The entire argument about Clinton's so-called private intelligence network

[BainsBane]

As far as I can tell, hinges on the term "sensitive source" used by Sydney Blumenthal in correspondence to Clinton.

Let's make clear that we are talking about Benghazi here. Ben-fucking-ghazi. A few weeks ago I asked whether people really wanted to sink to Republican levels in staking out the position for the primary (a primary that is not even yet happening). Clearly the answer to that question is yes, and Benghazi is now the smoking gun for the anti-Clintonites, just as it has been for the GOP for years now.

Benghazi was the located of a clandestine CIA station. We know that not only from news reports but from Republicans letting that classified info slip in front of the cameras. "Sensitive source" could well have referred to one of the CIA agents stationed in Benghazi, or it could have referred to another intelligence source. All we actually know is that Blumenthal considered the source sensitive.

The very article used as supposed evidence of Clinton's running her own intelligence service says:

The reports Blumenthal sent to Clinton appear to have been compiled by Tyler Drumheller, a former chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) clandestine service in Europe. Drumheller left the CIA in 2005 and started his own security business. http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/was-hillary-clinton-while-secretary-of-state-running-a-secret-spy-network-150330?news=856096 There's the tried and true tactic of phrasing a baseless allegation as a question.

While the article doesn't concern itself with providing evidence, it says the reports were compiled by a former CIA station chief and sent to Blumenthal, who then sent them to Clinton. It says she received information from this other source, not that she ran her own intelligence network. How does receiving information from a former CIA station chief equate with "running a private intelligence network"? The US government has many, many intelligence agencies. Why would a Secretary of State need or want to create her own? All to hide the fact she knew the consulate in Benghazi was about to be stormed? We're heard this story before, only from the GOP.

The Secretary of State has contact with members of all kinds of US agencies, which any cursory reading of US diplomatic history should make clear. The only way in which the term "sensitive source" can be interpreted to mean she ran a private intelligence network is if people 1) have no regard for the truth, facts or evidence; 2) are looking to gin up opposition to Clinton; 3) and have no compulsion about engaging in lies and distortions in order to serve their goal of destroying one potential candidate.

The entire argument is without evidentiary basis. Now I get that right-wingers will grab onto anything to use against the Democrats, but when supposed Democrats do the same thing, it becomes increasingly difficult to tell Republican from Democrat. Regardless of party, however, intellectual honesty should require more; self-respect should require more.

[mcar]

1. K&R for common sense

So tired of the right wing arguments here.

Don't like Hillary Clinton? Don't vote for her. Work to support another primary candidate. But don't bring the rumor and innuendo here and then complain that you are called "hater."

Me, I don't know who I'll support in the primary, because no one is declared yet. But I will damn sure support and vote for the Democratic candidate.

[BainsBane]

4. It goes way beyond the primary

and points to something troubling in those who engage in such tactics.

[mcar]

5. It does BB

[emulatorloo]

13. Yes, some posters are quite willing to use Karl Rove's playbook

Half-truths, lies, innuendo, manipulated quotations. And they have no shame about it whatsoever.

[joeybee12]

2. Agreed...the hate for Hilary is palatable here and elsewhere...

That post you refer to got so many recs.

[BainsBane]

3. While they refuse to engage in the substance of the charges against her

They want to rely on innuendo alone because anything else falls apart.

[zappaman]

6. I'm not shocked by who believes this crap.

Not in the least.

[SidDithers]

7. +1...

I'm just glad that this time they weren't promoting an homophobe, a racist or an anti-Semite.

This time.

Sid

[BainsBane]

8. No, neither am I

but those threads sit out there influencing people, who often don't look much beyond the headline. People need to know there is more--or less, if you will--to the story.

[Andy823]

9. I find it amazing

That it's pretty much the same bunch of "anti" everything posters who come up with this crap, and the amazing thing is that when asked for some kind of proof, or links to prove their BS, they ignore you, or some of their "gang" jump in and tell you to find the proof for yourself! They don't seem to understand that if you claim something then you should provide proof of that claim, not expect everyone else who disagrees to go searching for it themselves.

Of course when the shoe is on the other foot, you can bet they will demand links and proof!

[Octafish]

10. Are you talking about me? SidDithers of DU is.

Here's just one example where SidDithers accuses me of bigotry, etc., using the same example over and over again, as if that makes a case:

I've asked you, repeatedly over the years, to show what you term my "propensity for promoting and legitimizing the work of noted bigots, racists, homophobes and conspiracy theorist lunatics. You're a guy who thinks white-nationalist Paul Craig Roberts and insane homophobe Wayne Madsen are credible, and appropriate sources for use on a progressive message board."

