New Disclosures on Benghazi

[RandFan]

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.

Is there something in the article that is materially false? Yes or no?

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

Imagine if you found out that Christie was with holding documents that he promised he had turned over, and his chief aide admitted that she had all the documents about her involvement but only turned over the ones she wanted to and destroyed the rest.

Hmmmm.

 

[The Big Dog]

Is there something in the article that is materially false? Yes or no?

Yes.

Jaq'ing off again are we?

 

[RandFan]

Imagine if you found out that Christie was with holding documents that he promised he had turned over, and his chief aide admitted that she had all the documents about her involvement but only turned over the ones she wanted to and destroyed the rest.

Hmmmm.

You mean if the investigations were roughly the same?

here have already been seven investigations, 13 hearings, 50 briefings, and 25,000 pages of documents have been released. But that won't stop Republicans from re-re-re investigating Benghazi as a part of a crass partisan ploy to turn out the far-right base in November.

I'd say it's pretty pathetic. Let it go.

 

[The Big Dog]

Is there something in the article that is materially false? Yes or no?

Were you going to continue to ignore my request that you support your accusation that my post was baseless?

 

[RandFan]

Yes.

Jaq'ing off again are we?

The inability for anyone to cite a single materially false claim from the article speaks for itself.

 

[The Big Dog]

The inability for anyone to cite a single materially false claim from the article speaks for itself.

And denial is just a river in Egypt.

By the way, the next time you cite the Democrat National Committee, it would be helpful if you linked it.

Your dodge on supporting your claim that my post was baseless is noted.

 

[barehl]

Imagine if you found out that Christie was with holding documents that he promised he had turned over, and his chief aide admitted that she had all the documents about her involvement but only turned over the ones she wanted to and destroyed the rest.

It is my sincere and heartfelt assumption that Mr. Christie will lie, distort, and withhold to any extent that is within his mortal power to do so. Why would anyone assume otherwise?

 

[The Big Dog]

It is my sincere and heartfelt assumption that Mr. Christie will lie, distort, and withhold to any extent that is within his mortal power to do so. Why would anyone assume otherwise?

Well the good news is we have undisputed evidence that Obama and Clinton withheld evidence relating to benghazi! Which is on topic.

But hey, if Christie did that, I am with you, he should be in the cell next to Hillary!

Thumbs up!

 

[RandFan]

And denial is just a river in Egypt.

By the way, the next time you cite the Democrat National Committee, it would be helpful if you linked it.

Your dodge on supporting your claim that my post was baseless is noted.

Again, thanks for the response but this is not responsive.

1.) Is there a material falsehood in the article?

2.) What is your evidence?

 

[tyr_13]

I suspect that Mike Morell did not pick the headline "Debunking the Benghazi Myths" himself. The article itself it is far more measured, and frankly it told me nothing I didn't already believe. I do however think that he misses the point in two places.

First, even though the attack was probably opportunistic and not carefully planned ahead of time, it was very misleading for the administration to paint the attack as a protest that turned into a riot. I think the administration did that because they didn't want to have to admit that a US ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack two months before an election in which the "war on terror" figured prominently. I think the administration knew they were being deceptive, but they figured they could confuse, distract, and deflect long enough to dissipate any negative political impact before the election.

Second, even though the Youtube video played a role in the protests in Cairo, and the Cairo protests might have played a role in instigating the attacks in Benghazi, it was absolutely ridiculous, indeed counterproductive, for the administration to identify the video as a cause. Even if it was used as a pretext for the attacks (and that's pretty dubious to say the least), the video was just that - a pretext. Why should the administration play the Islamists' game and lend currency to the idea that a video could reasonably be seen as incitement? It cannot. Even if the video was successfully used by Islamist leaders to whip up their followers to attack US interests, it is still playing into their hands to identify it as a "hateful, disgusting video ..." and try to distance ourselves from it "... that we had nothing to do with."

As opinion goes it's as good as anything. You could be correct but your rhetoric appears to be no more than assertions. What you find "dubious" isn't a valid argument. No one has argued that the administration played a game nor does it follow that there was no confusion early on.

I appreciate the response but I was hoping for a substantive response to the article not someone telling me that there was nothing "new". It doesn't need to be new. It just needs to expose the silliness for what it is. Which it does.

You're simply making baseless assertions that we are making baseless assertions. Where is your evidence that we are making baseless assertions? Where are your sources? By the way, it would be nice if you provided an accurate summary of the relevant parts of an article when you provide a link to it as evidence. Note that this might require that you understand the article. Or actually read it.

His source is your post that he quoted and the evidence is found by reading it. Were you really confused on this point? Your accusation is not as supported as his.

 

[The Big Dog]

Again, thanks for the response but this is not responsive.

1.) Is there a material falsehood in the article?

2.) What is your evidence?

Already responded, no need to spam, randfan. I get that you don't accept my evidence that he materially omitted evidence, you sure won't support your claim that my evidence was baseless.

This is skeptic site, you think that Morrell is not incompetent, you post headlines from addicting info and quote the democrat national committee without attribution or a link.

We get that, Randfan.

 

[barehl]

Well the good news is we have undisputed evidence that Obama and Clinton withheld evidence relating to benghazi! Which is on topic.

But hey, if Christie did that, I am with you, he should be in the cell next to Hillary!

I'm sorry but I have no idea what prosecutorial fairyland you have been living in. It is not typical that criminals are honest, accurate, and forthcoming about incriminating evidence. In fact, it isn't the job of a criminal to prove their own guilt or to assist with their own prosecution. This is why we have Miranda Rights. This is why we have innocent until proven guilty. This is why we have beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.

