New Disclosures on Benghazi

[barehl]

in the excitement of the freedom to gish gallop

At times I think it might be characterized more accurately as a stampede.

 

[The Big Dog]

But actually isn't this a contradiction? Whenever a consulate requires more than an honor guard isn't it normally closed except in unusual circumstances? How was this a policy limited to Obama/Clinton?

An honor guard? What the ****? No legal requirement that she not save documents?

Why are you posting this nonsense?

Man, this thread had cratered since it went off moderation.

Honor guard, for ***** sake.....

 

[barehl]

An honor guard?

I thought everyone knew what an honor guard was. Honor guards serve a ceremonial rather than combat force role. When actual combat force is required, you typically have overlapping fields of fire from two heavy machines and protective barricades formed with sandbags. Do you need these terms explained as well?

No legal requirement that she not save documents?

In other words, no law in place stating that such documents needed to be saved. When such requirements are in place, you normally have secondary copies of files saved on either backup media or as printed copies. Can you reference the law that required saving email and the required procedures?

 

[The Big Dog]

I thought everyone knew what an honor guard was. Honor guards serve a ceremonial rather than combat force role. When actual combat force is required, you typically have overlapping fields of fire from two heavy machines and protective barricades formed with sandbags. Do you need these terms explained as well?

In other words, no law in place stating that such documents needed to be saved. When such requirements are in place, you normally have secondary copies of files saved on either backup media or as printed copies. Can you reference the law that required saving email and the required procedures?

Yeah, whatever, you literally have no idea what you are talking about.

You claim that an honor guard was all that was required in benghazi.

Ok, thanks for posting. For cripes sake....

 

[barehl]

Yeah, whatever, you literally have no idea what you are talking about.

I see you couldn't find the relevant regulation. That's okay. Most people in this forum are willing to help out those who trail a bit behind the pack.

The section is called 44 U.S. Code Chapter 31 - RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY FEDERAL AGENCIES

I think the part that confuses you is the first section which states:

The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

Someone of normal reading skills might note that the word "all" isn't used. Still, if someone were given to hyperbole or rampant speculation, they might reference 44 U.S. Code § 3102 - Establishment of program of management, section 2:

cooperation with the Administrator of General Services and the Archivist in applying standards, procedures, and techniques designed to improve the management of records, promote the maintenance and security of records deemed appropriate for preservation, and facilitate the segregation and disposal of records of temporary value

You claim that an honor guard was all that was required in benghazi.

Why would I claim that? I have never read a security briefing for the consulate at Benghazi. Can you link to the one that you've read?

 

[The Big Dog]

I see you couldn't find the relevant regulation. That's okay. Most people in this forum are willing to help out those who trail a bit behind the pack.

The section is called 44 U.S. Code Chapter 31 - RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY FEDERAL AGENCIES

I think the part that confuses you is the first section which states:

The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

Someone of normal reading skills might note that the word "all" isn't used. Still, if someone were given to hyperbole or rampant speculation, they might reference 44 U.S. Code § 3102 - Establishment of program of management, section 2:

cooperation with the Administrator of General Services and the Archivist in applying standards, procedures, and techniques designed to improve the management of records, promote the maintenance and security of records deemed appropriate for preservation, and facilitate the segregation and disposal of records of temporary value

Why would I claim that? I have never read a security briefing for the consulate at Benghazi. Can you link to the one that you've read?

 

[davefoc]

of records deemed appropriate for preservation, and facilitate the segregation and disposal of records of temporary value

So who dd the deeming and did they tell Clinton what they had deemed?

And of course regardless of what was deemed Clinton claims to have turned over all her emails related to her official duties as Secretary of State so what criminal act do you believe she has committed based on what you just quoted?

Or are you deeming that anything bad Clinton might have done she actually did so that you know that Clinton erased some of her emails that should have been part of the record?

 

[barehl]

So who dd the deeming and did they tell Clinton what they had deemed?

It's listed in section 5:

The head of each Federal agency shall establish safeguards against the removal or loss of records he determines to be necessary and required by regulations of the Archivist.

 

[12AX7]

Link after link after link, politifact, snopes, factcheck, no skepticism and no honest admission that all of these points have been debunked.

Has there been a single acknowledgement of the debunked claims by those who propagate this long dead narrative?

Just like 9/11

Fear not; we'll just keep investigating until we get the conclusion we want.

I check in here from time to time to see id the bombshell smoking gun has been delivered. Unless I missed it, this thread is still partisan whining because Clinton.

But avid readers already know that.

