New Disclosures on Benghazi - Part II

[The Big Dog]

There is nothing in your timeline that contradicts my conclusion. Rather, it supports it.

Initial confusion over whether the video was part of it. Ansar-al-Sharia's initial claim made Clinton believe the video was not part and she spoke in that fashion. She simultaneously mentioned the video without giving it as a cause for the Benghazi attacks, partly because those who wrote the comments weren't sure and wanted to cover all bases. When Ansar-al-Sharia retracted their claim, the belief that the video may have played a part came back into play and remained in play until the final CIA assessment. This is backed up by your own link of the Ansar-al-Sharia statement which says in the part you did not highlight "It was a spontaneous popular uprising in response to what happened by [sic] the West."

'k. That is laughably false at this point.

Ansar Al Sharia's statement flat *********** admits that they participated in the attack.

There was never any confusion at State that it was anasar al sharia, end of story.

Sept. 12, 3:04 p.m.: Clinton calls then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil and tells him, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.”

Spin that.

 

[sunmaster14]

Four family members

What is that supposed to mean? These are members of three separate families. Do you think they coordinated a story to contradict Hillary?

Tell me, when did Michael Ingmire (uncle) speak with Clinton ?

I don't know. You can say that his testimony is hearsay and therefore of dubious value, but it's certainly not negative value.

Kate Quigley (sister), 3 years later, said Clinton didn't mention a video. And her mother, who was presumably in the same meeting, doesn't recall Clinton saying anything at all about it.

Do you have a source? Because this link, along with audio and video links says something quite different.

Patricia Smith (mother) claimed a year later that Obama, Rice, Clinton, and anyone who ever spoke to her told her it was a video.

So do you think she's consciously lying? For what purpose?

Only Woods (Father) told anyone somewhat contemporaneously with the event that clinton said it was the video ( "We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted")

But this evidence is "as strong as it gets" ??

You don't think Woods' father's testimony is absolutely definitive? I do. He would have to have quite an imagination to make something like that up out of whole cloth, and contemporaneously. There is nothing like contemporaneous reporting to establish credibility.

 

[plague311]

Maybe I missed this, but the only purpose of the discussion about what caused the attack is purely to show Hillary is lying, right? Because it holds absolutely no other value at all that I can think of.

So do you think she's consciously lying? For what purpose?

Are you seriously asking this question? Hmmm, lets see if logical thinkers can come up with a possible reason why this woman would be lying? Is she part of an active lawsuit? Is she being used by a political party to try and smear their opponent?

Yeah, I mean, it's really hard to come up with any reason at all why she'd lie. Do you have any evidence from, say, the first 6 months after the attack from this woman making the same claims? Is all of it from over a year or two away, because the factual evidence was available no more than 2 months after the attack. These claims are from 2014, and 2015.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What is that supposed to mean? These are members of three separate families. Do you think they coordinated a story to contradict Hillary?

I mean there are 3 family members, not four.

I don't know. You can say that his testimony is hearsay and therefore of dubious value, but it's certainly not negative value.

Ingmire didn't give testimony, and Clinton didn't speak to him. Dubious value is too generous.

Do you have a source? Because this link, along with audio and video links says something quite different.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-speech-fact-check/

Some of the family members of the victims have indeed said that Clinton misled them on the cause of the attack, but did not mention the video.

Kate Quigley, sister of CIA operative Glen Doherty, told CNN's Anderson Cooper that in the wake of the attack Clinton had mentioned protests but not a video.

link:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/1...hazi-attack-victim-interview-interview-ac.cnn

This was 3 years after the fact, and 2 months before she gave the interview mediaite linked. So it appears she changed her story. Not very compelling evidence.

So do you think she's consciously lying? For what purpose?

Yes, I do. She's made the claim the Obama murdered her son. I don't believe that either.

As to why - because she's angry and irrational about her sons death. She's latched on to people to blame, and she's not letting go, facts be damned.

You don't think Woods' father's testimony is absolutely definitive? I do. He would have to have quite an imagination to make something like that up out of whole cloth, and contemporaneously. There is nothing like contemporaneous reporting to establish credibility.

Quite an imagination to mention the video that was already all over the news ?

