[Terez]

worrywort, on 20 October 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

The article I posted wasn't a press release from the White House though, it was a news article from the LA Times with sources from the intelligence community, and it (including quotations from apparently in-the-know people) makes affirmative claims.

I know, but it's naive to think that they weren't orchestrated leaks meant to drop the idea that the initial presentation of the attacks might actually be correct. Your summary of the story—"the Benghazi incident was likely an unplanned opportunistic assault carried out after word of the Cairo protests/violence"—takes the story at face value, and even a little further with the word 'likely'. And I disagree that this version of events is simpler or more plausible. I also don't believe that the initial presentation of the story was a 'guess'; if Rachel Maddow knows what's going on—just on the simple fact that there were no protests in Libya at all—then you can guarantee the administration knew it as well. Even the FBI was 'tentatively' reporting that it was an organized terrorist attack in the early days. Obama himself didn't really trip up; he said that the video was probably used as an excuse for the attack, and that was always a likely scenario. Jay Carney was the one who went overboard to assure the public that it was all in response to the video and that there was absolutely nothing to suggeste that either 1) it was a preplanned attack or 2) that it reflected on US policy or Obama administration policy in any way. That's politics, pure and simple. Is it as big a deal as the Republicans make out? No, not at all. See the Reagan administration's investigation of the death of our Pakistani Ambassador in 1988; there is evidence he actually prevented the FBI from investigating that, and in his condolence speech he had more to say about his beloved friend, the brutal military dictator Zia, than he had to say about our dead ambassador. But none of that changes the fact that the White House has been spinning this.

This post has been edited by Terez: 20 October 2012 - 10:54 AM

[Terez]

I have been playing in the comments of this article:

Salt Lake Tribune endorses Obama

Not huge news; they endorsed him in 2008. But they are the largest newspaper in the state by a big margin, and it does matter at least somewhat that they didn't endorse the Mormon, considering their readership. (Basically half Mormon or more.)

[worry]

What I'm taking at face value is that the LA Times isn't an arm of the Carney's spin machine, and that their news team wouldn't risk being so to score political points on a possibly losing issue. If it's naive to believe the LA Times has actual investigative journalists on staff, that they understand how sources operate, and that this article is the result of their hard work, then I have to accept that criticism. I do understand why you would think Maddow's narrative is less prone to spin than the other narratives from administration officials, though I don't think we can conclude that she "knew what's going on" for sure either. She and her staff did some investigate journalism of their own and formed a plausible narrative from the information they found.

But even in Maddow's narrative, it's still just four carfuls of people. These aren't clown cars either, it's like twenty or a couple dozen heavily armed people at most. Maddow's personal conclusion is that makes it "well-planned", and maybe that's the hiccup we have. To me it was well-planned enough to be a success -- but a success here wouldn't require intricate planning, because it was easy to pull off in the first place. A well thought out plan to rob a liquor store is still nothing compared to a well thought out plan to rob Fort Knox, for a whole bunch of factors -- and this embassy ain't Fort Knox. I'm just saying even that level of coordination is in no way difficult, sophisticated, or impressive by any means. It's the kind of thing you could "plan" the night before over a phone, and still come away successful. That said, in terms of the WH reaction I've been listening to the president this whole time, not Jay Carney or even Susan Rice, both of whom were immediately too certain in their narratives and I've shied away from. I entirely agree with you that the attack was not merely "spontaneous" as Rice said -- that's not what I meant by unplanned. I do believe it's shaping up to look like Benghazi was an opportunistic attack (though not a brand new idea) that did not require coordination with Cairo, and I would hope that the LA Times news branch's information yesterday is more honed than Maddow's day-after reporting, though I could very well be wrong.

[worry]

That's pretty neat regardless. The article has 3665 comments though, are you Terez on there?

[worry]

On a totally different note, Iran "ready" to talk to US about nuclear program?: http://www.nytimes.c...ar-program.html

Timing is kinda weird (on Iran's part, not the US's) and we'll see if this is a feint or not, but I would like to hear your reactions on this one.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 20 October 2012 - 10:09 PM

[Terez]

worrywort, on 20 October 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

That's pretty neat regardless. The article has 3665 comments though, are you Terez on there?

Terez27. I don't know if anything I wrote is worth digging for, though.

[EmperorMagus]

worrywort, on 20 October 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

On a totally different note, Iran "ready" to talk to US about nuclear program?: http://www.nytimes.c...ar-program.html

Timing is kinda weird (on Iran's part, not the US's) and we'll see if this is a feint or not, but I would like to hear your reactions on this one.

they call it " drinking from the poisoned chalice".
We have been expecting it.
It happened at the end of Iraq-Iran war .
Now its time for Khamenei to drink from it.

This post has been edited by EmperorMagus: 21 October 2012 - 10:11 AM

[Terez]

Chris Hayes is hosting a good discussion on the Libya confusion. I'll edit and post the video later when it's online.

[Terez]

EmperorMagus, on 21 October 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

worrywort, on 20 October 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

On a totally different note, Iran "ready" to talk to US about nuclear program?: http://www.nytimes.c...ar-program.html

Timing is kinda weird (on Iran's part, not the US's) and we'll see if this is a feint or not, but I would like to hear your reactions on this one.

they call it " drinking from the poisoned chalice".
We have been expecting it.
It happened at the end of Iraq-Iran war .
Now its time for Khamenei to drink from it.