Seeing how you fail to actually show any of that, I want these to be in the record for all DU to see:

Where I quoted Roberts when he supported Don Siegelman:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022073759


Where I quoted Madsen recently to document the business links between Bush and bin Laden:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6059251


Where I first quoted Madsen on DU2 in 2003 (earlier examples exist, but none so illustrative):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x610051


Where you smear Naomi Klein, making me think the practice is your speciality:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5318151

You will note that I did not support any theory, smear, or lie; I only posted what these people wrote. And as far I as I knew or know, none of these people are anything like what SidDithers of DU describes.

Show where I'm wrong and I'm happy to correct my mistake, Andy823.

[BainsBane]

11. I laid out where you're wrong in this OP

and in my post in response to you in the thread. I've done so on a number of other issues, and you never engage with the substance of any argument. Your conception of evidence seems to be limited to linking to someone else's opinion, which is not in fact evidence at all In fact, I'd have to struggle to come up with a subject that you weren't wrong on.

Since you have decided to participate in a thread I initiated, I would appreciate it if you would address the subject rather than engaging in some antediluvian grudge with Sid.

[Octafish]

15. I'll post what I want. As for your Benghazi observation, great. Profound.

And feel free to show where I'm wrong. Otherwise, your opinion doesn't mean much to me.

[BainsBane]

17. I twice explained how you are wrong

More carefully in this OP. To be more accurate, I questioned the state of the evidence for your claims.
My reference to Benghazi is not meant to be profound. That is what the article you linked to about Clinton's supposed private intelligence network relates to. What you dismiss as my opinion is in an exploration of that state of evidence relating to that. Now, why don't you tell us how Blumenthal's reference to a "sensitive source" constitutes evidence of Clinton running a private intelligence network? You have posted about this correspondence on more than one occasion, yet you show no interest in discussing it. How is it you make three posts in this thread and never once address the subject of the OP, a subject you yourself posted about: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6455438 You demonstrate the same lack of interest in the subject matter in your own thread. Why post about something if you have no interest in discussing it?

And why did you combine the lament about Petraeus' downfall with a discussion of Clinton and the correspondence about Benghazi? What possible connection do the two have? Is your allegation that Clinton somehow orchestrated Petraeus' fall? If so, why would she do that? And how? And most importantly, what about evidence? Don't you care if what your conclusions are true?

[Andy823]

12. Nope

I was talking about a group that is "anti" everything, no names of anyone in particular were mentioned. I have seen several in that group make the comment that they don't have to post links, if you want links they say to find them yourself. You were not one of them, that I recall.

[Octafish]

16. Thanks.

Tag Teaming makes me angry, especially the smears mentioned above. Sorry to drag you near their mud.

[BainsBane]

18. Now you have an opportunity to get beyond personal mudslinging and smears

and deal with the subject matter, a subject matter you yourself have posted about on more than one occasion. I would appreciate it if you would address the state of evidence of that allegation about Clinton's supposed private spy network http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6458306

[Octafish]

22. You link to the same thread we're on.

Is this what you're looking for?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026447624

Since when is it my job to explain things to you?

[guillaumeb]

14. many people, here and elsewhere, confuse opinion with fact

when you wrote:

"The Secretary of State has contact with members of all kinds of US agencies, which any cursory reading of US diplomatic history should make clear. The only way in which the term "sensitive source" can be interpreted to mean she ran a private intelligence network is if people 1) have no regard for the truth, facts or evidence; 2) are looking to gin up opposition to Clinton; 3) and have no compulsion about engaging in lies and distortions in order to serve their goal of destroying one potential candidate."

I and 3 are almost textbook definitions of propaganda.
2 is definitely possible.

derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
synonyms: information, promotion, advertising, publicity, spin;


When you wrote:
"The entire argument is without evidentiary basis. Now I get that right-wingers will grab onto anything to use against the Democrats, but when supposed Democrats do the same thing, it becomes increasingly difficult to tell Republican from Democrat. Regardless of party, however, intellectual honesty should require more; self-respect should require more."

It appears that talking points have replaced fact based debate. Sad for both sides because the language becomes debased to the point of being meaningless.

Another excellent post

[BainsBane]

19. Two is clearly the reason

1 and 3 are my rather uncharitable assessments of what underlies it. What is most notable is that they refuse to engage in any discussion about a subject they claim to care so much about. If there is more evidence, why not argue the case? Why not explain how that correspondence is so damning? Yet there is none of that, which only convinces me that I am likely right about 1 and 3.

[freshwest]

20. Posting to remind to read later. n/t

[pnwmom]

21. Thank you for this. n/t