesterday: 1.  Republicans proposed and then voted to slash funding for security.

But you see, this actually makes it Obama's fault, because if he thought extra embassy security was necessary he should have ignored the Congressionally mandated budget and diverted funds to embassy security.


Something, something, electric cars, something, something, CHECKMATE
 
2014-05-15 10:32:39 AM

SlothB77: Um, no she didn't.  if anything, her mental gymnastics to avoid calling it a murder or assassination just perpetuates the aura that there was a concerted effort of cover up at work here.  the way she describes it, Stevens died in an accidental fire.


I remember Free Republic's insistence that Stevens was pulled from the rubble by a horde of angry Muslims, beheaded, and then sexually mutilated in the street.

Is that still a thing?
 
2014-05-15 10:34:35 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Diogenes: Well, I'd have to watch the whole piece to be certain. But it makes me wonder if that isn't exactly what Clift was getting at. The arbitrariness of the terminology used to "explain" what happened. Because most of the people who are on tilt over it seem to be fixated on whether or not the administration characterized it as an act of "terrorism" or not.

Call it whatever the fark you want. It was a tinderbox and security and support were inadequate. But there's shared accountability there. And it's clear the GOP doesn't want to own their piece of the failure.

Dr Dreidel: So he wasn't "first-degree murdered", or even really "second-degree murdered". More like "manslaughtered", if you squint just right - an "arsonist who sets fire to an 'empty' building killing a homeless guy" sort of thing.

Or, as most sane people might colloquially term it: "murder".

But, again, where do you draw the line between what would be considered combat deaths and criminal murder?  We've largely been treating fighting with terrorists and insurgents to be a military matter.  Usually you don't call deaths from a military attack murder.


Yes, they do.
 
2014-05-15 10:36:37 AM
i won't be convinced until a black guy agrees with the benghazi theory
 
2014-05-15 10:37:10 AM
No, see, Republicans slashing funding for embassy security was just their way of sending a strong message to the president that MORE security was urgently needed.

It's Obama's fault for ignoring the clear and powerful voices from the brave men and women of the GOP.
 
2014-05-15 10:37:30 AM

FlashHarry: SlothB77: the way she describes it, Stevens died in an accidental fire.

no, she doesn't.



I think what she's getting at, is that Chris Stevens was not specifically targeted by the attackers.  He was not the primary reason they were there, nor was his death the end-goal of the attackers.  What she's saying is that the embassy was the target, and any Americans, or those who were in their employ were the targets, and the death of Chris Stevens was the result of an attack meant only to kill any random person and destroy an American installation.
 
2014-05-15 10:37:34 AM

MFAWG: qorkfiend: born_yesterday: 1.  Republicans proposed and then voted to slash funding for security.

But you see, this actually makes it Obama's fault, because if he thought extra embassy security was necessary he should have ignored the Congressionally mandated budget and diverted funds to embassy security.

Something, something, electric cars, something, something, CHECKMATE


Precisely! These revelations will surely force the empty-suit iron-fisted Obama regime to slowly coast to a halt. Because the batteries in their electric car went dead, you see.
 
2014-05-15 10:39:06 AM

Hickory-smoked: Is that still a thing?


Only on the weekends.
 
2014-05-15 10:40:02 AM
The fact he choked to death on popcorn while watching Innocence of Muslims means it was not, technically, "murder."
 
2014-05-15 10:42:17 AM

mrshowrules: Repeat.


So is every Benghazi thread. Doesn't matter anymore.
 
2014-05-15 10:44:31 AM
i.imgur.com

The derp never bothered me anyway.
 
2014-05-15 10:48:16 AM
This isn't a "theory." People die of smoke inhalation all the time. I'm guessing she means that it was a byproduct of the attacks rather than a specific assassination attempt. I don't know how anyone could know that unless they are privy to the operational strategies of the attackers. But usually when Qaedans like Ansar al Sharia attack a CIA base, they are probably trying to destroy it and kill everyone inside. That is sort of the point. So I think its dumb to try to make an argument Ambassador Stevens wasn't "murdered." Every victim of a terrorist attack is in the larger sense, murdered. Even if it wasn't an assassination attempt.
 
2014-05-15 10:48:32 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Dr Dreidel: So he wasn't "first-degree murdered", or even really "second-degree murdered". More like "manslaughtered", if you squint just right - an "arsonist who sets fire to an 'empty' building killing a homeless guy" sort of thing.

Or, as most sane people might colloquially term it: "murder".

But, again, where do you draw the line between what would be considered combat deaths and criminal murder? We've largely been treating fighting with terrorists and insurgents to be a military matter. Usually you don't call deaths from a military attack murder.


You don't generally hear battlefield deaths (think the trench warfare of old) termed "murder", but what Noted War Criminal Allen West did to a detainee was attempted (or simulated) murder. When a US soldier massacres people in a village, we call it "murder". "Green on Blue" attacks are murders. But when a roadside bomb goes off, it's "terrorism"?

It's murder of a different type - death due to intentionally-inflicted injury. Whether by terrorism, officially declared war, musical knife fight, sentence carried out by decision of a free and open court, or robbery gone wrong, it's still "murder" colloquially speaking.

