Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

whembly wrote:
I don't think it's impeachment worthy...

They fethed up and don't want to admit it.

That's my reading on it too.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
I don't think it's impeachment worthy...

They fethed up and don't want to admit it.

Agreed. The IRS thing though, if there is a surprise connection (not likely), that would be.

**Jihadin**

Does this though shoots down Hillary run for POTUS in 2016?

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
Does this though shoots down Hillary run for POTUS in 2016?

I would still doubt that.

The love for Hillary is strong...

**Jihadin**

That hinges on what Obama does Whembly...Ole Jay Carney was shot to pieces on the press Q&A....Obama credibility a bit shot but then he got his 2nd term...so does he take the salvo's from the investigations or pass the buck eh

**d-usa**

If it is going to be a repeat of 2012, then it doesn't matter how bad she is damaged (or any other democrat).

There was no way that Obama could win 2012, and the only reason he won is because the Republicans screwed themselves over at every turn. I called the election for the Republicans back in 2010 and 2011, and I really didnt think they could possibly loose until they started to campaign.

So I'm not counting Hillary out until Nate says so!

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
If it is going to be a repeat of 2012, then it doesn't matter how bad she is damaged (or any other democrat).

There was no way that Obama could win 2012, and the only reason he won is because the Republicans screwed themselves over at every turn. I called the election for the Republicans back in 2010 and 2011, and I really didnt think they could possibly loose until they started to campaign.

So I'm not counting Hillary out until Nate says so!

Well... on twittah, NATE SILVERS is commenting on how this IRS (and not Benghazi) would probably leave an impact.

The problem here is that this is an Obama issue... not the Congressional Democrats. I don't see how they can get dinged on this.

**azazel the cat**

d-usa wrote:If it is going to be a repeat of 2012, then it doesn't matter how bad she is damaged (or any other democrat).

There was no way that Obama could win 2012, and the only reason he won is because the Republicans screwed themselves over at every turn. I called the election for the Republicans back in 2010 and 2011, and I really didnt think they could possibly loose until they started to campaign.

So I'm not counting Hillary out until Nate says so!

I think Hillary would make a better VP on a ticket.
...Did you seriously think anyone in the GOP clowncar had a chance of winning?

whembly wrote:The problem here is that this is an Obama issue... not the Congressional Democrats. I don't see how they can get dinged on this.

Oh, I'm sure FoxNews will find a way.

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
d-usa wrote:If it is going to be a repeat of 2012, then it doesn't matter how bad she is damaged (or any other democrat).

There was no way that Obama could win 2012, and the only reason he won is because the Republicans screwed themselves over at every turn. I called the election for the Republicans back in 2010 and 2011, and I really didnt think they could possibly loose until they started to campaign.

So I'm not counting Hillary out until Nate says so!

I think Hillary would make a better VP on a ticket.

If she runs...it's for Prez, not VP.

...Did you seriously think anyone in the GOP clowncar had a chance of winning?

As Prez... Hillary would curb stomp any GOP candidate imo. The political Sith powers the Clintonias are legendary.

whembly wrote:The problem here is that this is an Obama issue... not the Congressional Democrats. I don't see how they can get dinged on this.

Oh, I'm sure FoxNews will find a way.

Honestly... I don't see how. Congress critters don't have much to say (other than the laws/funding they pass) in the day-to-day operations of the Executive Branch.

*shrugs*

**d-usa**

azazel the cat wrote:
d-usa wrote:If it is going to be a repeat of 2012, then it doesn't matter how bad she is damaged (or any other democrat).

There was no way that Obama could win 2012, and the only reason he won is because the Republicans screwed themselves over at every turn. I called the election for the Republicans back in 2010 and 2011, and I really didnt think they could possibly loose until they started to campaign.

So I'm not counting Hillary out until Nate says so!

...Did you seriously think anyone in the GOP clowncar had a chance of winning?

There were a few of the early contenders that would have probably had a decent shot. I think Gary Johnson would have been a decent candidate, and if I would have lived in any state other than Oklahoma he would have gotten my vote. Jon Huntsman would have had a good shot as well I think. Both are pretty dang low on the "crazy Republican" scale.