"We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted"

Why does that take great imagination ? Out of all the people that Rice, Clinton, Obama, Biden spoke with ... why is he the only one to have contemporaneously said anything ?

Regardless , your claim that this evidence " is about as strong as it gets short of an actual video or audio record." is complete nonsense.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

Ingmire didn't give testimony, and Clinton didn't speak to him. Dubious value is too generous.

He was quoted in a news article. That's testimony, regardless of how he came by his information. Regardless, he is from the same family as Patricia Smith, so he does not represent independent corroboration. We're still talking about 3 separate families though, which is a remarkable level of independent corroboration.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-speech-fact-check/

Some of the family members of the victims have indeed said that Clinton misled them on the cause of the attack, but did not mention the video.

Kate Quigley, sister of CIA operative Glen Doherty, told CNN's Anderson Cooper that in the wake of the attack Clinton had mentioned protests but not a video.

link:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/1...hazi-attack-victim-interview-interview-ac.cnn

What a strange and misleading bit of reporting here. Did you watch the video? I suspect not, because I don't think you're so dishonest as to parrot such misleading reporting intentionally. Quigley did not say that Clinton didn't mention a video. What is true is that Quigley did not mention the video at all. She mentioned other things related to the video narrative - in fact, more damning things from Hillary's perspective - but the fact that she didn't mention that Hillary mentioned a video is not evidence that it didn't happen. On the contrary, it seems like Hillary was giving Quigley the full misleading spiel.

This was 3 years after the fact, and 2 months before she gave the interview mediaite linked. So it appears she changed her story. Not very compelling evidence.

Nope. The two interviews are perfectly consistent with each other.

Yes, I do. She's made the claim the Obama murdered her son. I don't believe that either.

As to why - because she's angry and irrational about her sons death. She's latched on to people to blame, and she's not letting go, facts be damned.

Ok, so the fact that she's a Gold Star parent means that she has less credibility than the average person, not more. Good to know.

Quite an imagination to mention the video that was already all over the news ?

"We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted"

Why does that take great imagination ? Out of all the people that Rice, Clinton, Obama, Biden spoke with ... why is he the only one to have contemporaneously said anything ?

It's a hell of a thing to make up. I would bet a lot of money that Hillary said it. Of course she wouldn't say anything like that publicly. Nor would anybody else in the administration, since it would be an unconstitutional promise.

Regardless , your claim that this evidence " is about as strong as it gets short of an actual video or audio record." is complete nonsense.

Not sure what more you can ask for besides three independent eyewitnesses, whose stories corroborate one another. I mean, sure, an audio recording would be nice, but juries convict people of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt all the time based on nothing more than one or two eyewitnesses.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

He was quoted in a news article. That's testimony, regardless of how he came by his information. Regardless, he is from the same family as Patricia Smith, so he does not represent independent corroboration. We're still talking about 3 separate families though, which is a remarkable level of independent corroboration.

I disagree that it's remarkable.

What a strange and misleading bit of reporting here. Did you watch the video? I suspect not, because I don't think you're so dishonest as to parrot such misleading reporting intentionally. Quigley did not say that Clinton didn't mention a video. What is true is that Quigley did not mention the video at all. She mentioned other things related to the video narrative - in fact, more damning things from Hillary's perspective - but the fact that she didn't mention that Hillary mentioned a video is not evidence that it didn't happen. On the contrary, it seems like Hillary was giving Quigley the full misleading spiel.

Nope. The two interviews are perfectly consistent with each other.

Sorry to dissapoint, I watched the video. Nice poisoning the well though.

The fact she didn't mention the video in her first interview with cooper is not consistent with mentioning it later - it's just not inconsistent.

If it was so important, she would have mentioned it.

Ok, so the fact that she's a Gold Star parent means that she has less credibility than the average person, not more. Good to know.

Appeal to emotion ? What does the fact that she's a Gold Star parent have to do with credibility ?

It's a hell of a thing to make up. I would bet a lot of money that Hillary said it. Of course she wouldn't say anything like that publicly. Nor would anybody else in the administration, since it would be an unconstitutional promise.

Of course you would, it fits your confirmation bias.

