Arguing Politics


I like discussing politics.  I like to hear the other guy’s take on things political.  What I don’t like is being argued with for having an opinion.  That’s all I’m offering when I post political comments: my point of view.  I am not a lawyer, professional debater or have any designs on future political office.  Just my opinion, on my blog, for you to read or not, agree with or not.  I don’t bare my soul here for anyone to find fault with me, or tell me I have no integrity?!

If you disagree, go ahead disagree and tell me so.  You’re not going to change your position and I don’t expect you to.  You are not going to change my mind either.  If you don’t like what I say you don’t have to read my blog.

7 thoughts on “Arguing Politics

  1. your ‘having an opinion’ was not the issue and you know it. you are angry because you couldn’t find any logical or rational defense of it so you disregarded the intellectual honesty necessary to hold it. if you don’t want the challenge of others asking for the basis of your opinions, whether political or not, you shouldn’t try to say you are open to the opinions of others. it’s just not honest. my last word to you on the subject and on this blog.
    -mike

    1. When a set of State Department emails were released Wednesday, one reporting that a local Islamist militia had claimed responsibility for the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya, conservatives thought they had the smoking gun that the Obama administration had lied about what had occurred.

      Reuters reported Wednesday that on September 11—the day of the attack—a State Department email with the subject header “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack” was sent to the White House. The message stated that “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.” Case closed, conservatives said: The White House had engaged in a cover-up.

      “[T]he president and his advisers repeatedly told us the attack was spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim video and that it lacked information suggesting it was a terrorist assault,” wrote Jennifer Rubin, president of the Washington Post’s Mitt Romney fan club. “Bottom line? Barack Obama was willfully and knowingly lying to the American people,” wrote Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. (Of course, the idea that the video played a role is not inconsistent with the idea that the attack was an “act of terror,” a phrase the president himself used to describe the attack in the days following the incident.)

      There’s only one problem—well, actually, there are many, but one big one: The email appears to have been incorrect. Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi, the group suspected of attacking the consulate, never claimed responsibility for the assault. In fact, according to Aaron Zelin, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who monitors jihadist activity online, Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi didn’t post about the attack on its Facebook or Twitter page until September 12, the day after the attack. They expressed their approval of the incident, but they didn’t take credit; they did imply members of the group might have been involved, according to Zelin, stating, “Katibat Ansar al-Sharia [in Benghazi] as a military did not participate formally/officially and not by direct orders.” The statement also implicitly justifies the attack by alluding to the anti-Islam video linked to unrest in other parts of the Middle East, saying, “We commend the Libyan Muslim people in Benghazi [that were] against the attack on the [Muslim] Prophet [Muhammad].”

      “It is possible staffers were mistaken in the heat of the moment,” wrote Zelin in an email to Mother Jones. “Not only was there no statement from ASB until the following morning, but it did not claim responsibility.” (Zelin provided Mother Jones with screenshots of AAS’s Twitter feed and Facebook page, which he also provided to CNN. It’s possible the posts could have been deleted, but there’s no way to prove that.)

      Even if the State Department email had been accurate, conservatives pounced on it eagerly without underlying corroboration, thereby providing a pretty good example of how complicated intelligence analysis can be and why it’s a bad idea to simply jump on a piece of information that fits your preconceived biases. The email was just one piece of information gathered in the aftermath of the attack. While the White House’s initial explanation that the attack had begun as a protest turned out to be wrong, the email itself doesn’t bear on two of the major remaining questions: what role the video played and whether the attack was planned or spontaneous.

      You’d think that this would be obvious, but in the future it’s a good idea to remember that just because someone posts something on Facebook, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. Even better: Just because someone said someone posted something on Facebook doesn’t mean it’s true. Even if you really, really want it to be.

  2. wow!! i agree with you about this is just an opinion and people can stop reading if they are offended. i have said that on my blog before, it just amazes me that some people think a persons blog is for them to behave badly. i know that i am right when reps are going nasty and have no real facts to offer.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s