• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunmaster14 said:
What claims? State some claims, and I'll tell you whether or not I agree with them.
Click to expand...

I listed them. You quoted them.

  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
 
RandFan said:
Ad hominem. Why is the article wrong. Pro Tip: Ad hominem cannot be why the article is wrong.
Click to expand...

protip: attack on credibility, bias of a purported expert (like the 2nd in charge of the CIA headline you pilfered from addictinginfo) is always relevant.

He left out substantial undisputed testimony that destroys his central thesis.

Deal with the "not/NOT an escalation" or give it a rest.
 
16.5 said:
protip: attack on credibility, bias of a purported expert (like the 2nd in charge of the CIA headline you pilfered from addictinginfo) is always relevant.

He left out substantial undisputed testimony that destroys his central thesis.

Deal with the "not/NOT an escalation" or give it a rest.
Click to expand...
Can you state a materially false claim in the article? Yes or no?
 
RandFan said:
I listed them. You quoted them.

[*]Was there a chance to act that the White House didn’t take? False.
Click to expand...

Agreed, although that does not absolve the White House or the military of being slow to react. Special forces from Europe should have been sent. It was unknown if the attacks in Benghazi were going to stop when they did. The "stand-down order" kerfuffle can be traced to a short delay imposed on security people at the CIA compound who wanted to rush right out to the consulate to help out. That delay was on the order of 5-10 minutes, and it would have been longer, except the security people eventually decided to go anyway. That delay was ordered by the local commander and was not unreasonable at the time. It was also not officially a stand-down order. But it did lead to frustration, and the complaints were misinterpreted in the media.

[*]Was the United States "the last flag flying" in Benghazi when the attacks happened? False.
Click to expand...

Not particularly important, but the US was the last of the targets threatened in a credible Facebook post to leave. The point behind the claim, however, is reasonable: there was ample evidence that US personnel were in danger in Benghazi.

[*]Was the ambassador’s body abused?Pants on Fire.
Click to expand...

Agreed, although I'm not sure why we're debunking chain emails in this thread.

[*]Did budget cuts from Congress play a role in the lack of security? Mostly False
Click to expand...

Agreed. This was a Democratic talking point, which is a total distraction. All agencies are underfunded if you take what they ask for as a baseline. Blaming underfunding for negligence is a ridiculous tactic and creates all the wrong incentives.

[*]Did Hillary Clinton know that more security was needed? Mostly False
Click to expand...

Whether she did or not is unknown. She claims she didn't, but she's not particularly credible. It doesn't matter though. She was the big cheese at the State Department. Ultimately, she has to take responsibility for strategic errors like this. If her underlings failed to tell her that there was inadequate security and that nobody was going to do anything about it, then that is a management failure on her part.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Can you state a materially false claim in the article? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

for at least the fifth time: YES.

For pete's sake Randfan, I have explained time after time that Morrell deliberately left out information.

You are now deliberately JAQ'ing off.

Morrell lied to you, addictinginfo (which is *********** garbage) lied to you.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Whether she did or not is unknown. She claims she didn't, but she's not particularly credible. It doesn't matter though. She was the big cheese at the State Department. Ultimately, she has to take responsibility for strategic errors like this. If her underlings failed to tell her that there was inadequate security and that nobody was going to do anything about it, then that is a management failure on her part.
Click to expand...

She knew. Africa Command offered the Benghazi mission additional DoD security on two occasions and the Ambassador was instructed by Sullivan and Kennedy to turn the offer down due to Hillary/Obama's small footprint policies.

She knew.
 
16.5 said:
for at least the fifth time: YES.

For pete's sake Randfan, I have explained time after time that Morrell deliberately left out information.

You are now deliberately JAQ'ing off.

Morrell lied to you, addictinginfo (which is *********** garbage) lied to you.
Click to expand...
I've already explained why this is ad hominem.

Are there claims in the article that are materially false? Yes or no?

I reject your premise that any wrong allegedly performed by Morell nullifies any facts. That is textbook ad hominem.
 
sunmaster14 said:
If her underlings failed to tell her that there was inadequate security and that nobody was going to do anything about it, then that is a management failure on her part.
Click to expand...
AIU: The CIA was in charge of security. I can't find where the CIA falls under the auspicies of DoD or the Secretary of State.
 
16.5 said:
for at least the fifth time: YES.

For pete's sake Randfan, I have explained time after time that Morrell deliberately left out information.
You are now deliberately JAQ'ing off.

Morrell lied to you, addictinginfo (which is *********** garbage) lied to you.
Click to expand...

RandFan said:
I've already explained why this is ad hominem.

Are there claims in the article that are materially false? Yes or no?

I reject your premise that any wrong allegedly performed by Morell nullifies any facts. That is textbook ad hominem.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Ploink.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Is that an explanation ?
Click to expand...

Nah, just tired of him hand waving, moving goalposts and evading questions.

You can only explain so many times that Morrell deliberately omitted facts, and then you have to realize that the person on the other side has no interest in discussing that reasonably.
 
16.5 said:
False. Ridiculously false.
Click to expand...


According to documents released by the House Oversight Committee, when the Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy signed an order last December to maintain a presence in the Benghazi compound for another year, his official memo counted 35 "U.S. government personnel," of whom only eight were State Department. Many of the rest were secretly with the CIA, the official confirmed.


The U.S. official noted that at no point in the October congressional hearing did any of the State Department officials testifying use the word "consulate" to describe the Benghazi compound. This was no accident. In fact, the compound served little routine diplomatic purpose, and was largely under the operational control of the CIA.
 
Looks like more emails are peculating up from Hillary's group of top aides.

It looks like The State Department has turned over 1,200 pages of new emails from one of Hillary Clinton’s top aides to the House panel investigating the deadly Benghazi attacks.

The documents represent "partial compliance on the subpoena for one of the seventh-floor principal's emails," a spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi told The Hill.

why were these not made available to Congress before? Keep that in mind the next time some partisan apologists tries to claim that a thorough investigation is not necessary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom