Flem72

Missing from this dialogue: The true state of affairs in Libya for the last several months -- especially Eastern Libya, which was known by apparently everyone in the world except the American public to be under the control of Islamicist militias. My understanding is that other nations had concluded that aggressive Islamicist attacks - - that is, organized, armed opposition to the leadership we had put in place - - were imminent; we were the last foreign embassy in Libya for that reason. There's that tight wire again.... [i'm trying to use as many ;;;; and ..... as possible, but, really, I prefer the - - -s.]

This seems to be a one-level relay :D to play, NYT/Mommy Jones style. This entire topic is open to any optional explanation anyone would care to post. So far, the 3rd option concensus seems to be "we were just confused, darn it." Query: Is this level of confusion a competence issue? If there are no questions, why schedule hearings at all?

So is it your position that a Repub administration, operating under a reduced budget (whixh may or may not mean anything about security at embasies that are maintained), would nevertheless fail to use part of that budget to strengthen an embassy desperately requesting help? Of course, at least as I read the numbers, the total requested 2013 budget for embassy and consulate security is over $3B -- you can do the math. And, of course, State is currently sitting on $2.2B that could be used for this purpose -- so maybe the reduction makes sense.

Sir, my litigation experience has brought me to many of the same conclusions you have voiced re: eyewitness testimony. It has also taught me how lawyers -- including, perhaps especially so, those who work for politicians in framing discourse-- address the "facts" underlying a situation in controversy: Absent the proverbial 'smoking gun', Our story will be consistent with as much of the evidential record as possible, and inconvenient evidence will be contested and muddled to the greatest extent possible, in order to achieve a persuasively coherent public posture that maximally advances our goals. It's commonly called tap dancing; politicians have to be masters. I do know how complicated real events can be, particularly when there is no information source within the event. I suspect that analyzing a plane crash by looking at a smoking pile of rubble was made slightly more efficient by the utilization of black boxes and real time radar. I do not think you have any warrant for implying that I got any of my information from "cartoon depictions"; I've spent as much time reviewing the reported record as I possibly can. The OP was deliberately left a virgin canvas, and was meant to solicit opinion re: both pre- and post-attack actions and non-actions of the administration. Interesting there are no real discussions of the reported record; interesting that posts accepting the "just gathering information" meme seem to reflect political orientations explicitly revealed in other threads. My personal view at this time is that administration actors never believed the "horrible video" story. There is absolutely no evidence of any demonstration based upon the video or otherwise. The attack began at night, and some of the weapons used -- known in real time -- require planned deployment. This was not a pile of rubble in a field rrequring reconstructiion after the fact. The administration knew from the first real-time camera/sound/cell phone/email/ radio reports from the event and those within it that this event would reveal just how vigorously political actors had screwed the pooch re: the entire situation leading up to the attack, most importantly re: the administration's narrative of Arab Spring democracy success in Libya and the death of al-Queda-linked terrorist activity there and elsewhere (this includes failure to deploy protection adequate to the known volitility of the environment). They had been walking a tight wire and they knew it (I suspect -- pure speculation --that the odds are pretty high that there were highly-placed people who were just hoping beyond hope that any blow-up would occur after Nov. 6, and who expressed that opinion to colleagues). In the days following, they noticed that the media were not much interested in detailed investigation or reportage, but had just loved the "horrible video" explanation, and decided to lawyer up, knowing they'd get the maximum pass available for any story they constructed. The inconsistency in the developing administration response is evident; the "just gathering information" meme is maximally efficient in allowing them to be vague and run the story into hearings post-election. (Is there really so much info that all those talented analysts with all that information-crunching power could not give us a reasonable picture within a couple of days? Of course, some important people would have to be inconvenienced....) So IMHO "coverup" is an accurate term, but it is directed at obsfuscation of the pre-attack grossly negligent failure to protect our personnel and intentional failure accurately to depict the truth about Libya for the American public. OTOH, charges of failures to respond once the attack began seem badly misplaced, even those from highly-exercised former military "experts." In these situations my inclination is to support whatever decisions are made by military chain-of-command, at least to the extent they are uninfluenced by the politicians. It is possible the best decision was to let the guys in the Annex and the limited on-ground support, try to get out on their own. But the rest of it: Just politics as usual. Messed up and will do anything to avoid taking responsibilty. EDIT: Why was the administration's response so damned casual, campaigning as usual? As Bolton has said, any administration he has worked for would've been in red alert overdrive immediately. This aspect of the situation is what has most people worked up, I think, and there really is no good story there.

