And this is a scandal because? Who was hurt because of these actions? Is there something else they could have done which would have produced a more desirable outcome? Why is any of this a problem?
I got 71 recommendations and 15 replies. Comments are closed, but I wanted to reply to them nevertheless. Most of the comments on my side made too weak a case. They said that this is a weak scandal in comparison to the various Bush mistakes. I'm saying that there was no scandal at all, because even if these claims were true they would not be scandalous. Here are the replies that tried to show this was a scandal, none of which answered my crucial 3rd question "Is there something else the administration could have done which would have produced a more desirable outcome?" Most of them suffered from vagueness, the one that did not made claims that were false. The comments are in italics, my replies are in boldface.
- Bryan Barrett
- Malvern, Pa.
- Verified
The truth was withheld from the American people.
No set of sentences can ever contain all the truth. Why were the unsaid things relevant, and why was withholding them scandalous?
No set of sentences can ever contain all the truth. Why were the unsaid things relevant, and why was withholding them scandalous?
- Spike The Dog
- Marblehead, MA
Rockwell says, "Why is any of this a problem?" Who wrote your script, Hillary?
"What does it matter?" she said. Watch and see. It's just getting interesting.
That is, if you find coverups and lies in the face of an election "interesting."
Yes, Hillary had it right. Her use of the word "it" did not refer to the deaths themselves, but to what was said, and she correctly pointed out that none of the things anyone said or did had any negative effect whatsoever on what happened. The "Watch and see" comment in effect concedes my point that no one has discovered anything significant. (And I would add, there is no reason to assume they will.)
"What does it matter?" she said. Watch and see. It's just getting interesting.
That is, if you find coverups and lies in the face of an election "interesting."
Yes, Hillary had it right. Her use of the word "it" did not refer to the deaths themselves, but to what was said, and she correctly pointed out that none of the things anyone said or did had any negative effect whatsoever on what happened. The "Watch and see" comment in effect concedes my point that no one has discovered anything significant. (And I would add, there is no reason to assume they will.)
- jctab40
- California
It is a scandal for a number of reasons:
1) negligence of security.
How did the administration's actions compromise anyone's security?
2) damage of moral for Americans serving in hostile zones. People tend not to put themselves in the line of fire when there is reason to believe you will be thrown under the bus when things get hot.
In what sense was anyone thrown under a bus? These vague metaphors are meaningless if they are not supported by specific facts.
3) lying about who attacked, why they attacked, and how they attacked.
A false statement is a lie only if the person who says it knows that it is untrue. The Administration had two hypotheses about who was attacking, and one of them turned out to be false. They acted in such a way as to cover both possibilities. Again Is there something else they could have done which would have produced a more desirable outcome? No one has given any reason to believe that there was.
4) lying by omission.
5) covering up mistakes, lies and omissions.
6) inadequate follow up investigation.
After reading the edits to the emails regarding "talking points" it is clear the truth was manipulated and material facts were omitted in the final draft. We all heard what was said after the attack by government leaders. If this was civil litigation, the State Department would probably be trying to settle this case before it goes to a judge or jury.
No awareness that points 4-6 are the same. Why were were these facts material? Why was leaving them out a problem? Why investigate at all when there is no evidence that there was a problem?
1) negligence of security.
How did the administration's actions compromise anyone's security?
2) damage of moral for Americans serving in hostile zones. People tend not to put themselves in the line of fire when there is reason to believe you will be thrown under the bus when things get hot.
In what sense was anyone thrown under a bus? These vague metaphors are meaningless if they are not supported by specific facts.
3) lying about who attacked, why they attacked, and how they attacked.
A false statement is a lie only if the person who says it knows that it is untrue. The Administration had two hypotheses about who was attacking, and one of them turned out to be false. They acted in such a way as to cover both possibilities. Again Is there something else they could have done which would have produced a more desirable outcome? No one has given any reason to believe that there was.
4) lying by omission.
5) covering up mistakes, lies and omissions.
6) inadequate follow up investigation.