Not sure what more you can ask for besides three independent eyewitnesses, whose stories corroborate one another. I mean, sure, an audio recording would be nice, but juries convict people of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt all the time based on nothing more than one or two eyewitnesses.

You could ask for a mother and daughter to agree she said it ? You keep ignoring the fact that Quigleys Mother has explicitly claimed clinton didn't mention a video.

Same with all(I believe) the Stevens family.

It's simply not as convincing as you insist. *shrugs*

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

You could ask for a mother and daughter to agree she said it ? You keep ignoring the fact that Quigleys Mother has explicitly claimed clinton didn't mention a video.

Same with all(I believe) the Stevens family.

Hillary didn't talk to the families as a group. She talked to each member separately. It simply is not the case that she said the same thing to each and every person. It's natural that she would mention the video to a few and not to others. Quigley herself says that Hillary talked to her about how poor and uneducated the Libyans were, and that's how a protest could get so out of hand. Clearly that narrative is the same one that the administration had been pitching. People refer to it as the video explanation, but it is not necessary to mention the video explicitly to advance the narrative.

It's simply not as convincing as you insist. *shrugs*

It is to me. *shrugs* I don't even care so much, except for the clear double standard between how Hillary is treated with respect to her treatment of Gold Star families, and how Trump is.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It is to me. *shrugs* I don't even care so much, except for the clear double standard between how Hillary is treated with respect to her treatment of Gold Star families, and how Trump is.

I don't see that, but feel free to make an argument for it.

So far all I saw was thing about credibility, which I already commented on.

 

[Tony Stark]

Do Republicans actually think that anyone besides them really cares about Benghazi?

 

[tyr_13]

It is to me. *shrugs* I don't even care so much, except for the clear double standard between how Hillary is treated with respect to her treatment of Gold Star families, and how Trump is.

Hillary has belittled their sacrifice, implied they abuse their wives, speculate that their silence is religiously based, and proposed banning people like them from entering the country?

Oh, well, no. So, false equivalency is false as all false. It's not even the same order of magnitude. She hasn't mistreated these people. Trump has. If you think being critical of things that someone has actually done and not things someone else has not done is a 'double standard', sure, seems in line with all the other defenses of Trump's vile idiocy going around.

 

[The Big Dog]

Do Republicans actually think that anyone besides them really cares about Benghazi?

I'm guessing that Hillary's fans sure as **** don't, and thank you for pointing that out.

as a parade of Shillaries dance on the graves of the Benghazi dead to pay homage at the feet of their dreadful hero.

Stevens, Smith, Woods and Doherty. Hillary's fans really don't care about you.

 

[sunmaster14]

Hillary has belittled their sacrifice, implied they abuse their wives, speculate that their silence is religiously based, and proposed banning people like them from entering the country?

How has Trump belittled the Khans' sacrifice? How did you imply that Khizr Khan abused his wife? The implication that her silence was religiously based was certainly worth criticizing, but it is hardly equivalent to essentially treating the mother of fallen soldier - one for whose death Hillary bears some responsibility - as an unhinged lunatic. Also, what does Trump's proposed ban have to do with the Khans or their sacrifice? Nothing. It was all a non sequitur.

Oh, well, no. So, false equivalency is false as all false. It's not even the same order of magnitude. She hasn't mistreated these people. Trump has. If you think being critical of things that someone has actually done and not things someone else has not done is a 'double standard', sure, seems in line with all the other defenses of Trump's vile idiocy going around.

Do you even know Patricia Smith's story? She has been punished by the State Department for having had the chutzpah to criticize Hillary. She has been treated as a non-entity, using the excuse that Sean Smith's wife is the only family member with standing to receive any information. Has Donald Trump done anything like that to the Khans? Also, was the Khans' criticism of Trump, using their platform as Gold Star parents, in any way fair or logical? At least Hillary was intimately connected to the events that took Sean Smith's life, and most likely is directly responsible for Patricia Smith being cut out of the loop.

 

[sunmaster14]

Do Republicans actually think that anyone besides them really cares about Benghazi?

And yet you and your comrades feel some weird obligation to respond to every criticism posted in this thread. Weird that.

 

[The Big Dog]

And yet you and your comrades feel some weird obligation to respond to every criticism posted in this thread. Weird that.

I'm starting think that some of them are Poes.

 

[Tony Stark]

And yet you and your comrades feel some weird obligation to respond to every criticism posted in this thread. Weird that.

Just to mock your retarded conspiracy theories.

 

[Dog Town]

I'm starting think that some of them are Poes.

Sadly, it's an example of what this forum has evolved into. Arguing for no other reason than to argue.

 

[tyr_13]

How has Trump belittled the Khans' sacrifice?

By comparing his own 'sacrifices' to theirs. He has not sacrificed, yet compares his 'hard work' to their actual sacrifice as if it were even on the scale.

How did you imply that Khizr Khan abused his wife? The implication that her silence was religiously based was certainly worth criticizing,

These are the same. The religious issue is that women in Islam are not given agency to even express things, which is of course abusive.

but it is hardly equivalent to essentially treating the mother of fallen soldier - one for whose death Hillary bears some responsibility - as an unhinged lunatic.

She has done no such thing publicly. You have the speech she gave talking of it? The call in to TV shows? The tweets? No, you absolutely don't because she didn't do such a thing. If you're going to just cite the State Department and experts disagreeing with her specific assertions on Bengahazi, that is not attacking the person, nor treating them like a lunatic, so don't bother.

Also, what does Trump's proposed ban have to do with the Khans or their sacrifice? Nothing. It was all a non sequitur.

Trump himself doesn't think so! Of all the vacuous arguments you could have produced here in response, this one takes the cake. Khan's argument was that the idea of blocking immigration based on religion insults the memory of his son by questioning his loyalty to the US, as it questions the loyalty of all US Muslims. His son would not have been able to be born in the US with Trump's unAmerican suggestion. Of course it has to do with the Khan's; they're Muslims.

And Trump even said in a tweet that the reason Khan is opposed to the blocking of Muslims from coming is, is because it could block ISIS types. Are you saying your assessment of what Trump thinks of the issue is better than Trump's? He sees the connection.

Do you even know Patricia Smith's story? She has been punished by the State Department for having had the chutzpah to criticize Hillary. She has been treated as a non-entity, using the excuse that Sean Smith's wife is the only family member with standing to receive any information. Has Donald Trump done anything like that to the Khans? Also, was the Khans' criticism of Trump, using their platform as Gold Star parents, in any way fair or logical? At least Hillary was intimately connected to the events that took Sean Smith's life, and most likely is directly responsible for Patricia Smith being cut out of the loop.

Don't cry about the actual rules for next of kin rights and pretend it's personal persecution. That's between Smith's wife and his mother, not the State Department and not Hillary Clinton. You have no evidence Clinton is responsible for her being cut out, and have no clue how that issue works if you think it's not something that happens a lot with family disagreements after the death of a loved one. It happens all the time, which is why there are those rules in the first place. The spouse almost always gets primacy. It's in fact one of the key benefits of marriage. Are you even convinced yourself about that? Why should anyone take that seriously?

You are seriously reaching.

 

[sunmaster14]

By comparing his own 'sacrifices' to theirs. He has not sacrificed, yet compares his 'hard work' to their actual sacrifice as if it were even on the scale.

He was asked what sacrifices he's made. If I were asked that question, I would give an answer too, even though I haven't lost a son in a war. Giving an answer doesn't mean that he is belittling their sacrifice.

These are the same. The religious issue is that women in Islam are not given agency to even express things, which is of course abusive.

If they're the same, why are you trying to double dip? In any case, they're not the same. Many Muslim women happily choose to live according to strict Islamic rules concerning the different roles of the sexes.

She has done no such thing publicly. You have the speech she gave talking of it? The call in to TV shows? The tweets? No, you absolutely don't because she didn't do such a thing. If you're going to just cite the State Department and experts disagreeing with her specific assertions on Bengahazi, that is not attacking the person, nor treating them like a lunatic, so don't bother.

She has implied very strongly that either Patricia Smith (and Charles Woods, by the way) are either lying or delusional. That's worse, in my opinion, than anything Trump has done. Assuming of course that it is Hillary who is lying, which is what I strongly believe.