Just curious, how did you feel about the recent assassination attempt on Her Majesty's Ambassador to Libya? Was withdrawal of the embassy the proper response?

Let's continue to ignore the point that "best information we have to date" is pretty much the whole shebang (wasn't), and the admin's folks have been all over the place. And then some. Of course, Rice later claimed that she hadn't seen the updates before she went on the talk shows. Oh, wait, she got the emails instantaneously. Gosh, I get so confused when I try to count past four different explanations of the same series of events.

Tsk tsk. I so wish you hadn't taken that bait.

You're killing me. _ Mother Jones_? In the face of the evidence of the emails sent to hundreds of the administration's closest and bestest right after the event?? Right back at cha: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republicans-press-white-house-explanation-benghazi-emails/story?id=17555363 and you'll notice that's ABC ("Always Barack Completely") Here's a question that includes nothing longer than four-letter words: What do u no about de ploy ment of mortars?

For all those folks who are arguing the abortion question: Isn't it really VERY DUMB to swing a presidential election upon this issue? as the Dems seem to be doing (since every BHO commercial I see has to do with abortion or birth control....).

Oh, very complicated. You got anything else?

Yes, that's clearly the administrations's -- very convenient -- preference.

This thread started out as a question about Nate Silver's statistical analysis of poll results and his 2008 success. Let me ask: What are the odds that he turns out to be a One-Hit Wonder? And whether you think the answer is relatively yea or nay, do you have anything upon which you base that answer other than his 2008 success?

Well? And criticizing my spelling error doesn't count....

I don't know whether everyone does, and maybe I don't have such an understanding either, but what I do unless playing Meck Adjunct or Eisenberg 3C is to bid 4M with an hand that wants to play 4M, 3M with the bad 2-card 5-7 support, 3N with 6-9 stops, 3X or 4 of the jump shift minor with one of the good 1NTF hands, including the 3-card LR, and 5m with a bad hand and m fit. "X" = "values here" and 9+-11 HCP. Stodgy but practical.

Probably pissed off a couple hundred thousand Marines...Am I the only one here who thinks that these comments by BHO made him sound like a kindergarten kid? There was a strange edge of desperation in many of his statements and in his demeanor; I suspect it was b/c Romney did not take on Libya, and BHO had spent a great deal of time planning to win the evening on that issue by further confusing the "who knew what when" stuff and making Romney appear to be floundering in the muck.

I just wanted to get on record now, to complain, before the fact, about Schieffer's ridiculous display of liberal bias. No sour grapes from me.... EDIT: he did a good job suppressing his inclinations and actually moderating. Kudos.

I love it when what looks to be an established factoid gives me a 'huh?'. Short answer: The reason the minor would be more likely is that the minor raise is probably 4 cards? I hope so, and if not, I don't want to hear the correct answer....

+500 Expertise in economic 'science' is a wonderful thing. It provides so much to talk about, such a specialized, impressive, highly nuanced descriptive language, and so little true understanding of what makes things work. Always has seemed to me that, if it were really a science, rather than black magic, we wouldn't ever be in economic trouble. We'd just tweak a nut here and a bolt there and solve the problem. Or is it just me?

Just want to air a long-time gripe: Why does no one look these guys in the eyes and say "Tax rate cuts don't have to be "PAID FOR" except in the imagination of a liberal static-model idiot who calculates everything against projections based on the way things are right now"?

Hilarious. I guess he just doesn't have the speaking skills to say "the attack was organized and carried out by al-Queda-linked terrorist forces and we know that because we had eyes on in real time." After all, the American people, really, just deserve vagaries and platitudes. Oh, but what to do about the State Dept. official(s) who was (were) observing the attack in real time? Or Ms. Crowley's hasty retraction ? Or Ms. Rice's appearances on the talk shows? And what was BHO being told when he "got on the 'phone right after being informed about the attack"? Something like "Mr. President, these demonstrators had mortars and rpgs, isn't that weird"? I was kind of hoping Hilary would stand up, call him out and refuse to be made the scapegoat.... What I think: BHO knows Libya is his. My understanding from folks in service is that this attack was not happening without the complicity of Libyan security assets (ambassador supposedly on the move in/to secret location). BHO doesn't want to have to admit that he's no better at figuring out how not to put his trust in Middle Eastern bad guys than anyone else and thereby ruin what the BHO Broadcasting System has been touting as a "regime change success."

