Forum Index » Chaff » Benghazi - 60 Minutes


Display Avatars Sort By:
jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Benghazi - 60 Minutes on 11/08/2013 12:09:42 MST Print View

I watched 60 Minutes piece a couple weeks ago about Benghazi. My take-away was that people in embassies in places like Benghazi have a risky job and we should be grateful that they are willing to do this. And there are definitely some lessons to be learned like from other incidents in the past.

Lindsey Graham's take-away was that Obama needs to get all the witnesses to testify to congress and he's not going to approve any nominations like the Federal Reserve Chairman until this happens. Of course my take is he's just being political, trying to find ways to attack Obama and Democrats. What does the Federal Reserve Chairman have to do with embassy attacks?

Now, it turns out the guy in the 60 Minutes piece lied. He was a senior Benghazi security person, worked for the state department, etc. but wasn't at Benghazi during or after the attack, so everything he said in the 60 Minutes piece was a lie.

My question is, is this just some guy trying to build a story so he can sell books?

Or he is a secret plant by the Obama people to show how idiotic the Republicans are for talking about Benghazi? Sort of like Breitbart's stories about Obama people helping prostitutes avoid paying taxes, which killed that organization, even though Breitbart's story was later shown to be a lie.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy) - F

Locale: Colorado
Benefit of the doubt on 11/08/2013 15:09:12 MST Print View

Now, I am not sure he lied, after all he was only quoted one time.

Maybe the New York Times Editorial Board will chime in and say he just "misspoke" or wasn't understood correctly.

I think the real questions regarding Benghazi are why no one in the US government responded to multiple request for increased security in a rapidly deteriorating environment. And more importantly, who lacked the balls to send in military forces to rescue Americans during the 8 hour attack.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Benefit of the doubt on 11/08/2013 15:23:35 MST Print View

"Now, I am not sure he lied, after all he was only quoted one time."

60 minutes did an entire piece. 15 minutes of air time? The interview must have been much longer. He said he scaled the wall after the attack, hit a Lybian in the face with the butt of his rifle,..., talked about some of the lessons we should learn (or some of the incompetent mistakes that Obama and Hillary personally made if you interpret it like Lindsay Graham : ). I would call that more than quoted one time.

But he also made a report to his bosses that said he wasn't there at all. Either he lied to them or he lied to 60 Minutes. Saying he scaled the wall after the attack and hit someone in the face is not just a subtle misunderstanding, I think you could call that a lie.

Maybe he's trying to defame 60 Minutes? But Lara Logan said they checked out his story - like he really was a primary person in security there so why would he lie about being there right after the attack? Maybe they should have vetted him more before putting on air? This may hurt 60 Minutes reputation in the future.


"I think the real questions regarding Benghazi are why no one in the US government responded to multiple request for increased security in a rapidly deteriorating environment. And more importantly, who lacked the balls to send in military forces to rescue Americans during the 8 hour attack."

Maybe that's Lindsay Graham's and McCain's argument. Afterwards it's easy to "Monday morning quarterback". I hope the State Department has examined this and made changes so it's less likely to happen in the future.


What's funny is that now for the next many years, there will be conspiracy theororists quoting this guy...

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy) - F

Locale: Colorado
Period on 11/08/2013 16:14:20 MST Print View

Well maybe you're right about his lying. I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt since he didn't say "I was inside that compound, period". You know maybe he just misspoke.

What did you think of the President's comments on keeping your insurance and doctors?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Period on 11/08/2013 16:33:28 MST Print View

No benefit of doubt - he made up the whole story - the only question is why?

I think Obama sort of apologized for saying people could keep their insurance.

He certainly said that people could keep their policies, clearly, a zillion times.

The people that can't keep their insurance is because it doesn't meet minimum standards. Relatively few people. Most of them can get a new policy for about the same price.

I think a pretty clear purpose of the law was to get most everyone on a good policy, so if people with substandard policies are getting better ones, even if they have to pay more, that's a good thing and consistent with the purpose of the law.

If someone had a substandard policy, and they relied on all of us to bail them out if they got really sick, then it's unreasonable to be pissed because now they have to pay a little more for a decent policy.

I'll grant that it's possible the minimum standards in the law may not be reasonable. Like someone should probably be allowed to have just catastrophic insurance and pay routine stuff themselves. It's what was politically possible to pass. Over the long run, someone will pay about the same whether they get just catastrophic insurance or a more complete policy, so it's not really that big a deal.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy) - F

Locale: Colorado
RE: Why on 11/08/2013 16:47:25 MST Print View

You're pretty tolerant of the President's situation on telling a non truth on ObamaCare.

The sub-standard argument seems pretty weak, is it really the purpose of the federal government to dictate the content of an insurance policy?

At any rate, why do you think the President misspoke on keeping your insurance and doctors?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: RE: Why on 11/08/2013 18:19:09 MST Print View

"At any rate, why do you think the President misspoke on keeping your insurance and doctors?"

He should have said "unless you're under insured" after he said "you can keep your insurance". That probably would have complicated things and he wanted to keep things simple, and get re-elected.

