New Disclosures on Benghazi

[RandFan]

you are correct, the President order them to stand down thinking it would be great PR if Americans died.

Exactly. It's the same nonsense as 9/11. A malevolent presidential administration was indifferent to Americans in harms way and they did everything they could to have them die... or something. I don't know but its got CT written all over it.

 

[The Big Dog]

What's he going to say that he didn't say back in early April? And why didn't he say it then?

False Dichotomy. Assumes facts

I'm fairly certain that you don't understand the process here.

Of course, you call a Congressional Hearing a Traveling Benghazi Circus.

So... yeah....

Why can't you answer my questions?

I repeated my questions in the post you replied to. You not only still won't answer them, you pasted in a completely different question.

lol wut?

So your suggestion is that we NOT have the testimony, and you are interested in that for NON-PARTISAN reasons? lolz.

I already answered your question about the team that was ready willing and able to go to Benghazi, where Hicks said that they were down to the bare bones in security. You called his statement nonsense (in a non-partisan way, of course)

 

[elbe]

lol wut?

I noticed you subtly cut ANTPogo's question out of the quote.

 

[The Big Dog]

I noticed you subtly cut ANTPogo's question out of the quote.

I didn't. He asked:

"What's he going to say that he didn't say back in early April? And why didn't he say it then?"

I replied:

"False Dichotomy. Assumes facts

I'm fairly certain that you don't understand the process here.

Of course, you call a Congressional Hearing a Traveling Benghazi Circus.

So... yeah...."

He asked:

"Why can't you answer my questions?"

Then he asked more questions that he had already asked and I already answered..

I replied to the bolded question. Was that wrong of me?

 

[The Big Dog]

Exactly. It's the same nonsense as 9/11. A malevolent presidential administration was indifferent to Americans in harms way and they did everything they could to have them die... or something. I don't know but its got CT written all over it.

Just so we are clear here, using your analogy, we never should have had the 911 Commission hearings?

Interesting.

 

[A'isha]

lol wut?

So your suggestion is that we NOT have the testimony, and you are interested in that for NON-PARTISAN reasons? lolz.

No, my suggestion is that there are no "new disclosures on Benghazi" whatsoever, and this whole farce is merely partisan hackery on Issa and the Republicans' part.

I already answered your question about the team that was ready willing and able to go to Benghazi,

...and was armed only with 9mm pistols, and which wasn't set to leave Tripoli until 6:30 AM, and which there were concerns by the military that they might be needed to protect Embassy Tripoli (because Embassy Tripoli had sent six people that were protecting it to go help in Benghazi).

where Hicks said that they were down to the bare bones in security.

Again, you don't know that. Hicks' quote as released does not specify whether he was referring to Benghazi or Tripoli.

And in any case, Benghazi had already been reinforced by that time.

You called his statement nonsense (in a non-partisan way, of course)

I called his statement about the fighters "nonsense". You, strangely, seem to be conflating that with what I've said about the C-130 flight and the Special Forces men.

 

[jj]

That was some pretty well done ad hominems!

Pointing out a fact is not an ad hominem. Which of those facts do you assert is false, please?

 

[elbe]

I didn't. He asked:

"What's he going to say that he didn't say back in early April? And why didn't he say it then?"

I replied:

"False Dichotomy. Assumes facts

I'm fairly certain that you don't understand the process here.

Of course, you call a Congressional Hearing a Traveling Benghazi Circus.

So... yeah...."

He asked:

"Why can't you answer my questions?"

Then he asked more questions that he had already asked and I already answered..

I replied to the bolded question. Was that wrong of me?

Hmm, somehow I managed to assume ANT was talking about this question:

Then what, exactly, is the issue with SOCAFRICA denying authorization for the four Special Forces soldiers in Tripoli to go on the 6:30 AM flight? Be specific.

It was asked in post 31, and then asked again in post 37 which you quoted from but cut out.

 

[The Big Dog]

Pointing out a fact is not an ad hominem. Which of those facts do you assert is false, please?

Look up ad hominem fallacy. Thanks.

 

[A'isha]

Then he asked more questions that he had already asked and I already answered.

No, you dodged them. Which is why I repeated them.

 

[A'isha]

Hmm, somehow I managed to assume ANT was talking about this question:

And the one about what Hicks said about the fighters, which was also cut out and never answered.

 

[RandFan]

Just so we are clear here, using your analogy, we never should have had the 911 Commission hearings?

Non-sequitur. Are you saying the fact that we had 911 hearings means that there is no such thing as 911 conspiracy theory? There are no truthers?

