Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 263
  1. #201
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,863
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Ignored? You mean you have no response. Bloomberg isn't a right wing source and you know this even if you refuse to admit it.

    Don't your arms ever get tired from always carrying the Democrats' water?
    I'm going to ask both you and Squatch to keep to the spirit of this thread. If you'd like to discuss how hypocritical I am or democrats in general are I suggest you make your own thread.

    To answer your question: I am a democrat, so no, I'll carry my own water all day.

    Back to the foot-dragging:

    "The top Democrat on the House Russia investigation, Rep. Adam Schiff, said Wednesday President Donald Trump personally promised documents at the center of "unmasking" allegations would be made available to all members of the House intelligence committee, but that White House staff is fighting those documents' release.

    "The President, when I met with him, said that he is happy to have whoever we wanted review the documents. His staff has opposed that, they were opposed to even letting my own staff review the documents, my staff director," Schiff told CNN on Wednesday. "So we're still trying to get those documents for the full committee, we would like the White House's help if they are sincere about wanting to share this information and have the oversight functions performed, they are to be facilitating this."
    He added, "But as yet we have not been able to make those documents available to the full committee."

    "The White House clearly only wanted one person to see these documents, and that person was our chairman," Schiff said on CNN's "New Day," referring to Nunes' coordination with White House staff to review documents showing top Trump aides were picked up in "incidental" collection by US intelligence.

    "I want the full committees to be able to see that, and we're meeting resistance," Schiff said. "If these documents are so damning or so indicating of the President, as he suggests, why are they opposing efforts to provide them to the full committee? I think that's a question worthy of the White House answering.""
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #202
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Please, I just show Nunes pretending to not know who Carter Page was.
    Which shows that Mr. Nunes, perhaps, isn't pursuing this scandal. I'm sure you're aware that Mr. Nunes is not the Republican party. Do you have anything to support that the Republican party as an institution or a large majority of the Republican Party isn't pursuing this scandal?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Right, and why is that? I'd say that sure isn't letting it go...more like let's look at something else.
    In what sense is getting access to the documents at issue "looking at something else?"

    And how do you reconcile Rep. Schiff's change of heart on the investigation by inviting Ms. Rice to testify?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  3. #203
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,863
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Which shows that Mr. Nunes, perhaps, isn't pursuing this scandal. I'm sure you're aware that Mr. Nunes is not the Republican party. Do you have anything to support that the Republican party as an institution or a large majority of the Republican Party isn't pursuing this scandal?
    Why would I need to, he's the head of the intelligence committee(?) right? Should someone else be pursuing it? and why aren't they?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  4. #204
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Why would I need to, he's the head of the intelligence committee(?) right? Should someone else be pursuing it? and why aren't they?
    Because its a Hasty Generalization Fallacy. One member of a party is not the same as the entire party. Now, of course you could just be arguing that Nunes alone is being hypocritical, but then you would need to show that he actually meets that definition by showing when he actually advocated the opposite action from what he is actually taking.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #205
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,863
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Which shows that Mr. Nunes, perhaps, isn't pursuing this scandal. I'm sure you're aware that Mr. Nunes is not the Republican party. Do you have anything to support that the Republican party as an institution or a large majority of the Republican Party isn't pursuing this scandal?




    In what sense is getting access to the documents at issue "looking at something else?"

    And how do you reconcile Rep. Schiff's change of heart on the investigation by inviting Ms. Rice to testify?
    See my post 201.

    Looking at Rice and, as the president alleged, her criminal conduct, is looking at something else, a deflection or distraction.

    But ok, since there's seemingly nothing there let's do that too. (see, me no hypocrite)

    Will you hold the president accountable for lying to the american people, again? The way Hillary and Rice were for the Benghazi video (which turned out to not be a lie at all).

    Which leads me to why this Rice thing is so important in covering for the president...Rice, again, who was whipped for and I'm sure is synonymous with "lying" for political purposes in certain circles. This works extremely well as a diversion for the administration.

    ---------- Post added at 06:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Because its a Hasty Generalization Fallacy. One member of a party is not the same as the entire party. Now, of course you could just be arguing that Nunes alone is being hypocritical, but then you would need to show that he actually meets that definition by showing when he actually advocated the opposite action from what he is actually taking.
    hmmm, I'm going to disagree since he's in a leadership position. Are there underlings (or anyone else in the party) stepping up to challenge him? Maybe even saying he should step down?

    The party has policy, strategy, and a platform, and he's obligated to follow it and follow orders (whether implicit or implied). He isn't a billiard ball just bouncing around.

    Oh, the party has a history as well. So even if it was someone else in his position (or any other position) who acted differently doesn't negate the hypocrisy.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  6. #206
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    See my post 201.
    Ok...And? You seem to have supported my point yesterday. The Republican members of the committee pressed Mr. Trump to show the Democrats the documents he claims vindicate his claim. Rep. Schiff says he has seen these documents and thinks they are important to release to the entire committee. The WH released them to the "Gang of Eight" (regular committee members). Now they are discussing whether or not it will be released to associate members who have lower clearance levels.

    As the ranking member well knows, for decades the intelligence community has made intelligence reports as sensitive as these documents available only to the Gang of Eight and their cleared staff members," the spokesperson said.

    The spokesperson also noted House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's cleared staff member was at the White House complex Tuesday to view the documents.

    Schiff also said he has signed on to two formal invites -- one inviting FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers to return to the House intelligence committee and a second rescheduling the public hearing with former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

    But Schiff said that House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes has not yet signed the letter to bring Yates, Brennan and Clapper before investigators.

    A Republican source responded to Schiff's comments by saying the committee "is committed to speaking to Comey, Rogers, Yates, Clapper, and Brennan, and the committee is now working out arrangements for all five of them to appear."

    "Because Comey and Rogers were unable to answer around 100 questions at their open hearing, there is discussion about whether the questions put to some of these witnesses can be answered in another open hearing or would require a classified setting," the source added.

    Schiff and Nunes were the only lawmakers to have seen the intelligence reports.

    From your source

    Ok, so since:

    a) the documents are being provided to an expanded audience at the request of Republicans

    and

    b) additional hearings are being scheduled at Mr. Schiff's bequest.

    How are they dragging their feet?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    The way Hillary and Rice were for the Benghazi video (which turned out to not be a lie at all).
    Wait, are you claiming that the YouTube video Rice mentioned was the cause of the Benghazi raid?

    ---------- Post added at 03:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    hmmm, I'm going to disagree since he's in a leadership position.
    That would perhaps be a valid objection if your claim was that the intelligence committee was acting hypocritically, since he is the leader of that committee, not the party in general.

    But if that were your claim, you'd need to show that that committee had advocated a different course of action in the past.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Are there underlings (or anyone else in the party) stepping up to challenge him? Maybe even saying he should step down?
    Yes. See the links earlier in the thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    He isn't a billiard ball just bouncing around.
    But he isn't in charge of setting policy or positions for the Republican Party as a whole, is he?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #207
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,863
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Wait, are you claiming that the YouTube video Rice mentioned was the cause of the Benghazi raid?
    Nope, that's what the administration was told by the CIA.

    ---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But he isn't in charge of setting policy or positions for the Republican Party as a whole, is he?
    No, relevance? He is obligated to follow them...even if that means strategically going against them.

    ---------- Post added at 01:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    How are they dragging their feet?
    "The top Democrat on the House Russia investigation, Rep. Adam Schiff, said Wednesday President Donald Trump personally promised documents at the center of "unmasking" allegations would be made available to all members of the House intelligence committee, but that White House staff is fighting those documents' release." Source is in post 201

    ---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    That would perhaps be a valid objection if your claim was that the intelligence committee was acting hypocritically, since he is the leader of that committee, not the party in general.

    But if that were your claim, you'd need to show that that committee had advocated a different course of action in the past.
    It wouldn't have to be that committee specifically, since it is the party's control of said committees that are projecting strategy. So since investigations were launched against, say, Clinton, in the past I'll use them as support...whatever ones they were where she was called to testify about Benghazi.

    ---------- Post added at 01:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes. See the links earlier in the thread.
    Ok, so I read the two articles about McCain and I found this: (really it's your job to point out the support, so you can do the other articles)

    "Stopping just short of demanding Nunes recuse himself, McCain’s open criticism of Nunes nevertheless opens the door for more pressure on Nunes from the GOP. Republicans may be reading polling showing Trump’s approval dropping and support for an independent commission rising. (In the latest Quinnipiac poll voters favour an independent inquest by a 66 to 29 percent margin.) Frankly, if Republicans in Congress want to demonstrate independence from a failing president and avoid constant questions about the issue they’d be smart to offload the entire matter to an independent commission or select committee. Nunes has made his own position — and Republicans’ support for him — increasingly difficult to maintain."


    Sounds like a hedging strategy to me. A single senator? What have you seen?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  8. #208
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,137
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I'm going to ask both you and Squatch to keep to the spirit of this thread. If you'd like to discuss how hypocritical I am or democrats in general are I suggest you make your own thread.

    To answer your question: I am a democrat, so no, I'll carry my own water all day.

    Back to the foot-dragging:

    "The top Democrat on the House Russia investigation, Rep. Adam Schiff, said Wednesday President Donald Trump personally promised documents at the center of "unmasking" allegations would be made available to all members of the House intelligence committee, but that White House staff is fighting those documents' release.

    "The President, when I met with him, said that he is happy to have whoever we wanted review the documents. His staff has opposed that, they were opposed to even letting my own staff review the documents, my staff director," Schiff told CNN on Wednesday. "So we're still trying to get those documents for the full committee, we would like the White House's help if they are sincere about wanting to share this information and have the oversight functions performed, they are to be facilitating this."
    He added, "But as yet we have not been able to make those documents available to the full committee."

    "The White House clearly only wanted one person to see these documents, and that person was our chairman," Schiff said on CNN's "New Day," referring to Nunes' coordination with White House staff to review documents showing top Trump aides were picked up in "incidental" collection by US intelligence.

    "I want the full committees to be able to see that, and we're meeting resistance," Schiff said. "If these documents are so damning or so indicating of the President, as he suggests, why are they opposing efforts to provide them to the full committee? I think that's a question worthy of the White House answering.""
    You are conflating two claims, one I have made and one I have not made. I have only claimed that the issue is newsworthy. You have admitted this even though you tried to backtrack on your concession. Any other claim you have inferred I am making will be ignored. So, I do not have any interest in this thread about what Schiff said or what Trump did or did not do. It is irrelevant to any claim I am making. You are trying to prove innocence. I am simply claiming there's a story. Your only direct rebuttal is that I am getting this from right-wing news sources (i.e. FoxNews). However, I clearly refuted this argument since the story was reported by Bloomberg. What is undeniable is that CNN and MSNBC (other than to report Rice's denials of a non-news story that they never even reported), the two sites have refused to acknowledge the base story. I have no problem with you believing that Rice is perfectly innocent (did nothing wrong). You may be right. I am not claiming to know either way. However, it is pretty pathetic that two of the largest news departments in America chose to ignore the main story and only cover Rice's denials after the fact.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  9. #209
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,863
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    "Donald J. Trump‏Verified account
    @realDonaldTrump

    Follow
    More
    What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval."


    Trump tweet from 2013.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #210
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    No, relevance? He is obligated to follow them...even if that means strategically going against them.
    ...
    It wouldn't have to be that committee specifically, since it is the party's control of said committees that are projecting strategy. So since investigations were launched against, say, Clinton, in the past I'll use them as support...whatever ones they were where she was called to testify about Benghazi.
    Ahh so you're not saying that his actions are making the Republican Party hypocritical, you're saying that he is being directed by the party to act this way (while, presumably, other Republicans are being directed to oppose him?). And that those directions are what is making the Republican Party hypocritical.

    Do you have any evidence of this direction, because it sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory now. A cabal of unnamed individuals are directing every response and action of each member of the Senate for some unnamed goal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    "The top Democrat on the House Russia investigation, Rep. Adam Schiff, said Wednesday President Donald Trump personally promised documents at the center of "unmasking" allegations would be made available to all members of the House intelligence committee, but that White House staff is fighting those documents' release." Source is in post 201
    And then, read the rest of your actual source, where Schiff makes it clear that he was provided the documents by the White House and is only seeking to expand access to the Associate Members of the Committee (who don't have the security clearance as of yet).



    As the ranking member well knows, for decades the intelligence community has made intelligence reports as sensitive as these documents available only to the Gang of Eight and their cleared staff members," the spokesperson said.

    The spokesperson also noted House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's cleared staff member was at the White House complex Tuesday to view the documents.

    Schiff also said he has signed on to two formal invites -- one inviting FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers to return to the House intelligence committee and a second rescheduling the public hearing with former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

    But Schiff said that House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes has not yet signed the letter to bring Yates, Brennan and Clapper before investigators.

    A Republican source responded to Schiff's comments by saying the committee "is committed to speaking to Comey, Rogers, Yates, Clapper, and Brennan, and the committee is now working out arrangements for all five of them to appear."

    "Because Comey and Rogers were unable to answer around 100 questions at their open hearing, there is discussion about whether the questions put to some of these witnesses can be answered in another open hearing or would require a classified setting," the source added.

    Schiff and Nunes were the only lawmakers to have seen the intelligence reports.


    Add to this that Rep. Nunes stepped aside to further the investigation.



    So again, how are they dragging their feet?




    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Nope, that's what the administration was told by the CIA.
    Sorry, that information is out of date. The CIA confirmed that its talking points never contained that particular connection, but that it was later added by the State Department.

    Additionally, we also know that Ms. Rice's statements weren't based on the CIA info, her initial statements came out before it was issued and were based on talking points emailed from the White House staff.




    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    "Donald J. Trump‏Verified account
    @realDonaldTrump

    Follow
    More
    What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval."


    Trump tweet from 2013.
    I don't disagree, though I will note that he is unintentionally correct. The difference was that in 2013 we were not already conducting kinetic strikes in Syria and as such strikes by the Obama administration would have been a new operation. When President Obama did begin those strikes in Syria, he advised the Senate a la the War Powers Act. However, when President Trump ordered his attacks last night, we had already been conducting kinetic strikes in Syria for three years non-stop.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #211
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,863
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ahh so you're not saying that his actions are making the Republican Party hypocritical, you're saying that he is being directed by the party to act this way (while, presumably, other Republicans are being directed to oppose him?). And that those directions are what is making the Republican Party hypocritical.

    Do you have any evidence of this direction, because it sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory now. A cabal of unnamed individuals are directing every response and action of each member of the Senate for some unnamed goal.
    Well, what you might call a conspiracy I call normal hedging behavior for any group. An italian family, for instance, might send one son into the black hand, another into the police, and the last into the priesthood.

    ---------- Post added at 11:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post


    So again, how are they dragging their feet?
    Again, "White House staff is fighting those documents' release." I'm not sure how I could be more clear.

    ---------- Post added at 12:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post


    Sorry, that information is out of date. The CIA confirmed that its talking points never contained that particular connection, but that it was later added by the State Department.

    Additionally, we also know that Ms. Rice's statements weren't based on the CIA info, her initial statements came out before it was issued and were based on talking points emailed from the White House staff.
    "the CIA knew “the demonstration and violence in Cairo were sparked by people upset over a YouTube video,”"

    "Second, that the protest and subsequent attack had been motivated by what had happened in Cairo earlier in the day (there was no mention in the piece of the YouTube video defaming the Prophet Muhammad)."

    That's an easy enough mistake to make in interpretation.

    "First, if the CIA and intelligence analysts never even mentioned the YouTube video, why did Secretary Clinton?" So what's their answer?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  12. #212
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,863
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I don't disagree, though I will note that he is unintentionally correct. The difference was that in 2013 we were not already conducting kinetic strikes in Syria and as such strikes by the Obama administration would have been a new operation. When President Obama did begin those strikes in Syria, he advised the Senate a la the War Powers Act. However, when President Trump ordered his attacks last night, we had already been conducting kinetic strikes in Syria for three years non-stop.
    That doesn't negate the hypocrisy.

