Talk about whatever you wish.


Postby MajorMajor on Fri Sep 06, 2013 1:34 pm

I decided to move this here since it is a different topic than Syria and I don't want to clutter that thread up.

My problem is with your reasoning not the argument that something was screwed up.

Magyk wrote:I didn't buy anything. Its a fact that embassy workers for the United States were requesting support and protection for days before an attack took place. The Obama administration did nothing.

Right there, you comitted a major sin in logical thought. Your previous post was bashing OBAMA for Benghazi when here you are saying his ADMINISTRATION did something wrong. Those are two different things. You can't reasonably place all blame on one man for something many people did. Especially when it can't be proven the man knew anything about it.

The same could be said for George Bush. As much as people hate on him a lot of the crap was due to the shitty people around. Not him specifically.

Magyk wrote: An attack actually wound up happening and nothing happened still. Americans died on September 11th and wanting to keep up his 'Al Qaeda has been defeated' charade our President blamed it on a 'spontaneous riot' caused by a (nonexistant) 'youtube video.'

Here you are committing the sin of logical thought that all misinformation is malicious. We as a people now seem to think that we should have our news as soon as it happens and that it has to all be accurate even though its rushed. This is really where you are buying the party line because the Republicans used the fact that there were conflicting reports to say there was a coverup when there were just conflicting reports. The only mistake Obama made here was not man-ing up and saying we just don't know what happened yet. I doubt that would have gone over well in election season though because people damn well expect the President to know everything as it happens and to have the right information. This explains why they went with the one story. It was just to give the public something because the public expected information not because they were trying to hide what happened.

Magyk wrote:How you can not offer higher protection to a facility that is requesting it DAYS before September 11th (kind of an important day, mind you) and then NOT CALL IT A TERROR ATTACK FOR FOURTEEN DAYS is remarkable.

Note that Obama did call it an act of terror. In the rose garden. Before 14 days. Romney ate his shoe in the debate on that one.

But again here is where we can confuse the MAN Obama with the Obama ADMINISTRATION. Somewhere along that line in the state department someone screwed up royally. The damn consulate defenses weren't even finished and the ambassador went there. Hell, even the ambassador screwed up by not refusing to go into an unsafe work environment. He does have some responsibility for his own safety too.

Magyk wrote:And that entire bit about Hilary Clinton not being able to answer some questions for well over a week about Benghazi because she bumped her head? Absurd.

Note that she did indeed testify. It was just delayed. If anyone actually wanted to cover up something they wouldn't show up at all. Also... she collapsed in the middle of a damn speech. I can't see how that would be easy to fake because its way too public. Its not like she passed out behind closed doors and no one actually saw her. There had to be a fair amount of press there.

The biggest problem I have with your reasoning, and since you are espousing it, the Republican party line, is just the general way the matter was addressed.

The Republicans decided to investigate a cover up rather than what went wrong that led to this attack and the people getting killed. Its just not constructive to finding a solution. The only possible motive to investigate a cover up rather than the actual problem is to place blame for political reasons. It is all the more transparent given it was election season. Whats more they heap the blame upon the President, ONE MAN, that would reside with the administration, MANY PEOPLE.

If I were them and not being a child about it I'd have stuck with fixing the problem and pressuring the state department to make changes to procedures and personel. Then the Republican party could easily pick apart everything the administration was doing wrong, say how they'd do it better (something they REALLY need to work on), and not come off looking like witch hunting assholes who only have their own political interests to heart.

There is plenty there to be upset about, people died who didn't have to, but heaping blame on Obama directly is a stretch since he, like Bush, likely didn't know everything that was going on because his subordinates didn't tell him. If there is any blame on him its because he picked the wrong people to handle it. Rather than attacking him personally saying he's covering stuff up he should have been attacked for not making heads roll and ferreting out how mistakes were made. We could probably have gotten rid of Hilary sooner that way, since she headed that department and likely knew some of what was going on. You don't witch hunt to get rid of undesirables. You do your job logically and well to get rid of them.
Topic author
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:21 pm
Local time: Mon Jul 04, 2022 11:33 pm
Karma: 0

Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests