Thursday, May 16, 2013

Yet Another Times of Israel Piece

Mike L.

Benghazi Ball

"I find it disgraceful that Democratic Party operatives would seek to deflect Obama administration negligence and malfeasance onto their political rivals. I am not a Republican, but I am pretty unhappy with the Obama administration and the Benghazi scandal and cover-up is just the icing on the cake."

{A Big Tip 'O the Kippa to Oldschooltwentysix.}


  1. All four of YOUR talking points are either lies or extraordinarily partisan framing. It's gotten to the point Mike, where no matter what evidence is presented, if you don't like it, you pretend it doesn't exist. I think that makes you partisan.

    1. You are in denial and will rationalize no matter the evidence presented.

    2. Aside from Boxer's bogus claims, there is this which earned Four Pinocchios

      Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’

      Perhaps if more Democrats were willing to investigate when there was obvious fault, rather than blindly follow the leader that claims to both know all and then nothing, we would be on a road to improvement.

    3. Words can be parsed as you wish. He was clearly talking about the attack at Benghazi. Do you really think he was talking about something else?

      The supposed "fail[ure] to come to the aid" has been responded to. Nobody told the military to stand down. The military presented no plan. Bob Gates described the view that the military can instantaneously develop a rescue plan as "cartoonish".

      The emails released are pretty clear that there was no lie. In the immediate aftermath, nobody in the decision making process knew precisely who was responsible. I'm not sure they do now. They were described as "extremists". Every group now suspected qualifies.

      And there is no evidence that the WH forced any substantive changes to the talking points. Even Steve King acknowledged that last night.

    4. Sorry, but I just heard all of the same over at MSNBC.

      First, Obama did misstate, for political reasons, and continues to do so.

      Second, no one knew what was going to happen after the attack was known, but it appears that nothing was done at all, and this rankles many people who put themselves on the line for our country.

      Third, if nobody in the decision making process knew precisely who was responsible, then we are in worse shape than imagined. That does seem to be a pattern in the Administration these days. There was incompetence, and the facts are starting to emerge on many levels. Blaming the Republicans will only work for so long.

      Fourth, if you really believe there was no force exerted by the Administration concerning the talking points, then I suggest you are not as astute as you claim about the workings of politics.

    5. What are the political reasons? That's a question I've been asking for a long time and never got the answer.

      Did anyone know precisely who was responsible immediately after the Boston bombing?

      I've said before, I have no idea whether force was exerted by the administration regarding the talking points. What I said is that there is no evidence that it is so. I know you want it to be so, in order to further some political agenda, so you assume it so.

      I'm not sure I get your point about blaming Republicans. I don't think I've done that.

    6. It's called power and trying to get it, maintain it, increase it.

      The political reason for Benghazi was, among other things, the electoral implications if Obama's apparent negligence was revealed, such as in the buildup to the attack and the use of Islamist protection after requests for more security. They were able to pawn it off on the film. Interestingly, the only one now in custody is the idiot who made the film that prevented us from learning about the true state that inspired a 9-11 attack.

      Boston? What does that have to do with it? The FACT is that they DID know who was responsible. The Lybian leader said so as well.

      Of course I want to see the evidence, but smoking guns are rare in this type of scenario. You appear not not to be interested, and act as if you are less political. Makes me laugh. It is reasonable to look for evidence in this case.

      If you think that this Administration is transparent, it just evidences the indoctrination of supporters.

      The duplicities that have recently come to light have always been there. The Chicago way to exert raw power has combined with the Alinsky way to use every means at one's disposal to achieve social change according to ideology. The ends are all that matter. But means do matter, at least to some.

      Progressives Democrats like to charge that only Republicans are being partisan. This stuff of late shows they are at least as responsible in pursuit of their agenda, if not moreso.

      If only they were as competent in the implementation of policies as they like us to believe. They are also masters of media and manipulation. There is a good documentary called Century of the Self. Check it out, especially how it applies to top down politics these days.

    7. Stuart,

      you have been in denial from the beginning.

      You are the person who came onto this blog and said that I was lying when I pointed out that the Obama administration supported political Islam.

      The "Arab Spring" was the rise of political Islam, yet you sought to obscure that fact.

      I cannot even begin to imagine why you did so, but you did.

      You seek to make everything just go "pooof."

      You think that you can just wave a magic wand and make inconvenient facts disappear.

      You deny and deflect and defame.

      I honestly do not know what you stand for. You certainly do not stand for the well-being of the Jewish people.

      Nor do you stand for anything that resembles rationality or logic or fairness.

      I wrote this:

      The Obama administration refused to bolster security at the Benghazi facility despite requests to do so by Ambassador Stevens who was subsequently murdered by Jihadis.

      Are you claiming that I am wrong and that the Obama administration did, in fact, bolster security upon the Ambassador's Steven's request?

      Because I am pretty sure that the record will show that they did not.