    Also, I seem to remember when Clinton was embroiled in the Lewensky scandal and he attacked some terrorists he was accused of wagging the dog - attacking an "aspirin" factory (they didn't make aspirin there) and all that.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  13. #213
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Well, what you might call a conspiracy I call normal hedging behavior for any group. An italian family, for instance, might send one son into the black hand, another into the police, and the last into the priesthood.
    Of course, that is assuming there is a centralized decision making process. Regardless, I'm assuming since you offered none, that you don't have evidence of this kind of centralized direction being given?



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Again, "White House staff is fighting those documents' release." I'm not sure how I could be more clear.
    Because you didn't read your article, you are cherry picking as I've already shown.

    So, given that we both agree that:

    1) The documents in question have been provided to the ranking members of the committee, one of which has backed of his criticism last weekend.
    2) Rep. Nunes has stepped aside to let the committee itself play a more active role in the investigation.
    3) The WH is "reading on" the associate committee members to allow them to see the documents (a legal requirement).
    4) Additional hearings have been created for Rep. Schiff and others to question relevant officials.

    What, exactly, would you have them do that would indicate that "they" (and please define exactly who that is) aren't dragging their feet?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    "the CIA knew “the demonstration and violence in Cairo were sparked by people upset over a YouTube video,”"

    Cowboy, this is one of the most disingenuous quotes you've offered on this site.

    The full quote (emphasis original):

    •Michael Morell, former deputy director and acting director of the CIA, wrote in his May 2015 book The Great War of Our Time that while the CIA knew “the demonstration and violence in Cairo were sparked by people upset over a YouTube video,” intelligence “analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks.” (p. 205-206)


    You are attempting to shift the burden. My evidence pointed out that the CIA did not tell the Administration that the video sparked the Benghazi attack as you claimed in post 207. Do you disagree with that?





    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    That doesn't negate the hypocrisy.

    Also, I seem to remember when Clinton was embroiled in the Lewensky scandal and he attacked some terrorists he was accused of wagging the dog - attacking an "aspirin" factory (they didn't make aspirin there) and all that.
    You are correct that it doesn't negate Mr. Trump's hypocrisy here (because he likely doesn't understand the distinction that would make it not hypocritical). Though, neither does it negate that he is correct in this case.

    You are also correct that Mr. Clinton decided to fire TLAMs at several targets at the height of the Lewinsky scandal and that there were accusations that he was attempting to change the news cycle. The situations bear a little bit of superficial similarity, but not much else. Mr. Trump's strikes hit the airbase housing the ground attack aircraft actually used to commit the attack, mitigating the potential to conduct future war crimes. Mr. Clinton's attacks occurred on Bin Laden's camps (a likely valid target) and on a factory in the Sudan with few ties to the related group that conducted the embassy bombing. It was claimed that the factory had been producing nerve gas, though that turned out not to be the case (it was, in fact, an aspirin factory) and the intelligence was relatively sketchy.


    Of course, both politicians almost certainly used the opportunities given to them to change the new narrative, the difference (and it is a subjective one) is how much the events were stretched to fit the change.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. #214
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,863
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Of course, that is assuming there is a centralized decision making process. Regardless, I'm assuming since you offered none, that you don't have evidence of this kind of centralized direction being given?
    Sure, and no I don't. That doesn't mean it didn't happen or, maybe more likely, it wasn't needed...Paolo chose the priesthood all his own and no need for mom and dad to persuade him...the result is the same.

    ---------- Post added at 07:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:43 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    What, exactly, would you have them do that would indicate that "they" (and please define exactly who that is) aren't dragging their feet?
    Not "fighting those documents' release."

    ---------- Post added at 07:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Cowboy, this is one of the most disingenuous quotes you've offered on this site.

    The full quote (emphasis original):

    •Michael Morell, former deputy director and acting director of the CIA, wrote in his May 2015 book The Great War of Our Time that while the CIA knew “the demonstration and violence in Cairo were sparked by people upset over a YouTube video,” intelligence “analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks.” (p. 205-206)


    You are attempting to shift the burden. My evidence pointed out that the CIA did not tell the Administration that the video sparked the Benghazi attack as you claimed in post 207. Do you disagree with that?
    Right, three days later. That they were being told that the violence elsewhere was led to a reasonable conclusion at the time.

    That nothing even remotely resembling the Benghazi hearings regarding Russia has occurred or in the making, and is actively being deflected and distracted from continues to add more support to my argument.

