New Disclosures on Benghazi

[JoeTheJuggler]

My point is that Ezra Pound's blog contained false statements.

I think he means, what's the point of this thread. What is the scandal you're alleging?

ETA: Are you alleging, for example, that the administration that ordered the killing of Osama Bin Laden is soft on terrorism? Or worse, conspiring with terrorists? Or ignoring terrorist threats?

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/16/u-s-plans-to-capture-or-kill-benghazi-suspects/?hpt=hp_t1

 

[Upchurch]

My point is that Ezra Pound's blog contained false statements.

You didn't start this entire thread for a blog posted yesterday.

What point are you trying to make?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

error--hit reply when I meant to edit

 

[Upchurch]

ETA: Are you alleging, for example, that the administration that ordered the killing of Osama Bin Laden is soft on terrorism? Or worse, conspiring with terrorists? Or ignoring terrorist threats?

Or even something more pedestrian like lying to the American public when they said "It's still too early to know exactly what happened, but we think it might have been this..."?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This exchange is pretty much what I expected of this thread.

For what purpose did you start this thread?

Lets pretend for a moment, that is true. What's your point?

My point? Upchurch, you posted an excerpt from Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein.

<snip>
My point is that Ezra Pound's blog contained false statements.

Everyone here sees through you, 16.5. You're not fooling anyone.

You're not being intellectually honest.

In fact, you're being just like the 9/11 Truthers. You put forth insinuations, cherry pick evidence, repeat flat out falsehoods (100 killed at Benghazi!), and refuse to make a clear statement of the conspiracy theory you're alleging. You "just ask questions" as if those questions are somehow evidence of something. (Again, asking why Susan Rice, as if that question sheds any light on anything, and as if that same question couldn't be asked no matter who was the spokesperson that Sunday.) You continue to ignore the fact that the "talking points" you refer to were clearly presented as a preliminary assessment.

 

[maxpower1227]

I'm honestly not sure exactly why I should be outraged by the Republican email edits, but then again, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be outraged by ANYTHING regarding this "scandal" so far. This has become incredibly tiresome.

 

[A'isha]

I'm honestly not sure exactly why I should be outraged by the Republican email edits

No outrage needed.

I'm just amused by the Republicans' own partisan hackery regarding the emails coming back to bite them instead.

 

[The Big Dog]

It looks like there might be a Benghazi scandal after all....

for Huff Post:

Huff Post claims "Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims."

However, the ACTUAL CBS report makes it clear that no e-mails were released on Friday by anyone (how could they, the White House refused to give Congress copies). Huff Post also fraudulent claimed that Republicans "included the correct version of the emails, signaling that more malice and less incompetence may have been at play with the alleged alterations." Again, that is a complete misrepresentation, no "correct version" of the emails were included in that report because no one outside the Administration had them.

I understand that certain members of the press feel the need to run cover, but again, flat out lying is beyond the pale.

 

[RandFan]

This exchange is pretty much what I expected of this thread.

Everyone here sees through you, 16.5. You're not fooling anyone.

You're not being intellectually honest.

In fact, you're being just like the 9/11 Truthers. You put forth insinuations, cherry pick evidence, repeat flat out falsehoods (100 killed at Benghazi!), and refuse to make a clear statement of the conspiracy theory you're alleging. You "just ask questions" as if those questions are somehow evidence of something. (Again, asking why Susan Rice, as if that question sheds any light on anything, and as if that same question couldn't be asked no matter who was the spokesperson that Sunday.) You continue to ignore the fact that the "talking points" you refer to were clearly presented as a preliminary assessment.

I've yet to see a coherent narrative that takes into account the contradictory CIA memo's and the inherent conflict between CIA and state.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm honestly not sure exactly why I should be outraged by the Republican email edits, but then again, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be outraged by ANYTHING regarding this "scandal" so far. This has become incredibly tiresome.

I think that was more or less the point. If this is all it takes to cry "scandal" then virtually every action taken by anyone is evidence of a scandal.

The position most of us take here is not that the Republicans are also guilty of scandalous behavior, but rather that there is no scandal here.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've yet to see a coherent narrative that takes into account the contradictory CIA memo's and the inherent conflict between CIA and state.

Or any rational motivation for the Obama administration to lie about anything connected to the Benghazi attacks.

It's similar to the 9/11 CT: even for people like me who strongly disapproved of Bush's policies, it's pretty absurd to suggest the POTUS wanted a terrorist attack resulting in American deaths to take place.

 

[The Big Dog]

While running to ground Huff Post's clearly inaccurate reporting, I found another Mother Jones piece that (while managing to almost entirely bury the lead in partisan nonsense) the title of which is: "Benghazi: What Did the CIA Know, and When Did It Know It?"

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/benghazi-what-did-cia-know-and-when-did-it-know-it

The problem of course is that it relies on a Glenn Kessler piece, which suggests that because the terrorists attacked the annex, "this was an attack on a CIA operation." What Kessler fails to note is that the reason that they attacked the CIA facility was because the CIA sent reinforcements to the Consulate, assembled the survivors there and then convoyed to the CIA annex where they set up a defensive perimeter.

The evidence indicates that the Annex was not the original target but rather that they were followed there.

It also completely misses the point that everyone involved in the production of the talking points COMPLETELY dropped the ball in citing a ridiculous claim that the original attack arose out of a non-existent anti-video protest.

 

[Upchurch]

It also completely misses the point that everyone involved in the production of the talking points COMPLETELY dropped the ball in citing a ridiculous claim that the original attack arose out of a non-existent anti-video protest.

...is that the point of this thread?

 

[RandFan]

While running to ground Huff Post's clearly inaccurate reporting, I found another Mother Jones piece that (while managing to almost entirely bury the lead in partisan nonsense) asks ¹What did the CIA know and When Did they Know it."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/benghazi-what-did-cia-know-and-when-did-it-know-it

The problem of course is that it relies on a Glenn Kessler piece, which suggests that because the terrorists attacked the annex, "this was an attack on a CIA operation." What Kessler fails to note is that the reason that they attacked the CIA facility was because the CIA sent reinforcements to the Consulate, assembled the survivors there and then convoyed to the CIA annex where they set up a defensive perimeter.

The evidence indicates that the Annex was not the original target but rather that they were followed there.

It also completely misses the point that everyone involved in the production of the talking points COMPLETELY dropped the ball in citing ²a ridiculous claim that the original attack arose out of a non-existent anti-video protest.

1. Until you know this you have nothing but speculation.
2. Since you cannot answer #1 you are question begging.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It also completely misses the point that everyone involved in the production of the talking points COMPLETELY dropped the ball in citing a ridiculous claim that the original attack arose out of a non-existent anti-video protest.

But that didn't happen. This was presented as a preliminary assessment and not anything definitive. That you continue to ignore this fact shows your intellectual dishonesty.

BTW, just so we're clear, are you talking now about the actual Benghazi attack that result in 4 deaths and 10 injuries, or your alternate universe one that resulted in over 100 deaths?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

...is that the point of this thread?

Well, one thing I know is not the point of the thread was 16.5's earlier claim that the Obama administration sought to deflect responsibility for the deaths.

I pointed out that this requires accepting the premise that the Obama administration was responsible for the deaths or tried to protect those who are responsible for the deaths. 16.5 has apparently completely abandoned that claim.

It turns out he confused someone's making the judgement call that certain threats did not require immediate action as the same thing as the Obama administration being responsible for the deaths.

Again, this is typical CT sloppy thinking. Bush might have made the judgement call that threats of a large terrorist attack on U.S. soil didn't require any immediate action, but that doesn't mean the Truthers are correct in claiming (or insinuating) that Bush was responsible for the attack, or even knew it was going to happen and allowed it to happen. Such accusations are preposterous, but if they were true would constitute the crime of treason.

But 16.5 has apparently abandoned that claim, even though way back in post number 854, he said:

Some of us feel the government telling overt lies to deflect responsibility about the deaths of 4 Americans is bad.

The false story also embarrassed the President of Libya and may have impeded the subsequent investigation.

And he also backpedalled from the idea that disagreeing with the preliminary assessment of the President of Libya is scandalous, so I don't guess that's the point of the thread either.

 

[marplots]

To be fair, 16.5's talking points have evolved as new information came to light and misapprehensions have been corrected. This is quite often the case. Initial ideas are shown to be less than accurate and the discussion evolves.

QED

 

[Upchurch]

To be fair, 16.5's talking points have evolved as new information came to light and misapprehensions have been corrected. This is quite often the case. Initial ideas are shown to be less than accurate and the discussion evolves.

Would you say he was lying when he presented his preliminary initial ideas, given that we now know they were factually incorrect?

 

[The Big Dog]

While running to ground Huff Post's clearly inaccurate reporting, I found another Mother Jones piece that (while managing to almost entirely bury the lead in partisan nonsense) the title of which is: "Benghazi: What Did the CIA Know, and When Did It Know It?"

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/benghazi-what-did-cia-know-and-when-did-it-know-it

The problem of course is that it relies on a Glenn Kessler piece, which suggests that because the terrorists attacked the annex, "this was an attack on a CIA operation." What Kessler fails to note is that the reason that they attacked the CIA facility was because the CIA sent reinforcements to the Consulate, assembled the survivors there and then convoyed to the CIA annex where they set up a defensive perimeter.

The evidence indicates that the Annex was not the original target but rather that they were followed there.

It also completely misses the point that everyone involved in the production of the talking points COMPLETELY dropped the ball in citing a ridiculous claim that the original attack arose out of a non-existent anti-video protest.

In reviewing the latest development, I came across a rather old video featuring the President of Libya that I think is worth watching (particularly as it contradicts some of the Mother Jones article)

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/26/14105135-libyan-president-to-nbc-anti-islam-film-had-nothing-to-do-with-us-consulate-attack?lite

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

To be fair, 16.5's talking points have evolved as new information came to light and misapprehensions have been corrected. This is quite often the case. Initial ideas are shown to be less than accurate and the discussion evolves.

I think it's clear that 16.5 believes in a CT, even though he's not sure what CT it is. In other words, he's not letting the evidence lead him to conclusions. He's starting with the conclusion that somebody did something scandalous, and is trying hard to support that conclusion. That's why he cherry picks, asks loaded questions (those that assume as premises propositions that he cannot support and won't defend), and so on.

ETA: But mostly, it's the reason why he can't answer Upchurch's question. What exactly is the point of this thread?