Benghazi Talking Points

[rhett o rick]

Benghazi Talking Points

I am trying to compile some liberal talking points that can be used to combat the onslaught of right-wing talking points. Below is my attempt re. Benghazi. I would appreciate comments.

"During the confusion immediately following the Benghazi attack, Republicans started attacking the Admin's explanation of what happened.
Misrepresentations and outright lies got media attention, casting a bad light on the Admin during a time of crisis.
In fact, 60 Minutes of the so-called liberal media, put on a show that tried to implicate the President, but it turned out to be based totally on lies.
The recent NY Times study vindicates the Admin and reveals that the attacks by the Republicans were unfounded and ill intended."



Happy Nude Year

[BlueStreak]

1. I don't see where the NYT article changes anything

You can't disprove a negative.

The absence is evidence is not evidence of absence.

The RW media just carries on and claims that NYT is wrong and biased. My Faux-watching father hit me with that today. We were talking about the demise of newspapers in general and he launches into what I surmise is the Faux 24x7 position.

So how do we best deal with it? With facts.

Fact: immediately before the Benghazi attacks, there were riots widespread throughout the region INCLUDING LIBYA that were undeniably directly a result of the video.

Fact: There were people in the area of the Benghazi compound who were protesting the video. That has never been disputed. It is simply ignored by the RWers.

Fact: There has never been any clear evidence exactly who the attackers were and exactly what motivated them. The NYT article didn't find any evidence of a well-planned al Qaeda operation but they did find evidence that the actions were at least partly motivated by the movie.

Fact: What difference does it make? (OK. That's not really a fact. But still.)

If the point is that the administration had a period of confusion, guilty as charged. If the point is that security should have been better, well, the Congress had an important hand in that. If the point is that there should have been some Marines dispatches to rush in and save the day, that is complete nonsense. The 4 were dead long before any force could have been assembled and deployed.

So what is the point, really?

[Berlum]

2. Makes it plain to fair-minded folk that Republicons have been lying steadily & systematically

Intentional deceit is evil.

[rhett o rick]

3. I dont think this point is being made strong enough. nm

[BlueStreak]

4. Well, how could it?

It isn't as if the same people that have been lying about it all along are suddenly going to say, "OK, we confess. The New York Times found out that we were lying and we all feel such shame now."

They are just going to carry on as they have been. Why wouldn't they?

[rhett o rick]

5. I am referring to Democrats in Congress. The Republicans stand up and spew lies.

Why dont the Democrats stand up and refute the lies and call out the liars?

[BlueStreak]

7. Same reason they don't stand up for anything important.

The Republicans know what they want and they are willing to fight to the death for it.

The Dems aren't really even sure what they want, and the certainly won't fight for it as a group.

We don't even see them standing up for the obvious things like climate change, campaign finance, etc.

[Wounded Bear]

6. They're not listening...

You can tell by how loudly they're shouting.

[L0oniX]

8. Ben Garzara is dead. n/t

[rhett o rick]

9. I think you are confused. Ben Ghazi is no relation to Ben Garzzara or Ben Kingsly.

But I understand how you could get confused.