    ---------- Post added at 08:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:55 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    (it was, in fact, an aspirin factory)
    You're wrong. I haven't seen where they made aspirin at all, you can support that.

    ". . . one of only three medium-sized pharmaceutical factories in Sudan, and the only one producing TB drugs — for more than 100,000 patients, at about £1 a month. Costlier imported versions are not an option for most of them — or for their husbands, wives and children, who will have been infected since. Al-Shifa was also the only factory making veterinary drugs in this vast, mostly pastoralist, country. Its specialty was drugs to kill the parasites which pass from herds to herders, one of Sudan’s principal causes of infant mortality. Since the bombing, “people have gone back to doing without,” says Eltayeb, with a shrug."

    "manufacture of fungicides and antibiotics" same source

    The point is that the manufacture of aspirin (even if that did happen) is the only thing ever mentioned - YOU did it ("an aspirin factory") suggesting the exclusivity of anything else - in order to play-up it unworthiness as a target and to support the wag the dog propaganda.

    It was very effective and still plays to this day.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #215
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Sure, and no I don't. That doesn't mean it didn't happen...
    You are correct, it doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means that your argument based on the premise that it did is unfounded. That it is an emotional, not a rational belief, right?



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Not "fighting those documents' release."
    So you are saying that they should circumvent classification laws by not "reading on" the committee members? Your argument is that the only way they could convince you would be to break the law?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Right, three days later. That they were being told that the violence elsewhere was led to a reasonable conclusion at the time.
    Why don't we make it a little bit more simple. Let's see what your answer is to your original question.


    Question to opponent. Did the CIA tell the Administration that the video prompted Benghazi?



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    You're wrong. I haven't seen where they made aspirin at all, you can support that.

    ...

    The point is that the manufacture of aspirin (even if that did happen) is the only thing ever mentioned - YOU did it ("an aspirin factory") suggesting the exclusivity of anything else - in order to play-up it unworthiness as a target and to support the wag the dog propaganda.

    It was very effective and still plays to this day.
    You seem to have two points here.

    1) Was it an aspirin factory or did it product other pharmaceuticals?

    2) It was a worthy target and any reference otherwise is propaganda.


    I would say you are correct on 1. The term "Aspirin factory" was clearly a shorthand. What the factory actually did was employ 300 Sudanese and provide roughly half the country's medicine for malaria, diabetes, and tuberculosis.

    Question to opponent. How does that expansion of products make the target more legitimate? It would seem the opposite. The strike limited the ability of the Sudanese to provide life saving drugs to their own people in a country riddled with death from these three diseases.


    2 however, is completely incorrect given our hindsight. Intelligence and Clinton Administration officials later admitted they had "no evidence" that there was ever a link to Osama Bin Laden or of chemical weapons manufacture or housing of precursors. Literally, every pillar of the justification of the strike was admitted to have been created absent any Intelligence support.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  16. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  17. #216
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,863
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I would say you are correct on 1. The term "Aspirin factory" was clearly a shorthand. What the factory actually did was employ 300 Sudanese and provide roughly half the country's medicine for malaria, diabetes, and tuberculosis.

    Question to opponent. How does that expansion of products make the target more legitimate? It would seem the opposite. The strike limited the ability of the Sudanese to provide life saving drugs to their own people in a country riddled with death from these three diseases.
    I'll take it you couldn't find any support for them making aspirin. Is that statement retracted? (One of your links is broken the other leads to a book, could you point to your support)

    As for it being a shorthand, why not just say "pharmaceutical" factory? Because "aspirin" sounds innocuous, that's why. My source says there was intelligence, dubious? Yes, probably.

    Perhaps you should ask those that use that "shorthand" why it makes the target seem less legitimate.

    ---------- Post added at 12:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why don't we make it a little bit more simple. Let's see what your answer is to your original question.


    Question to opponent. Did the CIA tell the Administration that the video prompted Benghazi?
    I think I agreed to that already, your source.

    Relevance to the thread?

