Fact-Checking (Or Not)

Fact checking is mostly tendentious nonsense, but yesterday's George Will column invites this comment.  Will called for an apology from Syracuse Law for granting Biden a law degree, noting two egregious legal gaffes.  In the first, Will reminds us that in the 2008 VP debate Biden patronizingly informed Palin that Article I delineates the role of the Vice President.  The video is here at the 1:11 point.  Wrong, says Will, it's Article II.  Actually, it's both.  Article I, section 3, clause 4 states that the VP "shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."  Article II deals with the election of the President and Vice President (as amended by the 12th Amendment), provides that the VP succeeds to the presidency in the case of the President's death, removal, resignation, or inability to discharge the duties of the office (as amended by the 25th Amendment).  While Biden was not quite the legal dunce Will claims, it is astonishing that in the same debate Biden characterized Cheney as the most dangerous VP in American history, in part for Cheney's contention that the office of the Vice Presidency was not part of the executive branch.  If Biden thought Article I controlled the office of the VP, then Cheney must not have been wrong.  So, a big rotten tomato to both George Will and Joe Biden on this one. 

The second gaffe cited by Will is Biden's assertion in the 2102 VP debate that if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade (actually Planned Parenthood v. Casey) abortion would be "outlawed."  You may see the video here, at the 6:15 point    One would think that then-Senator Biden, who raked Robert Bork over the coals on abortion back in 1987, would understand that overturning Roe and Casey would free the states to regulate abortion (or not) as they desire.  So, two big fat rotten tomatoes to Joe Biden on this one and thumbs up to George Will.  

But the most important fact-checking is the one that isn't happening.  Evidence continues to surface that our personnel in Benghazi begged for assistance and were repeatedly turned down.  But, as Jonah Goldberg reports, "last Friday, the president boasted that 'the minute I found out what was happening' in Benghazi, he ordered that everything possible be done to protect our personnel. That is either untrue, or he’s being disobeyed on grave matters."  Last week, Leon Panetta defended this inaction by saying "that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”  As Jonah Goldberg observes, "If real-time video of the attack and communications with Americans on the ground begging for assistance don’t constitute 'real-time information,' what does?"  I don't know what to believe here, but this a major news story, so why aren't the army of self-appointed "fact-checkers" trying to ferret out the truth of this matter?  Where are the investigative reporters?

Full disclosure:  Chris Stevens was my student at Hastings.  I knew him well and he was a prince of a man.  I grieve for him and his family.   

Comments

[Doug Richmond]

Or, perhaps, the President did order that everything possible be done, he was obeyed, and all that could be done was still inadequate. Or, perhaps by the time his orders could be carried out, it was too late. Or maybe the reported begging never reached the President's ears, or did not get there timely, perhaps because the people to whom the pleas were directed thought they could capably address them. Or perhaps his orders were timely issued and expediently implemented, and the performance of them by those with boots on the ground (so to speak) was inadequate. We should all mourn for Chris Stevens, who, by all accounts, was a superb diplomat and excellent person. But that does not mean that his death was the President's fault, or, for that matter, the fault of anyone except his killers.

[Calvin Massey]

Doug Richmond's comment raises many of the questions to which we are entitled to have answers.

[Doug Richmond]

The problem, of course, is that people like Mr. Goldberg do not want answers in the sense that those answers will improve government or diplomatic security or intelligence gathering or anything else remotely related to this tragedy--they simply want some reason to blame President Obama or his administration for something. They will find some reason to blame the President no matter the answers they get.

[anon]

The problem, of course, is that people who condemned the absence of wmd in Iraq did not want answers in the sense that those answers could have improved government or security or intelligence gathering or anything else remotely related to that tragedy--they simply wanted some reason to blame the President or his administration for something. They would have found some reason to blame the President no matter the answers they got.
And now, we have the proof.

[Doug Richmond]

And your point is what, anon? That motives do not matter so long as an inquiry yields answers? Or is it that a quest for blame here is fair because some who called for investigations into the flawed intelligence regarding WMDs were searching for reasons to criticize the Bush administration? I do not think the tragedy in Benghazi and the run up to war in Iraq can be compared, but, in any event, I dislike all witch hunts, even if the hunters happen upon a witch.

[anon]

I am thinking of the hoopla about the PDB: warnings, but no action! That was billed as negligence, at minimum. Do we see that same level of concern now?
I am thinking about the purported reliance on "intelligence" that led to incorrect representations by the former President and others. Do we see the same level of concern here?
You say you are even-handed. I confess I haven't researched your position on "flawed intelligence" being a legitimate excuse for misinformation fed to the public. I haven't researched your posts on the meaning of the PDB that preceded our national horror. Accordingly, I can't validate your claim to be even-handed. Your post above is not very good evidence of your tolerence of legitimate questions, however.
You vilify "Mr. Goldberg"'s motives and goals, without, I believe, a shred of evidence to refute his contention: a contention that you don't address. Instead, you attack Mr. Goldberg because he dared to ask a question.
Be that as it may be, you are correct, there is no comparison between Libya and Iraq. UN Resolutions and a vote by Congress preceded US action in Iraq (check Biden's and Hillary's positions on that action, BTW).
There is no witch hunt here. Our consulate was sacked and our personnel were slain. You don't think it matters whether warnings were ignored, assistance was rejected, and misstatements were made after the fact that falsely put blame for this on a You Tube video?
I would guess you would have been far less likely to come to this conclusion that inquiry is inappropriate had the former President been in office at teh time of these events.
That is my point.

[Doug Richmond]

A point you make only under the cloak of anonymity because you are a coward.

[anon]

Name calling doesn't win an argument, Mr. Richmond. It is quite juvenile, actually. Calling me a coward doesn’t make your attacks on Goldberg or anyone else more meritorious.
You seem to have become quite vicious when challenged.
This sort of viciousness on this blog is the reason I post here "under the cloak of anonymity."
Those who are vicious are likely also to be vindictive.
What a shame that your last post reveals this. I would have thought better of you but for your inappropriate outburst.
Finally, Mr. Richmond, if the proprietors of this blog wish to forbid posting here anonymously, they may do so. Until they do, your vicious sniping is contrary to the rules of this blog. Your post should be removed with an admonishment to cease that sort of behavior in the future.

[tde]

There are many legitimate questions about what happened in Bengazi.

It is unfortunate that some have chosen to use the death of the Americans as a political prop.

Mr. Romney's statement, issued just hours after the attack ("It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.") immediately politicized the incident and made serious inquiry more difficult.

[anon]

That statement, seized upon by the press and partisans, hasn't made the inquiry more difficult in any sense.
What has made the inquiry more difficult are the confusing and contradictory statements about the incident issued from official sources.
How could the statement that you cite have made more difficult answering all the questions about the whether warnings were ignored, assistance was rejected, and misstatements were made after the fact that falsely put blame for the incident on a You Tube video?
Only a partisan would seize on that statement as an excuse to ignore all these questions, because almost everyone concedes the questions to be legitimate.
Now, partisans are claiming the questions don't need to be answered because Romney is NOT making an issue of all this.
Go figure.