New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

Well, we've got some catching up to do, but we have some unfinished business from last week that got swept up in the maelstrom of the talking points. That of course relates to the testimony last week, of which we've barely had the chance to discuss over the last few days. To refresh:

After the 9/11/2012 attack, Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif went on the U.S. Sunday morning shows, saying he believed Al Qaeda was responsible for the deadly Consulate attack. El-Megarif gave credible reasons for believing this, and even sought to warn U.S. officials about this. According to Hicks, “the President of Libya took a great personal risk. And for him to go on world television and say it was a planned attack — it was a gift, from a policy perspective.”

We hashed out the Rice debacle, but there are two other points that have been left to simmer:

1. why didn't the Administration adapt to this information from its ally?

2. Was Greg Hicks sanctioned for asking about Rice's story.

It appears to me at least that both of these issues swirl around Tori Nuland (who we all know is bucking for a promotion). I'd like to hear one hell of lot more from her, don't you agree?

 

[A'isha]

We hashed out the Rice debacle, but there are two other points that have been left to simmer:

1. why didn't the Administration adapt to this information from its ally?

Because it was contradicted by other intelligence information, and the Administration naturally trusts what the CIA says over what foreign heads of state trying to cover their asses might say.

2. Was Greg Hicks sanctioned for asking about Rice's story.

No.

It appears to me at least that both of these issues swirl around Tori Nuland (who we all know is bucking for a promotion). I'd like to hear one hell of lot more from her, don't you agree?

From the email chain, it's clear that neither of those issues has anything to do with Nuland.

 

[maxpower1227]

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

The point of the thread is: We must impeach Obama and pre-emptively disqualify Hilary from running in 2016. Personally, I think the GOP's time would be better spent coming up with new ways to prevent black and hispanic people from voting, but that's just me.

 

[The Big Dog]

We hashed out the Rice debacle, but there are two other points that have been left to simmer:

2. Was Greg Hicks sanctioned for asking about Rice's story.

Here is a pretty well done piece from an entity that seems to be no friend of the GOP! lolz.

The Troubling case of greg hicks

I think we can all agree that situations like this transcend partisan bickering.

 

[RandFan]

Well, we've got some catching up to do, but we have some unfinished business from last week that got swept up in the maelstrom of the talking points. That of course relates to the testimony last week, of which we've barely had the chance to discuss over the last few days. To refresh:

After the 9/11/2012 attack, Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif went on the U.S. Sunday morning shows, saying he believed Al Qaeda was responsible for the deadly Consulate attack. El-Megarif gave credible reasons for believing this, and even sought to warn U.S. officials about this. According to Hicks, “the President of Libya took a great personal risk. And for him to go on world television and say it was a planned attack — it was a gift, from a policy perspective.”

We hashed out the Rice debacle, but there are two other points that have been left to simmer:

1. why didn't the Administration adapt to this information from its ally?

2. Was Greg Hicks sanctioned for asking about Rice's story.

It appears to me at least that both of these issues swirl around Tori Nuland (who we all know is bucking for a promotion). I'd like to hear one hell of lot more from her, don't you agree?

JAQ'ing.

 

[RandFan]

Here is a pretty well done piece from an entity that seems to be no friend of the GOP! lolz.

The Troubling case of greg hicks

I think we can all agree that situations like this transcend partisan bickering.

Which demonstrates what exactly? Lot's of things happen in life. I've no idea of the significance of any of this. You are now throwing out dots and expecting us to connect them for you. What's your point? Do you have a point? What do you mean by "transcend"? No one here has indicated they are in favor of bickering. We've simply made the point that bickering was the basis for all of this. Was the bickering crass and unhelpful? Yes. Was it actionable? Perhaps but at the end of the day it's just bickering. No laws broken. No one intentionally lied or covered anything up. There was confusion and disagreement and a squabble.... and?

 

[The Big Dog]

jaq'ing.

which demonstrates what exactly? Lot's of things happen in life. I've no idea of the significance of any of this. You are now throwing out dots and expecting us to connect them for you. What's your point? Do you have a point? What do you mean by "transcend"? No one here has indicated they are in favor of bickering. We've simply made the point that bickering was the basis for all of this. Was the bickering crass and unhelpful? Yes. Was it actionable? Perhaps but at the end of the day it's just bickering. No laws broken. No one intentionally lied or covered anything up. There was confusion and disagreement and a squabble.... And?

lolz!

 

[RandFan]

lolz!

Hang on there hoss. I'm not the one making claims that there is something significant here. That's you.

• Asking rhetorical questions to establish a claim is sophistry.
• Asking questions of a person making a claim isn't.

Can you see the difference here sport?

 

[RandFan]

Burden of proof:

The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

My position is that your position hasn't been demonstrated.

This is a skeptics forum. At the very least a skeptic ought to recognize when they shoulder the burden of proof. This is your thread. You are making vague an unsubstantiated claims about various people.

Do you have evidence? Is NOT JAQin'g off.

 

[The Big Dog]

Here is a pretty well done piece from an entity that seems to be no friend of the GOP! lolz.

The Troubling case of greg hicks

I think we can all agree that situations like this transcend partisan bickering.

As anyone who took the time to read this article that I posted, the article was not originally posted in Free Speech dot org, but was published in The Nation.

here is the original link, and my apologies for any confusion:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/174290/troubling-case-gregory-hicks

From the article:

"Jesselyn Radack, the Government Accountability Project’s national security and human rights director, told The Nation. “In terms of whistleblower calculus, he fits—he had a reasonable belief that he could get help there in time to at least minimize the damage.”

Radack has represented numerous federal whistleblowers, including many from the State Department. She said that not only is Hicks unquestionably a whistleblower but that his immediate poor performance review and subsequent inability to get a good assignment easily categorize as improper retaliation."

I agree with these points in the article (although not all! lolz!) and Ms. Radack's comments.

 

[IDB87]

"Jesselyn Radack, the Government Accountability Project’s national security and human rights director, told The Nation. “In terms of whistleblower calculus, he fits—he had a reasonable belief that he could get help there in time to at least minimize the damage.”

On what grounds did Radack determine Hicks' belief to be reasonable?

 

[RandFan]

As anyone who took the time to read this article that I posted, the article was not originally posted in Free Speech dot org, but was published in The Nation.

here is the original link, and my apologies for any confusion:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/174290/troubling-case-gregory-hicks

From the article:

"Jesselyn Radack, the Government Accountability Project’s national security and human rights director, told The Nation. “In terms of whistleblower calculus, he fits—he had a reasonable belief that he could get help there in time to at least minimize the damage.”

Radack has represented numerous federal whistleblowers, including many from the State Department. She said that not only is Hicks unquestionably a whistleblower but that his immediate poor performance review and subsequent inability to get a good assignment easily categorize as improper retaliation."

I agree with these points in the article (although not all! lolz!) and Ms. Radack's comments.

So, just to be sure, the goal posts have no been shifted once again. The harm is retaliation against Hicks. If Hicks was treated inappropriately then I'm happy that someone pay a price. That said, he didn't provide any actionable evidence. What we have is an assumption that he was retaliated against because there is something else wrong that we don't know about.

This is what's known as disparate data. It's the stuff of CT. You know, dots. Connect those dot's people. It's also presumptive and it begs the question. Because Hicks was retaliated against that is proof of something.

 

[RandFan]

On what grounds did Radack determine Hicks' belief to be reasonable?

That's a very good question.

Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability

I guess an attorney would know much better than a Bush appointee defense expert.

 

[The Big Dog]

On what grounds did Radack determine Hicks' belief to be reasonable?

Based on the article, it is clear that Ms. Radack was using what she called "whistle blower calculus," and by that I believe she means that he had a subjectively reasonable belief.

 

[RandFan]

Based on the article, it is clear that Ms. Radack was using what she called "whistle blower calculus," and by that I believe she means that he had a subjectively reasonable belief.

I think that is a reasonable assumption.

 

[marplots]

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

No, I would not make that accusation.

 

[marplots]

Hang on there hoss. I'm not the one making claims that there is something significant here. That's you.

• Asking rhetorical questions to establish a claim is sophistry.
• Asking questions of a person making a claim isn't.

Can you see the difference here sport?

Look, I'm just asking questions here.

 

[Upchurch]

No, I would not make that accusation.

That seems reasonable.

 

[A'isha]

So it seems Darrell Issa, who was quite happy to have Hicks, Thompson, and Nordstrom testify in public when he knew they would say bad things about the Administration, really, really doesn't want to let Pickering and Mullen (who wrote the State Department's ARB Report) testify in public to say not-bad things about the Administration.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/issa-subpoenas-benghazi-investigator-pickering

 

[RandFan]

So it seems Darrell Issa, who was quite happy to have Hicks, Thompson, and Nordstrom testify in public when he knew they would say bad things about the Administration, really, really doesn't want to let Pickering and Mullen (who wrote the State Department's ARB Report) testify in public to say not-bad things about the Administration.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/issa-subpoenas-benghazi-investigator-pickering

Yeah, gotta be behind closed doors. Of course. Transparency? WTF?

And Issa was caught in a lie.

Pickering Calls Out Issa For Lying About Willingness to Testify (video proof).

After Issa asserted that Pickering had refused to testify in front of his committee, Pickering breaks his silence and off camera interrupts with a "That's not true."

Issa, how about a hint of honesty, transparency and objectivity? What do you have to lose?

ETA: The "lie" I'm alleging predates the latest request to testify behind closed doors.