But honestly, Mitt Romney had every shot at winning this thing if it would not have been for the "anybody but Romney" tactics by the Republican machine at large. You can't spend the entire primary season destroying your own Republican candidate and then think he is going to pull of the win.

Through parts of 2011 I honestly thought "Obama did good, but economy is crap, so nothing he can do will be good enough. Romney will get the nomination and win." Of course that was before "Republican Primary 2012" became a 6 month Jerry Springer show.

**Ensis Ferrae**

The thing is here, one of my best friends worked for about 10 years in "the Media", and he know many to most of my political leanings. Here is the gist of what I've gotten from him, in talking about the media in general:

-The "news" reports what sells. This goes from national level all the way down to local. He had a local affiliate want to run a story on an auto manufacturer and some of its major failings with recent models. Well, that same manufacturer was one of the primary advertisers during that block of shows, and threatened to pull their ads if the story was run.

Long story short, they pulled the story, and kept making money.

-Journalists have a code of ethics, and most of them actually pride themselves on following that code. There are even some places where you may not get hired, if someone even THINKS that you haven't been entirely faithful to that code.

-Where most of us "uninitiated" see bias, he sees the spin that makes a story sell. What makes a story catch our eyes is not necessarily the whole truth, because quite honestly, the whole truth rarely sells.

Media, like auto manufacturing, beer brewing, or shipping, is a business, and it is there to make money. They make most of this through advertising, and ratings... So, therefore, you MUST sell a good product in order to stay in business. This is partially the reason why places like Fox News and CNN run shows that feature good looking blondes sitting in front of the camera.

**d-usa**

As far as spin:

One of my friends is an editor for a news & radio station in Oklahoma. They are one of the big 4 local TV news and soundbites of the news get condensed down and send to a lot of the regional radio stations.

In 2010 there was a big Tea Party protest, the people organizing it called it a protest and it was advertised as a protest. When the news ancher was taping his segments he initially refered to it as "a Tea Party protest at the capitol". He decided that he didn't like the sound of that and rerecorded it as "a Tea Party rally at the capitol". Only reason I know about the change is that my friend screwed up and send the first soundclip to the radio stations and he still has not heard the end of it from that anchor.

But it is a good example of media spin and bias.

Tea Party protest brings to mind an angry and pissed of mob of protesters, ready to take down the government. "Protest sounds mean and angry".

Tea Party rally brings to mind a nice peacefull demonstration, people coming together for a common cause and rallying for change.

A simple change of one word that changes how the event was reported.

**azazel the cat**

d-usa wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
...Did you seriously think anyone in the GOP clowncar had a chance of winning?

There were a few of the early contenders that would have probably had a decent shot. I think Gary Johnson would have been a decent candidate, and if I would have lived in any state other than Oklahoma he would have gotten my vote. Jon Huntsman would have had a good shot as well I think. Both are pretty dang low on the "crazy Republican" scale.

But honestly, Mitt Romney had every shot at winning this thing if it would not have been for the "anybody but Romney" tactics by the Republican machine at large. You can't spend the entire primary season destroying your own Republican candidate and then think he is going to pull of the win.

Through parts of 2011 I honestly thought "Obama did good, but economy is crap, so nothing he can do will be good enough. Romney will get the nomination and win." Of course that was before "Republican Primary 2012" became a 6 month Jerry Springer show.

Huntsman, on a national stage, I honestly think couldn've taken down Obama. If ever there was someone who got primary'd, he's the guy.

And I loved that 6 month sideshow. It made for great TV, and I sincerely hope for a Trump/Cain ticket someday.

**Easy E**

Thjis will not hurt Hilary as the base doesn't care about Banghazi, and actual support her flip out that Repubs are looking at the wrong thing with Benghazi.

**CptJake**

Easy E wrote:
Thjis will not hurt Hilary as the base doesn't care about Banghazi, and actual support her flip out that Repubs are looking at the wrong thing with Benghazi.