ETA: Still waiting for the info Foolmewunz asked for upthread:

I've read through all the new pages. I suppose in the excitement of the freedom to gish gallop, we've overlooked the promised analysis of the emails, 16.5. (The OP, as avid readers will know, wasn't able to answer a question on May 20th, 2015 because he was too busy reading emails. And then, when questioned about the result, responded to your humble reporter that one should seek out his analysis in the Benghazi thread.)

It seems there's no such analysis, or did I miss it? I'm sure that avid readers will want to know what was discerned from all that reading.

 

[12AX7]

Man, this thread had cratered since it went off moderation.

Nonsense.

It started cratering last November when: Republican-led report debunks Benghazi theories and accusations

BUT...

As an avid reader, I hold out hope that you'll deliver the slam-dunk as soon as you get through all these Clinton emails.

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm confused about what you are trying to say. If a 10 minute delay was too much then what could special forces have done? I assume you are talking about transportation on a C-130. But that would have been to the airport, right?

I didn't say that a 10 minute delay was too much. I was explaining the provenance of the so-called stand down order. The issue with the movement of special forces from Croatia is completely different. In fact, those special forces did not even begin to move for at least two hours, and possibly as many as three hours, after the start of the attack. They were repositioned to a base in Italy, and there they stayed. In the event, they would have been too late to prevent the 2nd wave of attacks, which were directed against the Annex (although IMO, it was never explained adequately why a special forces team couldn't get from Croatia to Benghazi in less than seven hours), but the fact that they never moved to Benghazi strikes me as a tactical error. There was no reason to believe that a 3rd wave of attacks wouldn't come. We were lucky that it didn't.

Well, I doubt the Secretary of State has ever been expected to be a security expert.

• In 2006, a car bomb was set off outside the US embassy in Damascus.
• In 2006, a suicide bombing at the US consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killed a US diplomat.
• The US embassy in Athens, Greece, was attacked in 2007.
• The US embassy in Serbia was burned down early in 2008.
• The US embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, were attacked in September 2008

Now these all happened under Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who was in fact the National Security Adviser for four years before this. So, if she couldn't prevent attacks then why would anyone else be able to? Also, isn't normal protection provided by the Diplomatic Security Service? This is the only security force attached to the State Department, right? And the people in this bureau are roughly the same as FBI or Federal Marshals. Standard issue is the HK53 with a 30 round clip and 5.56mm ammunition, right? The HK53 is the short barrel, commando version of the HK33.

As far as I know, nobody as credibly claimed that embassy attacks during the Bush administration were particularly damaging because of negligent security. It's obviously impossible to prevent terrorists from taking potshots at embassy guards or throwing Molotov cocktails at the gates. Or, in one case, the planting of a car bomb in an adjacent parking lot which was not part of embassy property. Failing to acknowledge the unique security failure in Benghazi, where a facility was completely overrun and a US ambassador was killed, is a good indication of partisan bias.

 

[sunmaster14]

I see you couldn't find the relevant regulation. That's okay. Most people in this forum are willing to help out those who trail a bit behind the pack.

The section is called 44 U.S. Code Chapter 31 - RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY FEDERAL AGENCIES

I think the part that confuses you is the first section which states:

The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

Someone of normal reading skills might note that the word "all" isn't used. Still, if someone were given to hyperbole or rampant speculation, they might reference 44 U.S. Code § 3102 - Establishment of program of management, section 2:

cooperation with the Administrator of General Services and the Archivist in applying standards, procedures, and techniques designed to improve the management of records, promote the maintenance and security of records deemed appropriate for preservation, and facilitate the segregation and disposal of records of temporary value

This has been discussed at length in the clintonemails.com thread. Here is a post to get you started.

The relevant regulation is 36 CFR 1236.22(b). And for the record, your cite is to a statute, not a regulation. The fact that you confused the two does not speak well for your understanding of US law.

ETA: As a service to this forum, I have provided a link to an extremely helpful website. It explains the different components that form the US body of law.

 

[Foolmewunz]

This has been discussed at length in the clintonemails.com thread. Here is a post to get you started.

The relevant regulation is 36 CFR 1236.22(b). And for the record, your cite is to a statute, not a regulation. The fact that you confused the two does not speak well for your understanding of US law.

ETA: As a service to this forum, I have provided a link to an extremely helpful website. It explains the different components that form the US body of law.

That's an excellent link. Is that where you recently learned the difference between a regulation and a statute? Because, I mean, the post you link to (which established no yea or nay, by the way) you seem to refer to it as a regulation. No mention of statute at all.

Or were you just trying to wrack up condescension points?

 

[barehl]

I didn't say that a 10 minute delay was too much. I was explaining the provenance of the so-called stand down order.

