New Disclosures on Benghazi

[RandFan]

You did nothing but link an article, ignored my comprehensive destruction of it, and have done nothing but hand wave away sunmaster's post with hypocritical claims that it is bald assertions.

Not sure why you bother. You have any questions about Morrell's role in the talking points, let me know. Don't bother making frivolous claims abut "baseless assertions," we get that you would rather do that than address his points.

Thanks. This is just a personal attack against me. What I'm asking is if you have a rebuttal that is substantive.

 

[The Big Dog]

Thanks. This is just a personal attack against me. What I'm asking is if you have a rebuttal that is substantive.

Pointing out that you have ignored an argument is not a personal attack. Pointing out your claims are frivolous is not a personal attack. Dodge noted

See my post regarding morrell's role in the talking points and disregard of the "not/NOT" intelligence referenced above.

 

[RandFan]

Pointing out that you have ignored an argument is not a personal attack.

See my post regarding morrell's role in the talking points and disregard of the "not/NOT" intelligence referenced above.

I'd love to discuss this but this is getting us nowhere. Would you like to have a discussion on the merits or would you prefer to gainsay and make baseless claims?

 

[RandFan]

Here's an idea

Find something in the article that you believe is materially wrong and demonstrate that it is materially wrong.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'd love to discuss this but this is getting us nowhere. Would you like to have a discussion on the merits or would you prefer to gainsay and make baseless claims?

Baseless claims?

You think Morrell's role in the talking points and the disregard of the "not/NOT" intelligence are baseless claims?

Upon what do you base that assertion?

 

[RandFan]

Baseless claims?

You think Morrell's role in the talking points and the disregard of the "not/NOT" intelligence are baseless claims?

Upon what do you base that assertion?

Find something in the article that you believe is materially wrong and demonstrate that it is materially wrong.

 

[sunmaster14]

Find something in the article that you believe is materially wrong and demonstrate that it is materially wrong.

The article is attacking a strawman, as I've explained. The headline in particular is misleading, although I doubt that Morell had anything to do with that. Headlines are usually chosen by the editors.

 

[RandFan]

The article is attacking a strawman, as I've explained. The headline in particular is misleading, although I doubt that Morell had anything to do with that. Headlines are usually chosen by the editors.

What I'm looking for is

1.) Something that is materially wrong.

2.) Demonstrate why it is materially wrong.

 

[barehl]

2 years, TWO YEARS Seven investigations, 13 hearings, 50 briefings, and 25,000 pages of documents have been released.

Don't worry though, given enough hearings and enough investigations...

On second thought, **** that, does anyone still honestly believe there is something to this?

Do you know what this reminds me of? After four years of investigation from August 1994 to September 1998 at a cost of $70 million, people were still claiming that Clinton had had half a dozen people murdered.

It's remarkable that people can excuse the obvious conflict of interest for Starr to be investigating Clinton at all with the claim that Starr was honest and professional. They can rationalize the cost and the continued expansion of the investigation because of course you need to get to the truth no matter what. Yet, when he failed to find any evidence of murder it was because Starr wasn't competent or the investigation was too limited.

Some people will always believe in conspiracies, regardless of evidence or the lack of evidence.

 

[The Big Dog]

[qimg]http://a.intgr.net/tags/93_56_1.gif[/qimg]

CIA’s #2 Debunks Fox News And The Benghazisteria Once And For All

In a scathing article for Politico, Morell takes the Benghazi boneheads to the woodshed, offering the real-world view of what so many have distorted for political gain:

“Like clockwork, every several weeks, someone discovers a new document that, to their minds, “proves” that what the administration and the intelligence community have been saying about Benghazi is a bunch of lies. But time and again these documents don’t add up. They don’t show what the pundits think they show—and the Benghazi broadsides miss their mark anew.”
​

I understand that "addictinginfo" claims that Mike Morrell has laid the Benghazi scandal to rest! Who is Mike Morrell?

He's the guy who wrote the final draft of the utterly discredited talking points memo, after the meeting with Ben Rhodes, who wanted everyone to know that the attack was not a failure of "policy."

He's the guy who ignored his own station chief's repeated notifications that it was "not/NOT" the result of an escalation of protests.

Mike's whitewash continues:



Hey Mike, how can we prevent terrorism when the intelligence operatives responsible for doing so try to whitewash your own incompetent handling of the event?

By the way, copying "addictinginfo's" summary of a Mike Morrell article is like copying Stormfront's summary of a Josef Goebbels speech.

I'd love to discuss this but this is getting us nowhere. Would you like to have a discussion on the merits or would you prefer to gainsay and make baseless claims?

Not debunked, Morrell's ignores concrete contrary evidence.

I take it you are withdrawing your assertion that my claims were baseless? Yes or no?

 

[RandFan]

Not debunked, ¹Morrell's ignores concrete contrary evidence.

²I take it you are withdrawing your assertion that my claims were baseless? Yes or no?

1.) What evidence?

2.) You would have to provide something more than claims.

Demonstrate your claims.

 

[RandFan]

Do you know what this reminds me of? After four years of investigation from August 1994 to September 1998 at a cost of $70 million, people were still claiming that Clinton had had half a dozen people murdered.

It's remarkable that people can excuse the obvious conflict of interest for Starr to be investigating Clinton at all with the claim that Starr was honest and professional. They can rationalize the cost and the continued expansion of the investigation because of course you need to get to the truth no matter what. Yet, when he failed to find any evidence of murder it was because Starr wasn't competent or the investigation was too limited.

Some people will always believe in conspiracies, regardless of evidence or the lack of evidence.

We need go no further than this thread.

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm starting to suspect that certain posters are trying to use pointless bickering as a strategy to get the thread back on moderated status. I'll wait for something substantive to arise in thread before engaging again.

 

[RandFan]

There will be no examples of anything that is materially false in the article. It won't because the article is correct.

This would be the time to take down the article if it were truly engaging in a straw man argument.

1.) Make the claim.

2.) Support the claim.

 

[The Big Dog]

1.) What evidence?

2.) You would have to provide something more than claims.

Demonstrate your claims.

I posted that several hours ago.

To cut to the chase, Morrell's article is a whitewash/excuse in an attempt to justify his execrable performance attempting to justify CIA's incompetent performance in connection with the attacks.

Here is a good overview.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/2/cia-leader-morell-denies-role-benghazi-cover-up/?page=all

Morrell wrote the final draft of the talking points after the deputies meeting on the 15th.

He ignored then and now the intelligence that it was "not/NOT" an escalation of a demonstration outside the consulate.

Any more questions?

 

[RandFan]

I posted that several hours ago.

To cut to the chase, Morrell's article is a whitewash/excuse in an attempt to justify his execrable performance attempting to justify CIA's incompetent performance in connection with the attacks.

Here is a good overview.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...orell-denies-role-benghazi-cover-up/?page=all

Morrell wrote the final draft of the talking points after the deputies meeting on the 15th.

He ignored then and now the intelligence that it was "not/NOT" an escalation of a demonstration outside the consulate.

Any more questions?

This is meaningless. It is ad hominem. Either the article contains something that is materially false or it doesn't.

1.) Does the article contain a materially false claim?

2.) If the answer to #1 is yes then provide the evidence.

Thanks.

 

[RandFan]

While we play this ad hominem attack game here are some results from PolitiFact.

Fact-checking Benghazi: The rhetoric hasn't matched up with reality

1. Was there a chance to act that the White House didn’t take? False.
2. Was the United States "the last flag flying" in Benghazi when the attacks happened? False.
3. Was the ambassador’s body abused?Pants on Fire.
4. Did budget cuts from Congress play a role in the lack of security? Mostly False
5. Did Hillary Clinton know that more security was needed? Mostly False
6. Did Rice downplay terrorism?Mostly False.

 

[barehl]

The Benghazi attack was September 2012. Two years and eight months later people are still hoping and praying for smoking guns and bombshells. The bridge lane closing was September 2013. I wonder if I would be that pathetic in another year if the Christie investigation turns up nothing.

 

[The Big Dog]

This is meaningless. It is ad hominem. Either the article contains something that is materially false or it doesn't.

1.) Does the article contain a materially false claim?

2.) If the answer to #1 is yes then provide the evidence.

Thanks.

Sigh.

Ad hominem? You put him up as an expert on the basis that he had debunked something according to addicting info.

His claims were materially false because he intentionally omitted contrary evidence.

You claimed my assertions were baseless and have refused to support that affirmative claim (which I have refuted of course, as avid readers of this thread know considering that they have been posted before). Morrell drafted the talking points to fit into the Rhodes memo, which were the actual talking points.

Morrell is an incompetent moron, but I think we are all pretty tired of dancing around with your claim that you posted and you refuse to support. Jaq'ing around since then? Why bother?

Got it, Morrell does not think that the talking points he drafted were totally incompetent. Noted! I think I will rush right out and buy his book.

 

[RandFan]

The Benghazi attack was September 2012. Two years and eight months later people are still hoping and praying for smoking guns and bombshells. The bridge lane closing was September 2013. I wonder if I would be that pathetic in another year if the Christie investigation turns up nothing.

^^This!