New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

...you know, if I hadn't been reading along I would take your sig to mean you're totally agreeing with ANT's statement.

I know.

Isn't it delicious?

 

[The Big Dog]

I probably did at some point, but there are 500+ posts in this thread and you gave me remarkably little to go off of in a search. Amazingly the specific nouns you mentioned have been used a bit frequently over the course of this thread so searching isn't entirely efficient. Are you capable of finding your original post (you'd better remember when you posted it than I would)? And, it being your evidence, it is not my job to find it.

You can search just my posts.

 

[RandFan]

Cool. Senate is democrat controlled.

Does that mean that the Senate also controls the House? Does that mean the GOP can't filibuster?

You look up that school house rock thing yet?

Obviously you think a democrat controlled senate is all powerful and can stop filibusters and control the House so perhaps you should rely on something more than cartoons for your education.

 

[elbe]

You can search just my posts.

You've also used those nouns quite frequently. But I guess if you don't remember when you posted it either I'll just have to reread everything to look for your evidence...

Live searching!

Early on you mention that the CIA identified Ansar al Sharia in a cable that you'd previously posted, but I can't find that post and neither could ANT and I don't see you respond her request for that cable. You had previously mentioned some information from twitter and the "official timeline", but that doesn't say anything about this email (or even a cable).

Later you went on a copypasta spree about the reference in the memo, just complaining that the reference was removed but I saw no citation on why it was removed so you appeared to assume malice when it could have just been the evolution of information.

So I'm guessing it's this, which was not easy to find (if you'd said "Elizabeth Jones" it would have made things much easier). I'll be honest, that's not the best of evidence; an email recounting a conversation? Do you have the full text of this email? Does she explicitly say why she said what she did? Was she operating off of the CIAs information or other? And, assuming she was, who's to say that the "official" information didn't change after that based on new data?

And the next time "ansar" comes up is when you're responding to me. I almost wonder if you intentionally wanted it as hard as possible to find your quote because you knew it wasn't really that useful... But I guess I too should remember Hanlan's razor.

So I guess my question still stands, is there any actual evidence that the incorrect early information wasn't the result of the best possible information from the time?

 

[RandFan]

You can search just my posts.

Which is another way of saying it isn't there.

 

[The Big Dog]

Does that mean that the Senate also controls the House? Does that mean the GOP can't filibuster?

Obviously you think a democrat controlled senate is all powerful and can stop filibusters and control the House so perhaps you should rely on something more than cartoons for your education.

Oh we'll then, Obama vetoed it right?

Just joshing, we've established that the 300 million claim is bull ****. Move along.

 

[RandFan]

Oh we'll then, Obama vetoed it right?

Why would he veto it if it was likely the best bill he could get? Have you not heard that politics is the art of compromise.

Just joshing, we've established that the 300 million claim is bull ****. Move along.

Which of my claims do you dispute?

• Obama asked for more money.
• Congress said no.
• Obama signed the bill because he can't write law and getting a bill passed was more important than not. He was willing to compromise.

 

[The Big Dog]

Which is another way of saying it isn't there.

Lolz!

10:10 am. My time, sport.

It is almost 9 pm now.

 

[The Big Dog]

Why would he veto it if it was likely the best bill he could get? Have you not heard that politics is the art of compromise.

Which of my claims do you dispute?

• Obama asked for more money.
• Congress said no.
• Obama signed the bill because he can't write law and getting a bill passed was more important than not. He was willing to compromise.

It wasn't your claim. The claim was 300 million cut. Someone else posted it.

Which, as I said was? Bull ****.

 

[RandFan]

Lolz!

Rhetoric.

10:10 am. My time, sport.

It is almost 9 pm now.

I've no idea what this means.

 

[The Big Dog]

Rhetoric.

I've no idea what this means.

Don't worry about it, it was really for Elbe.

Check out my post from today 10:10.

 

[RandFan]

It wasn't your claim. The claim was 300 million cut. Someone else posted it.

Which, as I said was? Bull ****.

I know what you said and I know what I posted.

source
For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

What if anything in that quote do you dispute?
​

 

[Newtons Bit]

You've also used those nouns quite frequently. But I guess if you don't remember when you posted it either I'll just have to reread everything to look for your evidence...

This post.

You can read more about it in the hot-bed of GOP activism at CBS:

 

[RandFan]

This post.

Which demonstrates what? And why won't you respond to ANTPogo?

 

[The Big Dog]

I know what you said and I know what I posted.

What if anything in that quote do you dispute?
​

Nothing bro. As I said, the 300 mill cut claim is bs. We've confirmed it again!

By the way, the number came from the appropriations committee of the house, any democrats on that? Yeah.

I'm only a bill, I'm just a bill......

 

[RandFan]

Thank you.

Are you ever going to tell me what you think the Pentagon disagreed with me about? Or are you just going to leave me eternally in suspense?

I'm guessing your questions became too difficult to respond to.

 

[elbe]

Don't worry about it, it was really for Elbe.

Check out my post from today 10:10.

Yes, I believe I found it. I even included notes and my response in the post above (I edited as I searched).

 

[RandFan]

Nothing bro. As I said, the 300 mill cut claim is bs. We've confirmed it again!

Saying that you confirmed something isn't the same as confirming it. That's called argument by assertion and it's a fallacy.

By the way, the number came from the appropriations committee of the house, any democrats on that? Yeah.

Do you think perhaps the democrats... wait for it... compromised?

I'm only a bill, I'm just a bill......

Again, I would recommend that you get your information from something other than cartoons. You've demonstrated that you don't know that the GOP in the senate can filibuster. You've demonstrated that you don't know that the Senate can't get a bill to the president without the House and you've demonstrated that you don't know that politicians must often compromise.

See, it's like this. In America the powers are divided among 3 branches of government. We aren't a dictatorship and the president doesn't write law. It takes compromise between the legislative and executive branches. Currently the GOP in the senate can filibuster to force them to compromise on bills.

 

[The Big Dog]

Which demonstrates what? And why won't you respond to ANTPogo?

He was responding to Elbe.

You don't have to hijack every single topic.

 

[RandFan]

He was responding to Elbe.

You don't have to hijack every single topic.

A.) I'm quite sure he can defend himself. B.) If you don't like one of my posts then report me. C.) I'll respond to anything I like. D.) He responded to me long before I ever responded to him.