After reading the edits to the emails regarding "talking points" it is clear the truth was manipulated and material facts were omitted in the final draft. We all heard what was said after the attack by government leaders. If this was civil litigation, the State Department would probably be trying to settle this case before it goes to a judge or jury.
No awareness that points 4-6 are the same. Why were were these facts material? Why was leaving them out a problem? Why investigate at all when there is no evidence that there was a problem?
- Molly's Mom
- Montclair, New Jersey
who was hurt? are you unaware that 4 americans died?
how do you think their friends and family feel?
Yes, but the administration did not kill those people, nor is there any reason to assume that their actions led to, or enabled, their deaths.
FEST and other support were on their way to help and ordered not to go. Lives might have been saved. And to those who said they couldn't have gotten their in time. This makes no sense. Did they know in advance how long that fire fight would last?
"Might" is a wonderfully evocative word. What evidence do you have that their presence would have made any difference?
how do you think their friends and family feel?
Yes, but the administration did not kill those people, nor is there any reason to assume that their actions led to, or enabled, their deaths.
FEST and other support were on their way to help and ordered not to go. Lives might have been saved. And to those who said they couldn't have gotten their in time. This makes no sense. Did they know in advance how long that fire fight would last?
"Might" is a wonderfully evocative word. What evidence do you have that their presence would have made any difference?
- Sam M.
- Sag Harbor, NY
It
was done to influence the Presidential election --
This one appears three times. Every thing every president does effects the election. So what? What was withheld that revealed anything resembling incompetence or corruption?
- so we won't know how many are "hurt" by four more years of trillion plus deficit spending and erosion of our personal rights and freedoms, but safe to say hundreds of millions.
This next sentence is a red herring, so I should probably ignore it, but--- I agree with the concern about rights and freedoms. It may very well be that Obama's greatest legacy will be getting conservatives concerned about rights, by repeating some of Bush's abuses. But both deficits and taxes have decreased under Obama's administration.This one appears three times. Every thing every president does effects the election. So what? What was withheld that revealed anything resembling incompetence or corruption?
- so we won't know how many are "hurt" by four more years of trillion plus deficit spending and erosion of our personal rights and freedoms, but safe to say hundreds of millions.
- Joe Yohka
- New York
The TRUTH was hurt. Credibility was hurt. Can we believe our own government? Perhaps the credibility of an election was hurt from this.
See above for answers to these.
and there lack of responsiveness it seems did prevent a military response to help those in danger.
This is the first remotely concrete fact brought up by anyone. Unfortunately, it's false. There was a military response. Some people claim that there should have been a second bigger response, but no one offers any evidence for this.
if you don't get it, please re-read all the articles, including those not from the NY Times?
Reading those articles doesn't seem to have helped you any, as you have produced no new facts that support your case.
See above for answers to these.
and there lack of responsiveness it seems did prevent a military response to help those in danger.
This is the first remotely concrete fact brought up by anyone. Unfortunately, it's false. There was a military response. Some people claim that there should have been a second bigger response, but no one offers any evidence for this.
if you don't get it, please re-read all the articles, including those not from the NY Times?
Reading those articles doesn't seem to have helped you any, as you have produced no new facts that support your case.
- timesrgood10
- Atlanta
Leadership - or, in this case - lack of it.
This is a popular response by people who are mad at Obama but can't think of a reason why. In this case, it actually has something resembling content, as some people have argued that Obama should have micromanaged the entire response from Washington, rather than let it be run by those people who were there and could see exactly what was going on. This seems unlikely however, and no one has given any reason why it should be true. Again Let me repeat the most important mantra here: Is there something else Obama could have done which would have produced a more desirable outcome? No one has answered this question positively, and until they do, there is no scandal.
This is a popular response by people who are mad at Obama but can't think of a reason why. In this case, it actually has something resembling content, as some people have argued that Obama should have micromanaged the entire response from Washington, rather than let it be run by those people who were there and could see exactly what was going on. This seems unlikely however, and no one has given any reason why it should be true. Again Let me repeat the most important mantra here: Is there something else Obama could have done which would have produced a more desirable outcome? No one has answered this question positively, and until they do, there is no scandal.
No comments:
Post a Comment