Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's Journal: Unimportant Benghazi Update 24

Journal by smitty_one_each
Despite the mostly amusing back-n-forth on Benghazi with the fellas, I'd like to hold fire on further exchanges until there is some no-kidding news on the topic.
Again, it's fine to flex the rhetorical muscles, but I'm just not able to devote the necessary time to keep throwing the fertilizer back at everybody, when the arguments have all reached stable circular orbits.
You can accuse me as desired, but accept in advance that I'm not likely to reply on this topic again until there is something to talk about.
May the Almighty grant wisdom to all of our leaders, and help them articulate some sort of stable direction for society.

Cheers,
Chris
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unimportant Benghazi Update

Comments Filter:
    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

      I don't know what smitty said, but I do know the administration lied repeatedly about what happened, tried to divert attention away from what happened, and generally covered it up.

      We knew immediately that this was a planned terrorist attack that, if related to the video at all, only was using the video as a proxy. Yet the White House said, very plainly and repeatedly, that this was only about the video and had nothing to do with American policies. In fact, it had nothing to do with the video, and everythi

      • Yeah, they lied. So what? That's what politicians do to keep getting reelected, and are thus rewarded. They're only doing what is expected of them, and they profit handsomely for it. Mr. Smith here, and maybe you too, seems to insist that Obama and his party affiliation is different when he and they are not.

        You what's neat about this? That nobody is talking about the real intrigue of the weapons running scheme to Syria that these people were/are involved in, or the ongoing war we are fomenting in the Congo,

        • He had done most of those things (I'd have to check to see who he may have had arrested).. only then the attack was on American soil, and the TV people hardly questioned him at all about it. They believed virtually every lie he told, and those who didn't were quickly tagged as nutcase 'conspiracy theorists' or 'terrorist sympathizers' by those very same TV people. The entire business was, and still is gung-ho for war. Actually Obama is getting pretty much the same treatment as Reagan, vilified by some and s

          • ...because we didn't muster a witch hunt that cashiered Bush over the Twin Towers/Pentagon (Lord rest LCDR Robert Elseth), that somehow immunizes BHO from questioning over Benghazi.

            That trick is getting old and stale..

            • No, no, it's your trick and it's beautiful!
              I just have this thing about remembering Elseth whenever 9/11 comes up. Highly personal note, not intended to inject anecdote and obscure the beauty of this argument for privileging BHO's record from review. Your argument kicks ass, teeth, and pretty much everything in between.
            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

              Sorry, how is that HIS trick?

              I've already listed various crimes committed by Obama here.

              You say they don't matter. And then claim you don't like Obama and are not picking sides.

              And then you wonder why people don't believe you.

              • Again, you seem to assume that I approve of Obama because I don't see him as worse than all his predecessors. You couldn't be more wrong.

                Sorry, how is that HIS trick?

                I didn't say it was his trick. It's a tired old game of "If you're not against x, then you are for y". A minor variation of a third party vote being a wasted one. I quit playing that half a lifetime ago.

                And I am not doubting Obama's crimes (though you all are listing the comparatively minor ones. A lot more innocents are being killed by his dro

                • So, as a result of all that, do you recommend
                  a) pursuing reform, or
                  b) cutting a deal, and getting on the gravy train?
                • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                  Again, you seem to assume that I approve of Obama because I don't see him as worse than all his predecessors.

                  False. Nothing I say seems like that at all. It is not that you don't see him as worse than his predecessors, it is that you are downplaying the things he has done wrong. Worse for you and your claim that you don't like Obama better, you say Obama's lies are no big deal, while making a big deal out of Bush's alleged lies.

                  And I am not doubting Obama's crimes ...

                  I never said you did. Please stop making things up. I said you were saying they were no big deal, which you explicitly did.

                  A lot more innocents are being killed by his drones ...

                  Evidence? This is often alleged, but the claims are highly b

                  • I said you were saying they were no big deal, which you explicitly did.

                    Where?

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      I said you were saying they were no big deal, which you explicitly did.

                      Where?

                      Heh.