 

[The Big Dog]

No, my suggestion is that there are no "new disclosures on Benghazi" whatsoever, and this whole farce is merely partisan hackery on Issa and the Republicans' part.



...and was armed only with 9mm pistols, and which wasn't set to leave Tripoli until 6:30 AM, and which there were concerns by the military that they might be needed to protect Embassy Tripoli (because Embassy Tripoli had sent six people that were protecting it to go help in Benghazi).



Again, you don't know that. Hicks' quote as released does not specify whether he was referring to Benghazi or Tripoli.

And in any case, Benghazi had already been reinforced by that time.



I called his statement about the fighters "nonsense". You, strangely, seem to be conflating that with what I've said about the C-130 flight and the Special Forces men.

...and was armed only with 9mm pistols, and which wasn't set to leave Tripoli until 6:30 AM, and which there were concerns by the military that they might be needed to protect Embassy Tripoli (because Embassy Tripoli had sent six people that were protecting it to go help in Benghazi).

"According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound "when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, 'you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.'

Sounds like Gibson was locked and ready to go. Wasn't that his call?


"Again, you don't know that. Hicks' quote as released does not specify whether he was referring to Benghazi or Tripoli.:

So a plane LEAVING Tripoli going to Benghazi and you don't know what Hicks was referring to? That is laughable.

The Special Forces were going on the C-130.

SHUT DOWN THE HEARINGS!

 

[The Big Dog]

Non-sequitur. Are you saying the fact that we had 911 hearings means that there is no such thing as 911 conspiracy theory? There are no truthers?

NO, Randfan. I am saying the Congressional Hearings Tomorrow are comparable to the 911 Commission Hearings.

That should be pretty obvious.

 

[A'isha]

If you want me to respond to you, you can use the quote function correctly.

 

[The Big Dog]

If you want me to respond to you, you can use the quote function correctly.

Thanks, I'm cool sport. I fixed the formatting. Let me know if you have further trouble.

 

[maxpower1227]

I'm still waiting for answers to the claim that the Administration is covering up Libya selling weapons to Turkey.

 

[A'isha]

Call off the hearing although these guys have never testified under oath.

Are they scheduled to testify at the hearings? And why aren't any lawyers other than the partisan hacks who demanded that Scooter Libby get pardoned and that lied to Congress about Valerie Plame involved?

Sounds like Gibson was locked and ready to go. Wasn't that his call?

If it was his call, he wouldn't have needed authorization, now would he? And considering that his group was just an advisory survey team armed with pistols, and Embassy Tripoli had just sent all of its own protection to Benghazi to assist there, what, exactly, is the issue with SOCAFRICA denying authorization for them to go on the 6:30 AM flight?

So a plane LEAVING Tripoli going to Benghazi and you don't know what Hicks was referring to?

That's your inference. Hicks' quote is elided in the transcript, so we don't know. I'm curious as to why it was edited, and what the rest of his reply was.

Aren't you?

 

[RandFan]

NO, Randfan. I am saying the Congressional Hearings Tomorrow are comparable to the 911 Commission Hearings.

What the hell are you talking about? Let's go back:

Exactly. It's the same nonsense as 9/11. A malevolent presidential administration was indifferent to Americans in harms way and they did everything they could to have them die... or something. I don't know but its got CT written all over it.

Just so we are clear here, using your analogy, we never should have had the 911 Commission hearings?

Interesting.

In my "analogy" there is nothing about hearings. I've not a clue what you are on about.

• There can be hearings and conspiracy.
• There can be hearings and no conspiracy.

One has nothing to do with the other. So, one more time, what in the sam hell are you talking about? Your questions and implications are very, very conspiratorial. IMO you are no different from a 9/11 truther. Hearings or no hearings changes absolutely nothing as to your implications. The singular fact that there are hearings doesn't make your theory true. The singular fact that there are hearings doesn't lend any credence to what looks to me amounts to nothing more than conspiracy theory.

From what I've seen to date Issa's "hearings" appear self serving.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

Some additional details that are relevant.

U.S. military officials confirmed late Monday that a four-man Special Operations Forces team was denied permission to leave the US Embassy in Tripoli following reports that the consulate in Benghazi had been attacked.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the team was reviewing security at U.S. embassies throughout the Middle East and was not prepared for a combat assault mission, being armed with only 9mm sidearms.

They also noted that the situation at Benghazi remained unclear and there were concerns the Embassy in Tripoli also could become a target.

My apologies if there were posted upthread. if they were, I missed it.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art...eam_Not_to_Fly_to_Benghazi_(For_Good_Reasons)