Trump himself doesn't think so! Of all the vacuous arguments you could have produced here in response, this one takes the cake. Khan's argument was that the idea of blocking immigration based on religion insults the memory of his son by questioning his loyalty to the US, as it questions the loyalty of all US Muslims. His son would not have been able to be born in the US with Trump's unAmerican suggestion. Of course it has to do with the Khan's; they're Muslims.

It's a stupid argument. Trump didn't know them from Adam before this. Putting in place policies they find offensive is not personally directed animus. Furthermore, Trump's policy proposal has nothing to do with animus whatsoever. It is based on national security considerations, as he perceives them.

I'll note also for the record that the number of Muslims who serve in the armed forces is an order of magnitude lower than what you would expect based on population figures alone. So even as a statistical argument, it is a failure. There are almost certainly a much higher number of white supremacists who have served nobly in the military. Should we refrain from giving offense to them too?

And Trump even said in a tweet that the reason Khan is opposed to the blocking of Muslims from coming is, is because it could block ISIS types. Are you saying your assessment of what Trump thinks of the issue is better than Trump's? He sees the connection.

I didn't see that tweet. Do you have a link?

Don't cry about the actual rules for next of kin rights and pretend it's personal persecution. That's between Smith's wife and his mother, not the State Department and not Hillary Clinton.

Do you evidence that that's the way the rules work? I doubt that the State Department is prohibited from giving information to a dead soldier's mother, even if he had a spouse. It wouldn't make a lot of sense. Information is not something that is in short supply and has to be rationed. The spouse isn't hurt by giving the mother information.

 

[plague311]

He was asked what sacrifices he's made. If I were asked that question, I would give an answer too, even though I haven't lost a son in a war. Giving an answer doesn't mean that he is belittling their sacrifice.

No one is after him because he gave an answer. They are after him because he couldn't have possibly given a more wrong answer. Everyone in the *********** world sees that. The VFW made a comment for christ's sake. Everyone sees it but you. Could it be partisan blinders?

If they're the same, why are you trying to double dip? In any case, they're not the same. Many Muslim women happily choose to live according to strict Islamic rules concerning the different roles of the sexes.

And you have absolutely no idea if she were "happily choosing to live according to strict Islamic rules", and considering she penned a decent article about it. I'd say your statement is a non sequitur at best. "Many Muslim women, therefore it was ok to say that about her" is about the most irrational thing I've ever heard. Congrats.

She has implied very strongly that either Patricia Smith (and Charles Woods, by the way) are either lying or delusional. That's worse, in my opinion, than anything Trump has done. Assuming of course that it is Hillary who is lying, which is what I strongly believe.

She did? She implied that very strongly did she? Care to point that part out? I mean, I'm assuming I'm on ignore, but this is just another case of making stuff up. She's said time and again that she understands the grief, and that people handle things in their own way. Of course what Hillary did is worse

It's a stupid argument.

I think that was his point...

*snip* words

I didn't see that tweet. Do you have a link?

Here's one. It may not be the one he was thinking about though.

Do you evidence that that's the way the rules work? I doubt that the State Department is prohibited from giving information to a dead soldier's mother, even if he had a spouse. It wouldn't make a lot of sense. Information is not something that is in short supply and has to be rationed. The spouse isn't hurt by giving the mother information.

LMGTFY. The relevant part:

When the military refers to a next of kin, the term PNOK is used to identify one person who will receive notification of the death of the service member and from whom the military will request instructions for the transportation, preparation and interment of the deceased.

The PNOK will also receive the member's personal effects in most cases. The designated PNOK is in order of precedence: that is, the first living survivor highest on the following list:

- Member's surviving spouse

Everything related to the death of a Vet will go to the Member's surviving spouse. There's nothing in there about multiple people, in fact it specifically says one person. I hilited it for you just to be thorough.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

I mean, I'm assuming I'm on ignore, but this is just another case of making stuff up.

Just for the record, I never put anybody on ignore because I think everybody is capable of contributing. I am perfectly content to skip over stuff mentally that appears to be not worth reading. As far as responding goes, I feel an obligation to respond to arguments which are made in good faith to me and demonstrate a minimum level of critical reasoning and logical coherence.