                    • That's not downplaying. It was merely an observation of how the voters feel, with just a touch of sarcasm and ridicule towards them. They are the ones downplaying the lies and crimes with their votes. Plus, I wasn't singling out Obama. Politicians have to lie to win, and 98% of the voters approve. If they didn't, we would have an entirely different crowd in the capitol building and the white house. Even if the post could be considered 'downplaying', my vote sure can't be. I always 'waste' my vote on somebod

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      That's not downplaying. It was merely an observation of how the voters feel

                      It was presented precisely as a statement of how you feel.

                      Even if the post could be considered 'downplaying', my vote sure can't be.

                      Yes, your vote does not "downplay" things you didn't say your vote was associated with. So?

                      Look: your entire series of comments is based on a lie. From the beginning you tried to make the case -- without any evidence -- that I was holding Obama to a different standard. This has been reasonably proven false. Why did you not even make mention of this fact? Instead, you just try to avoid the fact that you were completely wrong. Again, why?

                    • From the beginning you tried to make the case... I was holding Obama to a different standard.

                      Oh, there's no doubt that you and Mr. Smith are doing that. Never heard word one during the previous regimes when they lied. And when another one of your favorite republicans gets in, you will, of course, do the same thing again while accusing the 'other' side of playing politics. It's inevitable. It's what all of you people on both sides do.

                      Anyway, you get last word, nice chattin' with ya

                    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                      From the beginning you tried to make the case... I was holding Obama to a different standard.

                      Oh, there's no doubt that you and Mr. Smith are doing that.

                      If you ignore the facts, right.

                      Never heard word one during the previous regimes when they lied.

                      I asked you for examples of lies. You didn't respond. I can guess the reason. If you can show me where Bush lied, I will address it. But if you can't give an example, you can't use it as evidence. That's pretty damned obvious.

                      And regardless, if you were following me the past several years, you did hear words from me criticizing Bush for many, many things, as I mentioned in the previous comments. I have a journal on here the very week that the warrtantless wiretapping thi

                    • That's more or less what I'm getting from these two. They are as frogs ferrying scorpions, sort of knowing they've shanked it, but unable to admit fault, and too frightened to buck the thing into the drink.
          • by PopeRatzo (965947)

            So, Benghazi == 9/11, and, because we didn't muster a witch hunt that cashiered Bush over the Twin Towers/Pentagon

            You're saying that an ambassador and three state department employees getting killed in a Libyan consulate is the same thing as 3000 people getting incinerated in downtown Manhattan, an attack on the Pentagon and three airliners crashed into US soil?

            Finally, the Right can say, "9/11 happened on Obama's watch". Admit it, it's been your fantasy since November of 2008.

            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

              You're saying that an ambassador and three state department employees getting killed in a Libyan consulate is the same thing as 3000 people getting incinerated in downtown Manhattan, an attack on the Pentagon and three airliners crashed into US soil?

              No, he is not. Please try to keep up.

              Finally, the Right can say, "9/11 happened on Obama's watch". Admit it, it's been your fantasy since November of 2008.

              No one wished any such thing. On the contrary: the fantasy here is that you and other leftists want to believe that the right wants the country to fail to win political points. There's no evidence of this, and there never has been. But you keep looking, because you're disgusting people.

            • That was a re-interpretation of fustakrakich's statement, made for rhetorical effect.
              I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you're not deliberately putting an original false equivalence in my mouth.
        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          Yeah, they lied. So what?

          I don't understand the question. "Yeah, John Doe killed 13 people. So what?" Please explain.

          That's what politicians do to ...

          Are you implying that makes it acceptable behavior? I don't understand.

          Mr. Smith here, and maybe you too, seems to insist that Obama and his party affiliation is different when he and they are not.

          I imply, nor insist, any such thing. I do insist that Obama is treated differently by the most of the mass media and much of the public in large part because of his party affiliation, and probably also because of his "race." (Well, half of it.) Again, if this were Bush, the press and public would be all over him, in much greater numbers and

"The geeks shall inherit the earth." -- Karl Lehenbauer

Working...