    ---------- Post added at 12:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So you are saying that they should circumvent classification laws by not "reading on" the committee members? Your argument is that the only way they could convince you would be to break the law?
    "I want the full committees to be able to see that, and we're meeting resistance," Schiff said. "If these documents are so damning or so indicating of the President, as he suggests, why are they opposing efforts to provide them to the full committee? I think that's a question worthy of the White House answering." Source post 201

    ---------- Post added at 12:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are correct, it doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means that your argument based on the premise that it did is unfounded. That it is an emotional, not a rational belief, right?
    Sure, lots of politics is done by feel.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  18. #217
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Sure, lots of politics is done by feel.
    Sure politics is, rational thinking is not. Given that essentially this particular point comes down to your inference of what was happening without any supporting evidence, that particular point (that this represents a Republican hypocrisy) isn't a claim or an argument for debate, it is just a random opinion, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I'll take it you couldn't find any support for them making aspirin. Is that statement retracted? (One of your links is broken the other leads to a book, could you point to your support)

    As for it being a shorthand, why not just say "pharmaceutical" factory? Because "aspirin" sounds innocuous, that's why. My source says there was intelligence, dubious? Yes, probably.

    Perhaps you should ask those that use that "shorthand" why it makes the target seem less legitimate.
    Sure, I'll modify the claim to say (changes in blue):

    " It was claimed that the factory had been producing nerve gas, though that turned out not to be the case (it was, in fact, the factory producing the majority of the country's life saving drugs fighting malaria, tuberculous, and diabetes) and the intelligence was non-existent"

    The support for the type of drugs made is on page 282.

    Additionally:

    However, world opinion,
    even among America's closest allies, began to coalesce against the
    United States when it turned out that Osama bin Laden had no financial
    connection to the Sudanese plant and that the plant actually produced
    drugs for treating malaria, diabetes, hypertension, ulcers, rheumatism,
    gonorrhea, and tuberculosis.

    Page 494: http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu...y_publications


    The support that there was no intelligence support for the attack is in the NYT article. I'm not sure why it appears broken for you, it seems to work for me. The article is entitled: "Look at the Place! Sudan Says, 'Say Sorry,' but U.S. Won't" by Marc Lacey. The verbage in question is:

    American officials have acknowledged over the years that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980's.



    I think you might have misunderstood my question. Let me try to clarify. Which of the following makes the attack seem like more of a mistake?

    "Clinton attacks an aspirin factory."

    "Clinton attacks a factory responsible for a majority of Sudan's live saving drugs."

    Obviously the latter is better if you are looking to make Clinton look bad, right?



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I think I agreed to that already, your source.
    Thank you.

    It was relevant because it was used as an example of Republican House Members acting incorrectly, however your example was incorrect because Ms. Rice did, indeed, create that talking point from a political instruction, not an intelligence memo.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    "I want the full committees to be able to see that, and we're meeting resistance," Schiff said. "If these documents are so damning or so indicating of the President, as he suggests, why are they opposing efforts to provide them to the full committee? I think that's a question worthy of the White House answering." Source post 201
    Yep, doesn't answer my question. Your source notes that they are pursuing the process of getting the rest of the committee read on. It is possible that someone is playing politics, but it isn't very clear who. You can't just release TS/SCI information to anyone with TS clearance. They have to be "read on" the program based on a determination of need and then go to a briefing (which can go from 1 to 4 hours) and sign the associated NDA.

    My question wasn't about what one politician said, I'm asking if the WH should violate the law by providing these documents absent the required NDA and policy?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #218
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,863
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    "Clinton attacks an aspirin factory."

    "Clinton attacks a factory responsible for a majority of Sudan's live saving drugs."

    Obviously the latter is better if you are looking to make Clinton look bad, right?
    No, the point wasn't to make him look bad, it was to make him look like he was wagging the dog. An aspirin factory sounds innocuous and way off base. A pharmaceutical factory capable of producing all of those drugs doesn't.

    I wouldn't say the intelligence was non-existent, you're own support (and mine) shows that. They were wrong (or couldn't prove their assertions) and later admitted it.

    ---------- Post added at 07:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Yep, doesn't answer my question. Your source notes that they are pursuing the process of getting the rest of the committee read on. It is possible that someone is playing politics, but it isn't very clear who. You can't just release TS/SCI information to anyone with TS clearance. They have to be "read on" the program based on a determination of need and then go to a briefing (which can go from 1 to 4 hours) and sign the associated NDA.

