New Disclosures on Benghazi

[RandFan]

I'm still wondering if anyone has any actual evidence that the incorrect early information wasn't the result of the best possible information from the time.

Anyone? Beuhler? Evidence?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yeah. I posted the email that the state department sent to the Libyan ambassador stating that al quaeda affiliated Ansar al sharia attacked he consulate. In this thread. Look it up. Use the search function

Thumbs up

That sounds like CT to me.

 

[The Big Dog]

Let me see, you are attacking me, the arguer and not my argument, is that right?

And that changes the point how?

Wrong. You didn't understand what you posted contradicted your claim.

It happens. No biggie. Check your ego.

 

[A'isha]

I'm still wondering if anyone has any actual evidence that the incorrect early information wasn't the result of the best possible information from the time.

I'm still wondering why no one is addressing the fact that the information about the demonstrations and the anti-Islamic video did not replace anything but was in the CIA talking points from the beginning, before the State Department even saw it.

 

[RandFan]

And I can't force you to go back and read previous posts.

If you point me to a post that contains a claim and evidence I will gladly apologize to you. But I'm not going to go looking for something that I don't even know exists.

BTW: When I make a claim and offer evidence I have no problem repeating the claim and evidence or giving people a link to the post. I've done that in this thread on at least one occasion and I'm sure more than that.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yeah. I posted the email that the state department sent to the Libyan ambassador stating that al quaeda affiliated Ansar al sharia attacked he consulate. In this thread. Look it up. Use the search function

Thumbs up

Anyone? Beuhler? Evidence?

Did you miss both my posts?

 

[A'isha]

Wrong. You didn't understand what you posted contradicted your claim.

Except it didn't contradict what he said at all.

 

[RandFan]

Wrong. You didn't understand what you posted contradicted your claim.

Again, attacking the arguer and not the argument.

It happens. No biggie. Check your ego.

Go look in the mirror. I'm not the one being snarky.

 

[RandFan]

Did you miss both my posts?

Evidence for what? Conspiracy? Hillary lying? Obama culpability? What?

 

[RandFan]

That sounds like CT to me.

What does the email have to do with anything? What is your claim that the email demonstrates?

 

[The Big Dog]

Again, attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Go look in the mirror. I'm not the one being snarky.

Oh man! Sorry! You did understand that what you posted contradicted your claim!

My bad!

 

[A'isha]

Did you miss both my posts?

Your posts didn't address either of the things they were purportedly in response to. Especially not elbe's.

 

[RandFan]

I'm still wondering why no one is addressing the fact that the information about the demonstrations and the anti-Islamic video did not replace anything but was in the CIA talking points from the beginning, before the State Department even saw it.

I'm still wondering why you are being ignored.

The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by a protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated. On 10 September the Agency notified Embassy Cairo of social media reports calling for a demonstration and encouraging jihadists to break into the Embassy.

The investigation is ongoing as to who is responsible for the violence, although the crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals. That being said, there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

This is the CIA's draft of the talking points memo, before anyone from the State Department or the White House saw it or commented on it, and before any of the changes that non-CIA officials suggested were made to the memo.

Why do you think it was written this way? For what purpose, do you think, did the CIA right from the start and before any State Department officials saw it make references to "demonstrations" that "evolved into a direct assault" in Benghazi, as well saying that they "spontaneously" arose out of the anti-Innocence of Muslims demonstrations that took place in Cairo?

Anyone?

 

[A'isha]

Oh man! Sorry! You did understand that what you posted contradicted your claim!

There was no contradiction. Why did the bill that Obama signed authorize less money than the State Department wanted for embassy security, 16.5?

You can answer that, can't you?

 

[RandFan]

Oh man! Sorry! You did understand that what you posted contradicted your claim!

Still attacking the arguer and not the argument. And a straw man to boot.

 

[The Big Dog]

Evidence for what? Conspiracy? Hillary lying? Obama culpability? What?

Oh man, I was responding to your snarky "anyone, Brueller, post". You can hit the links in the quote and figure out what I was responding to

Good luck

 

[RandFan]

You did understand that what you posted contradicted your claim!

There was no contradiction. Why did the bill that Obama signed authorize less money than the State Department wanted for embassy security, 16.5?

You can answer that, can't you?

He'd rather attack me than address the question.

 

[The Big Dog]

Still attacking the arguer and not the argument. And a straw man to boot.

Sorry bro.

What you posted contradicted your claim. Thanks.

 

[A'isha]

He'd rather attack me than address the question.

Because he knows what the answer to the question is, and is trying to avoid it at all costs.

 

[The Big Dog]

He'd rather attack me than address the question.

I put him on ignore for his ridiculous comment I quoted in my sig.

Thanks bro.