The base doesn't matter yet. She needs to build up a 'war chest' of money and rich donors to get her through a primary and then the actual election. If this taints her as a candidate in the minds of the money folks it will greatly hamper her ability to run.

**Frazzled**

Dear God its not even even 2014. Lets give the Presidential horse race thing a freraking rest already and run the country for at least a week or two.

**Easy E**

Again, I agree with Fraz.

The end is nigh!

**azazel the cat**

Frazzled wrote:Dear God its not even even 2014. Lets give the Presidential horse race thing a freraking rest already and run the country for at least a week or two.

You damned well know that's not how it works.

**Dreadclaw69**

Yeah but we live in hope. The election results had barely been confirmed last time before the pundits started the guessing game

**azazel the cat**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:Yeah but we live in hope. The election results had barely been confirmed last time before the pundits started the guessing game

They need to keep their talking heads jobs. They have no other skills and thus would be faced with a cold, unforgiving world if they didn't immediately try to make themselves relevant again.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Well... on twittah, NATE SILVERS is commenting on how this IRS (and not Benghazi) would probably leave an impact.

You know how I've been saying Benghazi really isn't that big of a deal, and you've been disagreeing.

Well hopefully now, with an actual real and proper scandal revealed in this IRS matter, you can see the difference between the two, yeah?

The problem here is that this is an Obama issue... not the Congressional Democrats. I don't see how they can get dinged on this.

Most voters aren't inclined to draw subtle distinctions like that. While there are certainly exceptions, on the whole people vote elephant or donkey, and so a bad donkey president will impact the whole of the party. Just like in 2008 the Republican brand was so toxic that Republican candidates found their approvals went up considerably when they put GOP on their flyers rather than Republican... despite those Republicans having nothing to do the Bush presidency.

That said, we're a long way from election, so a lot depends on how big this is and how deep it goes, as to whether its still in the minds of voters in 2014, let alone 2016.

**azazel the cat**

Maybe this will finally end the Benghazi silliness?

CNN’s Jake Tapper has managed to get his hands on the critical White House email suggested as the proof that the White House was more interested in removing references to possible terrorist attacks in the now infamous Benghazi talking points than they were in telling the truth to the American public.

The actual email, written in the days following the Benghazi attack, reveals something else entirely. We now know that whoever leaked the contents of the email to various media outlets last week seriously misquoted the document, choosing to paraphrase the content in a way that made it appear that the White House was focused on protecting the State Department’s back and covering up information.

No Dirty Politics In IRS Investigations Of Tea Party Rick UngarContributor

The Benghazi October Surprise-Death Blow To Obama Administration Or Survivable Spin Miscalculation? Rick UngarContributor

Recall that ABC News fueled the GOP cries of a White House cover-up when suggesting that the twelve drafts of the talking points were done with White House participation as part of an effort by the Obama Administration to back up State Department requests that references to terrorist groups be omitted from the talking points.

Here is the relevant portion of the ABC story:

“In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. -three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed. (ABC then quotes the email as saying…)“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

The thing is, it turns out that the actual email tells a very different tale.

Here is the actual content of the email, as written by deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes—

“All –

Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

“There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

“We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”

You can read the actual email here.

Obviously, the email reveals absolutely no effort on the part of the administration to whitewash the message regarding the possible involvement of organized terrorist groups. The email further does not, in any way, seek to support any efforts by the State Department—or anyone else—in terms of favoring one set of message points over another, including any suggestions of removing references to known terrorist groups in the region.

What the email does do is highlight the importance of countering the misinformation that had been circulating and getting all involved on the same page when it comes to sharing what was known to be accurate information.

Does anyone have a problem with that?

Or, should I say, does anyone other than Congressman Darrell Issa, Speaker John Boehner and all of those who wish to manufacture a scandal in the effort to harm this White House have a problem with that?

As Jake Tapper notes it in his article, “Whoever provided those quotes and paraphrases did so inaccurately, seemingly inventing the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his email on the State Department’s concerns.”

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
Maybe this will finally end the Benghazi silliness?

stuff

Because A) The admin apparently released some (all?) of the email to the media. B) IN a few minutes, Obama will be having a statement on the IRS scandal.