I think it's the purpose of the federal government to "provide for the general welfare"

Many people are not getting good health care. Many people have to declare bankruptsy when they get very sick. The cost of health care has gone up much faster than inflation until now it costs so much its a drag on the economy. Therefore, it's reasonable for the federal government to do something. This would be "providing for the general welfare".

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
Benghazi - 60 Minutes on 11/08/2013 22:07:06 MST Print View

My Lefty friends said after the episode ran "What's new there?".

And I agreed with them. There was nothing new in the segment except this guy trying to insert himself into it.

The shameful facts are still the same shameful facts.

"Over the long run, someone will pay about the same whether they get just catastrophic insurance or a more complete policy, so it's not really that big a deal."

What is this statement based on?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Benghazi - 60 Minutes on 11/08/2013 23:58:21 MST Print View

"Over the long run, someone will pay about the same whether they get just catastrophic insurance or a more complete policy, so it's not really that big a deal."

What is this statement based on?"


Just off the cuff.

If you just have catastrophic, you'll pay less until a time you get sick more, then you'll pay more so it will somewhat even out.

If an insurance company has a 15% profit, maybe you'll pay that much more for the non-catastrophic portion of your coverage compared to just paying out of pocket.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Re: Benghazi - 60 Minutes on 11/09/2013 12:28:34 MST Print View

First of all, not sure why you guys are talking about insurance in a Benghazi thread, but I'll bite.

The whole point of requiring people to have at least a minimum insurance policy is because the system is going to treat them no matter what. Which means if their insurance plan doesn't pay, and they can't repay $750k for their stroke, then you and I are going to pay for it.

This is such a republican argument it's not even funny...for the life of me I can't understand why conservatives, who are so in favor of "personal responsibility," don't love the fact that people now HAVE to have the means to be financially responsible for their own medical care, instead of forcing the government, taxpayers, or hospitals to take care of them.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/August/26/bare-bones-health-insurance-health-law.aspx

You can still buy a "bronze" plan on the exchanges, which is a catastrophic plan.

And I do find it interesting that several people who have actually gone on the air with their stories of "being kicked off their insurance plans" actually could get a better deal with Obamacare. See fox's Greta van Susterens take down of a CBS news customer who lost her insurance....

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Benghazi - 60 Minutes on 11/09/2013 14:00:43 MST Print View

"This is such a republican argument it's not even funny...for the life of me I can't understand why conservatives, who are so in favor of "personal responsibility," don't love the fact that people now HAVE to have the means to be financially responsible for their own medical care, instead of forcing the government, taxpayers, or hospitals to take care of them."

Because Obama proposed it. And by "Obama", I mean the Democrats : )

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy) - F

Locale: Colorado
Really on 11/09/2013 15:00:36 MST Print View

Well I guess it depends on your definition of "personal responsibility".

To have a behavior or action be demanded by law with the threat of financial penalties is hardly taking personal responsibility. It's merely being compliant to an over reaching central government.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Benghazi - 60 Minutes on 11/10/2013 08:24:50 MST Print View

Jerry, concerning your OP


http://pressthink.org/2013/11/will-cbs-news-apologize-for-the-reckless-denials-before-its-benghazi-story-collapsed/




By the way, I do not really consider abc, CBS, NBC, fox, msnbc , USA today ,and many more, to be a reliable source of news. Not only is a lot of it shoddy journalism with some slant, but what they do not report on, or barely touch on, is astonishing to me.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Benghazi - 60 Minutes on 11/10/2013 09:15:22 MST Print View

Yeah, good point, rather than denying it for a week, CBS should have just said “We are currently looking into this serious matter to determine if he misled us, and if so, we will make a correction.”

It's funny how often people do that. Like Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman... Monika Lewinski...". If he couldn't have admitted to anything he should have just said he's not commenting on it.

When we get caught red handed, we often try to deny it, even if that denial actually makes things worse. If we're lucky, it will go away, or else it eventually blows up and further denial is impossible.

Or Martha Stewart. If she had just admitted to insider trading, she would have got a slap on the wrist. But she had to deny it which eventually landed her in jail.

Or Anthony Weiner

Or Mark Sanford - that's a good one because whenever I go off backpacking for a few nights, my wife and I joke about it being on the Appallachion Trail

Tonight's 60 Minutes should be a good one. Will they say “we’re going to get to the bottom of this, and find out how it could happen.” or will they say "they're moving on".

And funny how when you go to the original story it says "page not found" rather than some explanation

I agree that mainstream media has it's limitations, but there is good info there too. Especially MSNBC : )

Tim Zen
(asdzxc57) - F

Locale: MI
Re: Re: Re: Benghazi - 60 Minutes on 11/10/2013 15:43:16 MST Print View

Is this thread about a guy that said he was in Libya? Maybe he was accosted by two guys in NYC asking him "What's the frequency Kenneth?" Maybe that explains why he did not recall what happened. Good thing he can get ACA since it sounds like an existing condition.