Or simply to make the nation richer, more productive and stronger; to preserve the idea of America.

uh -- what?

Just spent far too much time going through the links provided by this site in repsonse to each Ryan quote-- did you say liberal "bias"? Got far enough to note that all of the ones I checked are opinion pieces that merely cite opposing arguments; also note that the other link, to the "fact-checking" (boy, that one confuses me) site, contradicts claims made by the first site. That's not evidence, much less proof, of "making stuff up". BTW, many these supposed Ryan quotes the first site uses are not in the transcript; many of the responses are mere deflections, not even contrary arguments, much less anything that could be characterized as a fact. H-m-m-m. you and the dwar...If my entire non-verbal presentation says you are a liar, that is not a negative characteristic? How many ads say nothing more than "he is lying"? but could you come up with any that would answer the question? Maybe even by reference to the transcript? Agua's got it right here (admirably pithily as well) , and almost all of us are in the same boat: Facts are hard to come by. Ideological orientation to an issue, any issue, is not. Whenever I see one of these "Ryan voted for/against it" or similar stuff, I have to laugh. Have you ever read a bill, especially a budget-related one? it's like going through two weeks of garbage to find the $100 bill you accidentally threw out. The ideologial goal was and is to stop -- not ineffectively reduce -- current levels of spending, and spending more, even under a compromise, when it will not avoid the cliff, is an ideological non-starter. Have you figured out how to run your household by spending far more than you earn? More: There is nothing inconsistent in voting against Simpson/Bowles and in adopting some of its reccomendations (of course, the instigator of the commission ignored it); there is nothing inconsistent about criticizing a massive and woefully ineffective spending plan and accepting specific pork that actually will create some jobs (we've got one of these green cronies in Colorado: Rep. Perlmutter, who pushed for all the Solyndra stuff and pocketed $140K paid to his wife as a lobbyist for the deal); deficit reduction is a funny thing, Obama's plan to save $5T being actually acceptance of a 10-year $5T increase (since calculated against the 10-year static analysis of how much Big D will increase should spending and taxation receipt levels remain constant); is Syria really a case of a policy of regime change ?; is cutting a security budget the same as ignoring 30 days of requests for more help, right here, right now?; is restoring a $1T cut, then putting in a GDP-tied budget line that will result in a $1T increase over 10 years, is that REALLY a $2T increase? So here's where I'm at: The reason the discourse is so impenetrable is that MEANINGFULLY arguing this stuff requires a treatise on each issue; big economic issues are big issues simply b/c at that level there is no truth, only ideas and experience over a very long term--you put a plan in place that advances your beliefs and you see where you go. From that perspective, the NYC 20-something interviewee I saw saying "Oh, I don't care, I vote on gay marriage and abortion" makes a certain kind of perverted sense. I don't know why I get into these threads, I end up doing more of what I don't like others to do: I have no treatise to offer. I admire American political ideals, and America's history, and I'm in awe of what this country has done to try to rectify social injustices along the way, but I wish social issues had absolutely no place in American presidential politics (which, I suppose, would really cripple the Dems). I tend to vote and think along the big ideological divides. I see where where Europe's gone; it looks an awful lot like where we're going. Government has to be a much smaller piece of GDP and taken out of the market creation business (see Economic Recovery Act; Community Redevelopment Act); markets effectuated by the day-today risk-assessment actiities of real human beings have to be given more latitude. All that cash sitting on the sidelines will remain there if Obama is re-elected, but deployed if he is not (unless, of course, "redistributed" into government). Happy Joe knows all that, but, after all, and before anything else, he's with the G.

Look at me, "You are "making stuff up" (= you are a liar). NOT ad hominem? You are a liar. And if you say -- or let your antics say -- I am wrong b/c I am lying? What is the meaing of "malarkey"?

I declared Friday "Joe Biden Appreciation Day" -- take it as you like it. First, such antics are a version of the ad hominem -- the last refuge of an advocate lacking even a minimally substantive response. Second, do you feel like providing examples of "making stuff up"? I'm not saying everthing Ryan said is unadorned fact, but I really can't abide this kind of ad hominem either. There's far too much of it in the arena as it is. And re: the Libya question: Did Happy Joe ever even address Libya in his answer ? -- but, oh yes, we got Bin Laden.