In other words, it was irrelevant.

The issue with the movement of special forces from Croatia is completely different.

So, this one was actually relevant?

In fact, those special forces did not even begin to move for at least two hours, and possibly as many as three hours, after the start of the attack.

I'm curious. Have you ever had to load a C-130 for hot insertion? These aircraft have no protection. A single RPG can destroy one. The normal procedure would be to first secure the area using Apache or Cobra attack helicopters. However, there were none within range. The second possibility would be sending either A-10 or Harrier aircraft. I don't think any of these were available either. Your last resort would be doing recon with fighters. Was a fighter recon mission ordered?

It sounds like your argument is that they should have been sent in blind with no knowledge of threat levels and then they would have had to make their own way from the airport to the consulate. Well, no, because you've already admitted that the ambassador was dead and the fighting over at the consulate long before they could have arrived. And, you've stated that the fighting at the annex was also over. So, the negligence was that they weren't sent in blind in case of a second attack at the annex. Do you realize how tenuous this argument sounds?

It's obviously impossible to prevent terrorists from taking potshots at embassy guards or throwing Molotov cocktails at the gates.

So preventing a Molotov cocktail is impossible but stopping an RPG is trivial? Did you really just say this?

 

[barehl]

The relevant regulation is 36 CFR 1236.22(b). And for the record, your cite is to a statute, not a regulation. The fact that you confused the two does not speak well for your understanding of US law.

The part I cited is the actual bill passed by congress and signed into law by the president. This can only be changed by repeal or passing another law. The part you are referencing is departmental regulation which is subject to change without notice.

What I find somewhat odd is that you are attempting to use a regulation stating that official emails should be preserved, and yet, I've already given the law which says that determination of important or temporary documents is by the head of the agency, namely, Hillary Clinton. Do you understand the conflict within your own argument?

 

[The Big Dog]

In other words, it was irrelevant.

So, this one was actually relevant?

I'm curious. Have you ever had to load a C-130 for hot insertion? These aircraft have no protection. A single RPG can destroy one. The normal procedure would be to first secure the area using Apache or Cobra attack helicopters. However, there were none within range. The second possibility would be sending either A-10 or Harrier aircraft. I don't think any of these were available either. Your last resort would be doing recon with fighters. Was a fighter recon mission ordered?

It sounds like your argument is that they should have been sent in blind with no knowledge of threat levels and then they would have had to make their own way from the airport to the consulate. Well, no, because you've already admitted that the ambassador was dead and the fighting over at the consulate long before they could have arrived. And, you've stated that the fighting at the annex was also over. So, the negligence was that they weren't sent in blind in case of a second attack at the annex. Do you realize how tenuous this argument sounds?


So preventing a Molotov cocktail is impossible but stopping an RPG is trivial? Did you really just say this?

I think it is worthwhile posting this in its entirety, because it is one of the finest examples of strawman arguments one is likely to ever see. First of all, it includes several arguments of the argument of so.

But the classic is the incredulous argument at the end mentioning an RPGs, wow. Next level straw manning!

 

[sunmaster14]

That's an excellent link. Is that where you recently learned the difference between a regulation and a statute? Because, I mean, the post you link to (which established no yea or nay, by the way) you seem to refer to it as a regulation. No mention of statute at all.

I'm not quite sure what your problem is. Everything I wrote is correct. The enabling statutes tend to be very broad, obviously, and the details are worked out in the regulations. As for when I learned about US law? I started learning about it in 1998 or so through my work on tax advantaged financial transactions.

Or were you just trying to wrack up condescension points?

I thought I was being helpful.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm not quite sure what your problem is. Everything I wrote is correct. The enabling statutes tend to be very broad, obviously, and the details are worked out in the regulations. As for when I learned about US law? I started learning about it in 1998 or so through my work on tax advantaged financial transactions.

I thought I was being helpful.

you are of course completely correct.

"Or were you just trying to wrack up condescension points?"

Did he really write that? he just hit the maximum number points possible on the irony point meter!

 

[barehl]

I think it is worthwhile posting this in its entirety, because it is one of the finest examples of strawman arguments one is likely to ever see.

Well, thank you. I'm not sure that my illustration of the errors in sunmaster14's claims rise to the level of the finest but it was good of you to notice.

But the classic is the incredulous argument at the end mentioning an RPGs, wow.

I know, the double standard between Rice and Clinton is quite incredulous.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, thank you. I'm not sure that my illustration of the errors in sunmaster14's claims rise to the level of the finest but it was good of you to notice.

I know, the double standard between Rice and Clinton is quite incredulous.

Lol, ok