There is a fundamental difference between rhetoric you can share with your fanbase on a morning cable show or paste in bold letters at the top of your blog and actual evidence that you can present in court.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm sorry but I have no idea what prosecutorial fairyland you have been living in. It is not typical that criminals are honest, accurate, and forthcoming about incriminating evidence. In fact, it isn't the job of a criminal to prove their own guilt or to assist with their own prosecution. This is why we have Miranda Rights. This is why we have innocent until proven guilty. This is why we have beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.

There is a fundamental difference between rhetoric you can share with your fanbase on a morning cable show or paste in bold letters at the top of your blog and actual evidence that you can present in court.

So Obama and Hillary are criminals? No arguments here!

 

[RandFan]

His source is your post that he quoted and the evidence is found by reading it. Were you really confused on this point? Your accusation is not as supported as his.

If it is so clear then perhaps you could make it so. What is the claim and what is this "evidence", could you quote it?

First, even though the attack was probably opportunistic and not carefully planned ahead of time, ¹it was very misleading for the administration to paint the attack as a protest that turned into a riot. ² I think the administration did that because they didn't want to have to admit that a US ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack two months before an election in which the "war on terror" figured prominently. ³I think the administration knew they were being deceptive, but they figured they could confuse, distract, and deflect long enough to dissipate any negative political impact before the election.

Second, even though the Youtube video played a role in the protests in Cairo, and the Cairo protests might have played a role in instigating the attacks in Benghazi, ⁴it was absolutely ridiculous, indeed counterproductive, for the administration to identify the video as a cause. Even if it was used as a pretext for the attacks (and that's pretty dubious to say the least), the video was just that - a pretext. ⁵Why should the administration play the Islamists' game and lend currency to the idea that a video could reasonably be seen as incitement? It cannot. ⁶Even if the video was successfully used by Islamist leaders to whip up their followers to attack US interests, it is still playing into their hands to identify it as a "hateful, disgusting video ..." and try to distance ourselves from it "... that we had nothing to do with."

1.) This is an opinion and no evidence has been offered to support it.

2.) This is an opinion (see the phrase "I think").

3.) Again, "I think", this is an opinion.

4.) Again, an opinion. Also, appeal to ridicule is a fallacy.

5.) Presumptuous. An opinion.

6.) Non-sequitur.

 

[RandFan]

Already responded, no need to spam, randfan. I get that you don't accept my evidence that he materially omitted evidence, you sure won't support your claim that my evidence was baseless.

This is skeptic site, you think that Morrell is not incompetent, you post headlines from addicting info and quote the democrat national committee without attribution or a link.

We get that, Randfan.

You cannot provide a single claim and provide evidence. The rest is a red herring.

Let me know if and when you have something.

 

[barehl]

So Obama and Hillary are criminals? No arguments here!

That's a good example of rhetoric. And it's worth pretty much what any other rhetoric is worth. It's like filling your pockets with dirt after failing to find gold.

 

[RandFan]

Where is your evidence that we are making baseless assertions? Where are your sources?

The evidence IS the source.

I've enumerated all of your claims.

First, even though the attack was probably opportunistic and not carefully planned ahead of time, ¹it was very misleading for the administration to paint the attack as a protest that turned into a riot. ² I think the administration did that because they didn't want to have to admit that a US ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack two months before an election in which the "war on terror" figured prominently. ³I think the administration knew they were being deceptive, but they figured they could confuse, distract, and deflect long enough to dissipate any negative political impact before the election.

Second, even though the Youtube video played a role in the protests in Cairo, and the Cairo protests might have played a role in instigating the attacks in Benghazi, ⁴it was absolutely ridiculous, indeed counterproductive, for the administration to identify the video as a cause. Even if it was used as a pretext for the attacks (and that's pretty dubious to say the least), the video was just that - a pretext. ⁵Why should the administration play the Islamists' game and lend currency to the idea that a video could reasonably be seen as incitement? It cannot. ⁶Even if the video was successfully used by Islamist leaders to whip up their followers to attack US interests, it is still playing into their hands to identify it as a "hateful, disgusting video ..." and try to distance ourselves from it "... that we had nothing to do with."

Below I've listed why they are all baseless claims.

1.) This is an opinion and no evidence has been offered to support it.

2.) This is an opinion (see the phrase "I think"). It's a claim with no basis in fact.

3.) Again, "I think", this is an opinion. No basis in fact.

4.) Again, an opinion. Also, appeal to ridicule is a fallacy.

5.) Presumptuous. An opinion.

6.) Non-sequitur.[/quote]

 

[tyr_13]

If it is so clear then perhaps you could make it so. What is the claim and what is this "evidence", could you quote it?

1.) This is an opinion and no evidence has been offered to support it.

2.) This is an opinion (see the phrase "I think").

3.) Again, "I think", this is an opinion.

4.) Again, an opinion. Also, appeal to ridicule is a fallacy.

5.) Presumptuous. An opinion.

6.) Non-sequitur.

I think you are confused, I was addressing sunmaster14's claim that your accusation of baseless assertions was a baseless assertion. I was basically agreeing with you (although I think 'baseless' might be too strong).

You did a good job of pointing out exactly why quoting his post was the sufficient source to make your accusation supported, and his accusation not.

 

[The Big Dog]

You cannot provide a single claim and provide evidence. The rest is a red herring.

Let me know if and when you have something.

1. Morrell wrote the final draft of the talking points.

2. Morrell ignore the "not/not" escalation memo from the COS.

I linked a summary of his testimony above.

these are facts which you described as baseless. For these reasons Morrell has zero credibility.