With the email thingy... it's all kinds of confusing.

Psst... I think that's their strategy

.

So, we know that Steven Hicks told Hillary that it was a terrorist attack on the night of the attach... then, why did the whole administration blame the event's on the youtube video for the following two weeks?

**azazel the cat**

And yet you still cannot stop tilting at windmills.

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
And yet you still cannot stop tilting at windmills.

You're still not answering my simple question.

Here it is again: We know that Steven Hicks told Hillary that it was a terrorist attack on the night of the attack... then, why did the whole administration blame the event's on the youtube video for the following two weeks?

**Jihadin**

Convience......

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Well... on twittah, NATE SILVERS is commenting on how this IRS (and not Benghazi) would probably leave an impact.

Did you read Nate Silver's Five Questions that can help decide if a scandal has staying power?

Because those five questions might finally get you to realise the actual reasons why Benghazi isn't getting any real public interest.

1. Can the potential scandal be described with one sentence, but not easily refuted with one sentence?
2. Does the scandal cut against a core element of the candidate’s brand?
3. Does the scandal reinforce a core negative perception about the candidate?
4. Can the scandal be employed readily by the opposition without their looking hypocritical, risking retribution or giving life to a damaging counter-claim?
5. Is the potential scandal occurring amid an otherwise slow news cycle?

Silver's looks at each, and examines why the IRS thing works in a way the Benghazi never did.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/i-r-s-targeting-of-conservative-groups-could-resonate-in-2014/#more-40036

**Newabortion**

Rand Paul 2016!....oh wait we need a vote to counter the woman vote for Hillary 2016....Que up Marco Rubio for 2016!

**azazel the cat**

Newabortion wrote:Rand Paul 2016!....oh wait we need a vote to counter the woman vote for Hillary 2016....Que up Marco Rubio for 2016!

Would that be the unelectable-on-the-national-stage-because-of-crazy-fundamentalist-pandering-at-state-level Marco Rubio?

**whembly**

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
Well... on twittah, NATE SILVERS is commenting on how this IRS (and not Benghazi) would probably leave an impact.

Did you read Nate Silver's Five Questions that can help decide if a scandal has staying power?

Because those five questions might finally get you to realise the actual reasons why Benghazi isn't getting any real public interest.

1. Can the potential scandal be described with one sentence, but not easily refuted with one sentence?
2. Does the scandal cut against a core element of the candidate’s brand?
3. Does the scandal reinforce a core negative perception about the candidate?
4. Can the scandal be employed readily by the opposition without their looking hypocritical, risking retribution or giving life to a damaging counter-claim?
5. Is the potential scandal occurring amid an otherwise slow news cycle?

Silver's looks at each, and examines why the IRS thing works in a way the Benghazi never did.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/i-r-s-targeting-of-conservative-groups-could-resonate-in-2014/#more-40036

He does make a good point and supports my gut feeling how the IRS, rather than Benghazi, will leave a more lasting impact.

I'm just not willing to ignore what happened during Benghazi and I really believe it's a big deal... whether or not the media treats it so.

Well look ee there!

The MEDIA is now jumping on this "scandal" bandwagon only after it's been reported about what the DoJ did to the AP. Imagine that! When one of their contemporaries get smacked around a bit, now they're ALL banding together.

Now... all media can't ignore the IRS, Bengahzi, and AP scandals.

Then, there's the IRS illegalling obtain health records.

Then, there's news report about the AP issue... that some House of Representative was included in that search. <--- remains to be seen if true. But, if true... that's baaaad "ju-ju" for the DoJ.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

azazel the cat wrote:
Newabortion wrote:Rand Paul 2016!....oh wait we need a vote to counter the woman vote for Hillary 2016....Que up Marco Rubio for 2016!

Would that be the unelectable-on-the-national-stage-because-of-crazy-fundamentalist-pandering-at-state-level Marco Rubio?

Erm... what did you think Rubio did at the State level?

If anying, he'll be ding'ed for his stances on Illegal Immigration.