// maybe they didn't intend to kill Stevens specifically, maybe they didn't even intend to kill at all (HIGHLY unlikely) - but they definitely intended to do damage, and at the least didn't care if someone got killed, which makes it intentional enough to call "murder"
 
2014-05-15 10:52:29 AM

Almet: I think what she's getting at, is that Chris Stevens was not specifically targeted by the attackers.  He was not the primary reason they were there, nor was his death the end-goal of the attackers.  What she's saying is that the embassy was the target, and any Americans, or those who were in their employ were the targets, and the death of Chris Stevens was the result of an attack meant only to kill any random person and destroy an American installation.


This is a distinction without a difference. Like the supposed difference between "act of terror" and "terrorist act," there is no rational reason to harp on a meaningless distinction. A difference that makes no difference is not a difference. Furthermore, there is nothing in the State Department report that makes a claim to know the operational strategies of the attackers.
 
2014-05-15 10:58:33 AM

Almet: I think what she's getting at, is that Chris Stevens was not specifically targeted by the attackers.  He was not the primary reason they were there, nor was his death the end-goal of the attackers.  What she's saying is that the embassy was the target, and any Americans, or those who were in their employ were the targets, and the death of Chris Stevens was the result of an attack meant only to kill any random person and destroy an American installation.


i think that's exactly her point, and likely exactly what happened.
 
2014-05-15 10:59:02 AM

Diogenes: But it sounds like Clift is just trying to dispel the idea that we left the front door open with no security...


To be fair, according to page 19 of the State Dept. report (PDF), there were just four guard positions assigned for the CIA base and only three were actually staffed that night.
 
2014-05-15 11:12:08 AM

Dr Dreidel: // maybe they didn't intend to kill Stevens specifically, maybe they didn't even intend to kill at all (HIGHLY unlikely) - but they definitely intended to do damage, and at the least didn't care if someone got killed, which makes it intentional enough to call "murder"


I'd more put it at a "drive-by" style of mentality.  They don't care if someone is killed, but the main plan was just to shoot the shiat out of the place.  If you seen any of the footage, there's a lot of just spamming rounds in the air, at walls, etc etc.

Somacandra: To be fair, according to page 19 of the State Dept. report (PDF), there were just four guard positions assigned for the CIA base and only three were actually staffed that night.


Most claims seem to be that 50-250 insurgents attacked, including with heavy weapons.  I'd say the guards did a pretty damn good job.
 
2014-05-15 11:13:54 AM

Somacandra: Diogenes: But it sounds like Clift is just trying to dispel the idea that we left the front door open with no security...

To be fair, according to page 19 of the State Dept. report (PDF), there were just four guard positions assigned for the CIA base and only three were actually staffed that night.


See how it's Obama's fault? If he had made sure that fourth position had been staffed that night, instead of eating crackers in bed, then the attack would've been thwarted.
 
2014-05-15 11:34:27 AM
Is it fair to say that those who died of smoke inhalation in the Twin Towers were murdered?

Sue is. If my violent illegal actions(Such as an attack on a building of any kind) result in a death, then I have 'murdered' that person. They use that here in the US all of the time.

Besides, the guy didn't die in a "CIA Safe House', he died at the hospital where nobody knew exactly who he was.
 
2014-05-15 11:36:48 AM
When will the brave GOP start looking for the actual attackers instead of trying to blame Obama and Clinton? If they *actually* cared about the dead Americans, they would make finding them a priority.
 
2014-05-15 11:41:27 AM
Wait Steve Malzberg is still around and working for NewsMax now? I thought he fell into a black hole and vanished off the face of the earth when he was kicked off WABC?
 
2014-05-15 11:42:01 AM
You know you're out of straw to grasp when Elenore Clift is relevant.
 
2014-05-15 11:45:24 AM

Somacandra: Diogenes: But it sounds like Clift is just trying to dispel the idea that we left the front door open with no security...

To be fair, according to page 19 of the State Dept. report (PDF), there were just four guard positions assigned for the CIA base and only three were actually staffed that night.


You mean we KNOW what happened at Benghazi? WHY HASN'T ANYONE TOLD CONGRESS?
 
2014-05-15 11:48:41 AM

Somacandra: Diogenes: But it sounds like Clift is just trying to dispel the idea that we left the front door open with no security...

To be fair, according to page 19 of the State Dept. report (PDF), there were just four guard positions assigned for the CIA base and only three were actually staffed that night.


That is fair.  And I doubt it would have made a difference.

Alot went wrong there.  I wish more people were interested in the full details so we could actually learn from it and prevent it in the future instead of trying to score points or sweep it under the rug.

Parsing "terrorist attack" vs. "act of terrorism" vs. "murder" vs. "asphyxiation" isn't getting us there.
 
2014-05-15 11:50:07 AM

Zeppelininthesky: When will the brave GOP start looking for the actual attackers instead of trying to blame Obama and Clinton? If they *actually* cared about the dead Americans, they would make finding them a priority.


Just as soon as they're done farking all those dead chickens
 
2014-05-15 11:55:04 AM

Zeppelininthesky: When will the brave GOP start looking for the actual attackers instead of trying to blame Obama and Clinton? If they *actually* cared about the dead Americans, they would make finding them a priority.


The GOP's in charge of finding them? I guess that explains why they haven't been found yet.
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report