Apparently now the administration and Iran are both denying the story. It's theorized that it's a hostile leak meant to damage Obama in the election. This is something Obama got attacked over a lot in '08—the willingness to negotiate with Iran. So they're trying to resurrect that. (Hooman Majd is on Chris Hayes.)

PS—Here is that episode, which starts out with Benghazi and moves to Iran.

http://www.msnbc.msn...79738/#49493224

This post has been edited by Terez: 21 October 2012 - 03:37 PM

[worry]

Man, Chris Hayes' show is a breath of fresh air, and he stays (relatively) calm and doesn't feed the B.S. fires (which the young woman in red was trying to ignite). I watched the Real Time discussion of this same topic, and it was a total disaster.

[Terez]

Yeah, I started watching MSNBC weekend morning shows a few weeks ago, and I like Chris Hayes much more than Melissa Harris-Perry, who is a bit of a demagogue. She often has good discussions on her show, but she personally annoys me. Maddow and Chris Hayes are definitely the top two on MSNBC. (Can't stand the Ed Show, think Sharpton's show is usually stupid, and generally unimpressed with Lawrence O'Donnell. The Cycle is kind of a joke; parts of it are good, but mostly it's useless.)

[worry]

I agree with that. Plus Alex Wagner is a cutie-pie (not to dismiss her credentials or presume anyone else cares about that aspect at all). But it certainly helps Maddow and Hayes that they have an academic background that includes rigorous essay writing and such. I mean they clearly have POVs as much as anyone else on MSNBC does, but they're both extremely wonky (which Chris Matthews has a bit of, if roughspun, and you would think Lawrence O'Donnell would but he seems to have abandoned it) and neither is satisfied simply with gut reactions (which does differentiate them bigtime from the others, including Matthews). So they're both able to generate not just a neat premise, but can also construct a strong argument to back it up.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 21 October 2012 - 07:19 PM

[Terez]

Yeah, I forgot to mention Chris Matthews, who drives me a bit crazy. I hated him the first time I saw his show; he doesn't bother me so much any more now that I've seen him on the MSNBC anchoring jobs a lot (convention, debates).

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on 21 October 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

Yeah, I started watching MSNBC weekend morning shows a few weeks ago, and I like Chris Hayes much more than Melissa Harris-Perry, who is a bit of a demagogue. She often has good discussions on her show, but she personally annoys me. Maddow and Chris Hayes are definitely the top two on MSNBC. (Can't stand the Ed Show, think Sharpton's show is usually stupid, and generally unimpressed with Lawrence O'Donnell. The Cycle is kind of a joke; parts of it are good, but mostly it's useless.)

You KNOW you love S.E. Cupp.

I like Maddow and Matthews (forgot the Brit on at 4, like him too). O'Donnel's okay.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 22 October 2012 - 12:56 AM

[Terez]

Martin Bashir annoys me highly. But I can't take anyone named Touré seriously.

PS—The comments on this article are scary.

This post has been edited by Terez: 22 October 2012 - 09:48 AM

[Terez]

Dan Senor is going to be on Morning Joe shortly. I think that should be Obama's response about anything about Libya. What about your foreign policy advisor Dan Senor, who helped build the Iraq propaganda machine?

[Mezla PigDog]

Terez, on 22 October 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

Martin Bashir annoys me highly. But I can't take anyone named Touré seriously.

I hadn't noticed Martin Bashir had disappeared from UK tv screens until you mentioned his name. So he's gone to US tv, has he?! Please feel free to keep him

[Terez]

Mezla PigDog, on 22 October 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Terez, on 22 October 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

Martin Bashir annoys me highly. But I can't take anyone named Touré seriously.

I hadn't noticed Martin Bashir had disappeared from UK tv screens until you mentioned his name. So he's gone to US tv, has he?! Please feel free to keep him

Or, as HD says, 'the Brit on at 4'. Hardly anyone cares about him. His style is so abrasively condescending; it makes me want to smack him.

[worry]

You're right about Toure, I hated him the first time I saw him (which was actually on Fuse tv, the US version of Much Music I think). I haven't watched Bashir, though I've heard of his unsavory rep from the Michael Jackson doc he did.

P.S. I took my uncle to his doctor's appointment this morning and waited in the lobby a while, and listened to this loudmouth talking about Benghazi and how if he were president, he'd have sent in a platoon of marines the next day to wipe out a 6 block radius.

[Vengeance]

worrywort, on 22 October 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

You're right about Toure, I hated him the first time I saw him (which was actually on Fuse tv, the US version of Much Music I think). I haven't watched Bashir, though I've heard of his unsavory rep from the Michael Jackson doc he did.

P.S. I took my uncle to his doctor's appointment this morning and waited in the lobby a while, and listened to this loudmouth talking about Benghazi and how if he were president, he'd have sent in a platoon of marines the next day to wipe out a 6 block radius.

Nice. That would have taught them to live 7 blocks away from the embassy...sigh...