      You are a sophist and you are wasting my time.

    8. That's classic Mike. You call Obama a supporter of political Islam and call ME an sophist?

    9. You are in denial.

      Obama said himself in front of the United Nations that he supported the Arab Spring.

      Do you need me to provide a link?

      It's been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring. And since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation that's taken place, and the United -- the United States has supported the forces of change.

      I know that I stand for the well-being of the Jewish people and the Jewish state.

      What do you imagine that you stand for?

    10. If Obama had a vote in the Egyptian election, and he had a choice between voting for a theocratic government or a secular government, which one do you think he'd vote for?

      Do you really think (or have any evidence whatsoever) that his preference would be for a theocracy?

    11. Are you implying he would have voted for Mubarak rather than Morsi? Have you any evidence?

      This is why your methods of argument are sophist, using adroit, quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound.

      It is not the question of who he would have voted for, but the fact that he helped promote the "forces of change" that are inimical to our interests as Americans and Jews.

      Recall that in 2009, over Mubarak's strong objection, Obama invited the MB to attend his speech, such that Mubarak even refused to attend. Then he turned away from the liberal seculars in favor of Morsi.

      Why are you so obliged to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and look askance, even when it flies in the face of the obvious? You only seem skeptical of those who offer criticism of the Administration, as we now are seeing the nasty side of how it plays politics.

    12. I'm quite sure that Mubarak was not on the ballot.

      The argument is not sophist at all. Michael has argued that Obama MUST be pro-political Islam, and the only evidence necessary is his support for the Arab Spring. That conclusion requires that the only possible outcome of the arab spring is the election of theocratic governments. It wasn't the only possible outcome. Morsi won the election with only a 3% margin.

    13. More of the same. Would he have have voted for Shafiq, the secular? Have you any evidence for the implications you create?

      If you wish to ignore the effects of actions, that is your choice. It is apparent that Obama supported the Brotherhood over the seculars through his actions and inaction.

      Egypt's secular forces condemn US support for Muslim Brotherhood candidate

      And now we see that Morsi might visit Gaza with Erdogan, Obama's BFF.

      Obama seems to believe that he will win these political Islamists over if we support them and treat them as we wish to be treated. In the meantime, he abandons the people who we should be promoting.

    14. I've created no implications whatsoever. (I don't have a clue what that phrase even means) The conclusion that Obama must support political islam solely because he indicated support for the arab spring is unfounded. It isn't anymore complicated than that. There were other possible outcomes, ergo, the conclusion is false.

      Actual Obama support for the Muslim Brotherhood is the CT stuff of Michele Bachmann and Louie Gohmert. It doesn't even warrant a response.

    15. More sophistry.

      In fact, you explicitly created the implication that Obama would vote for a secular over a theocrat.

      You said: If Obama had a vote in the Egyptian election, and he had a choice between voting for a theocratic government or a secular government, which one do you think he'd vote for?

      Do you really think (or have any evidence whatsoever) that his preference would be for a theocracy?

      Why do you pretend otherwise, that you did not create the implication?

      Now you seem to say that the effect of one's action is never a factor.

      But of course it does not warrant a response. Or is that you have no credible response, so you throw out some garbage and try to smear with association. Why do you discount what Egyptian secular liberals have said? I suppose they are just right-wing Republicans, too, according to your logic.

    16. Creation of an implication now understood.

      I didn't make the claim that Obama supports political Islam. So far, I've yet to see anything other than unsupported claims, including those in Egypt. I've explained why support for the arab spring does not equal support for political islam. Is there anything else? Other than someone said so?

    17. You will always see unsupported claims because you cannot see the obvious, but expect 100% proof before you seem able to accept. Yet your arguments are preposterous. Not only won't you accept what Egyptian secular liberals say, you compare THEM to Bachmann and Gohmert. That is the quality of your argument!

      It was not just the Arab spring that Obama said the US supported. As shown, Obama said, explicitly, in September, 2012 to the UN, that the United States has supported the forces of change "since then." By this time it was clear what the Egyptian force of change, the MB, was about.

      Once more, does the effect of action matter in determining the quality of the actions? Or must Obama go in front of the cameras and confess before you will accept what is clear to most everyone except his supporters who seem unable to acknowledge his flaws and mistakes.

  2. I read today that Susan Rice will likely be our next National Security Adviser. Oh wow.

  3. Stuart,

    I do not even know how it is that you think of yourself as pro-Israel.

    You have sent me emails which describe the various ways in which Israel sucks.

    You do not believe that the Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, or if you do, you seem to think the fact is irrelevant.

    I see virtually nothing which would indicate to me that you are an actual supporter of the Jewish State.

    You sometimes stand up to toxic anti-Zionists, that much is true.

    Yet at the same time you do not believe that the Jewish people have any historical or cultural rights to our traditional homeland.

    What do you stand for?

    It can't be much, because it's entirely unclear.