    My question wasn't about what one politician said, I'm asking if the WH should violate the law by providing these documents absent the required NDA and policy?
    No, but can you support where that was the case?

    ---------- Post added at 07:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Thank you.

    It was relevant because it was used as an example of Republican House Members acting incorrectly, however your example was incorrect because Ms. Rice did, indeed, create that talking point from a political instruction, not an intelligence memo.
    Not one regarding the Benghazi attack, no.

    ---------- Post added at 07:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Sure politics is, rational thinking is not. Given that essentially this particular point comes down to your inference of what was happening without any supporting evidence, that particular point (that this represents a Republican hypocrisy) isn't a claim or an argument for debate, it is just a random opinion, right?
    Sure, that's my opinion of what is going on based on the sociology of work, division of labor, etc. Having 100% of the republicans in lockstep isn't wise, letting a few step out - especially those who appear to have cause to (McCain) is since it won't go anywhere and does no political damage.

    "House Democrats and Republicans on the Intelligence Committee are near agreement on the list of witnesses to interview, with the GOP mostly focusing on people who may have leaked classified information and the Democrats hoping to question Trump associates who may have ties to Russia.

    Critics said Nunes appeared to be giving political cover to Trump in the aftermath of the president's unsubstantiated tweet last month that Obama ordered wiretaps of Trump Tower to spy on him during the campaign."

    The strategy is clearly to support the party's leader, the president, and to follow his lead by deflecting to Rice away from Russia.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  20. #219
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Sure, that's my opinion of what is going on based on the sociology of work, division of labor, etc.
    But you see the point right? It is an unsubstantiated opinion, but this is a forum for warranted, supported claims. This claim isn't one of those and thus...


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I wouldn't say the intelligence was non-existent, you're own support (and mine) shows that. They were wrong (or couldn't prove their assertions) and later admitted it.
    You wouldn't say that, but the source offered, an administration official did:

    American officials have acknowledged over the years that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980's.


    You've offered no support that there was specific intelligence offered by the Administration.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    No, but can you support where that was the case?
    I did, it is inherent in their status as a FISA court supervised program, that is how the intelligence was collected. Those documents are classified TS/SCI. By definition, SCI requires a "read on" for those who "need to know" and a separate NDA.


    So given that classification level, I'm asking if the WH should violate the law by providing these documents absent the required NDA and policy?



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Not one regarding the Benghazi attack, no.
    Oh? Then where did she get the information that the video caused the Benghazi attack? We've already established it wasn't from the published intelligence community talking points. And (from post 210) that it was from an email from the White House. Getting a talking point from the White House absent any support from intelligence would seem to be "creat[ing] that talking point from a political instruction, not an intelligence memo."
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #220
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,863
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You wouldn't say that, but the source offered, an administration official did:

    American officials have acknowledged over the years that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980's.


    You've offered no support that there was specific intelligence offered by the Administration.
    The sources provided outlined what they had.

    ---------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    I did, it is inherent in their status as a FISA court supervised program, that is how the intelligence was collected. Those documents are classified TS/SCI. By definition, SCI requires a "read on" for those who "need to know" and a separate NDA.


    So given that classification level, I'm asking if the WH should violate the law by providing these documents absent the required NDA and policy?
    There's no other way they could be provided, perhaps by declassifying them?

    ---------- Post added at 11:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Oh? Then where did she get the information that the video caused the Benghazi attack? We've already established it wasn't from the published intelligence community talking points. And (from post 210) that it was from an email from the White House. Getting a talking point from the White House absent any support from intelligence would seem to be "creat[ing] that talking point from a political instruction, not an intelligence memo."
    I think I already said that was her assertion based on the intelligence from other protests.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Republican Fratracide?
    By manise in forum Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2008, 10:54 AM
  2. What is a democrat? A Republican?
    By Jamie678 in forum Politics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: January 8th, 2008, 03:12 PM
  3. What it means to be a Republican
    By Booger in forum Politics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2006, 03:27 AM
  4. Republican Floundering
    By Fyshhed in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 5th, 2004, 07:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •