New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
RandFan said:
In all of those emails is there a single material fact to demonstrate that the White House knew that there was no protest and that this was only a terrorist attack and they (the White House) covered it up?

One material fact.
Click to expand...

Or even a single material fact showing that the White House wanted to "scrub" the memo of references to al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia, surveillance, previous attacks, or anything else?
 
ANTPogo said:
The video was an issue for the Ansar al-Sharia attackers. Whether there were additional issues as well does nothing to change that.

Every person lambasting the Obama Administration for talking about the video in connection with the attacks is therefore completely wrong.
Click to expand...

You better take that up with Susan Rice:

“In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi,” Rice said.
 
16.5 said:
You better take that up with Susan Rice:

“In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi,” Rice said.
Click to expand...

What do Rice's comments there have to do with what I wrote?
 
elbe said:
I'll be honest, I'm unsure how to proceed. It's not often that someone admits, excitedly so apparently, that they're using strawmen in their arguments.
Click to expand...

protip: I was referring to the fact that you were making a straw man argument, friend.
 
16.5 said:
“In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi,” Rice said.
Click to expand...

So what?

There were certainly protests and demonstrations that effectively served as diversion for the attacks. Do you deny this too? The attacks could still very well have arisen from the protests (particularly in the way I have speculated--as taking advantage of an opportunity that arose). There's a lot of space between the idea that the specifics of this attack were planned out for that date and place months in advance, and the idea that it was something done by the protesters. (FWIW, I don't think anyone ever asserted the latter even as a preliminary assessment.)

BTW, are you still sticking to your claim that 100 people were killed in the Benghazi attack? Just checking to see whether you're even back in the actual world or still in your alternate universe version.
 
16.5 said:
protip: I was referring to the fact that you were making a straw man argument, friend.
Click to expand...

Then why did you admit to making them yourself?


The real question is, though, why are you saying the intelligence at the time said something different that it did? Just because some sources may say something doesn't mean they have been verified, and the conflicting evidence has to be taken into account too. We've been over this, you know.
 
Last edited:
elbe said:
Then why did you admit to making them yourself?
Click to expand...

I didn't. But maybe:

"Yo dawg I heard you like straw men arguments, so I put a straw man argument in your straw man argument so you can straw man while you straw man."

Xhibit
 
16.5 said:
I said that no one should talk to Greg Hicks or review the State Department videos showing no protest?

I'll be damned, that was stupid of me.
Click to expand...
Straw man argument. No one has posited those premises.
 
I don't understand why everyone keeps feeding the troll. There has been no answer to the question below. I will not respond to this thread until a substantive, reality based answer, supported by evidence is given to RandFan's question below. This really belongs in the CT forum.

RandFan said:
In all of those emails is there a single material fact to demonstrate that the White House knew that there was no protest and that this was only a terrorist attack and they (the White House) covered it up?

One material fact.
Click to expand...


Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
I don't understand why everyone keeps feeding the troll. There has been no answer to the question below. I will not respond to this thread until a substantive, reality based answer, supported by evidence is given to RandFan's question below. This really belongs in the CT forum.




Daredelvis
Click to expand...

I don't understand the troll feeding either. There are some people who have much more patience than me.
 
daredelvis said:
I don't understand why everyone keeps feeding the troll. There has been no answer to the question below. I will not respond to this thread until a substantive, reality based answer, supported by evidence is given to RandFan's question below. This really belongs in the CT forum.

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

rustypouch said:
I don't understand the troll feeding either. There are some people who have much more patience than me.
Click to expand...
Fair points... perhaps there is something greater that can come from this thread. See next post.
 
A question that demands an answer:

What did Obama do right? It's clear that safety for diplomats is better under Obama than any other administration. So, does Obama get any credit for that? Did Obama do anything right?

More questions:

What security lessons did we learn from the past under all of those other administrations? Were there mistakes made during the previous administrations and what were they? You can yell tu quoque all you like but the fact remains that Obama has one of the best records when it comes to protecting diplomats. Why?

diplomaticattacks4.png
 
daredelvis said:
I don't understand why everyone keeps feeding the troll. There has been no answer to the question below. I will not respond to this thread until a substantive, reality based answer, supported by evidence is given to RandFan's question below. This really belongs in the CT forum.

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

First of all, your accusations of "trolling" are a violation of the Rules for this forum.

Second, the question is fallacious. It says "In all of those emails..." There are several problems with this question that are readily obvious:

1. not all e-mails have been released
2. not all information regarding the talking points have been released.
3. there is substantial evidence outside the limited facts discussed in those emails that show what we all now know is the truth: there was NO PROTEST outside the consulate before the attack.

These include:

1. State department videos;
2. the statements of Hicks and the five surviving U.S. diplomatic security agents.

If you want to start a thread in conspiracy theories, by all means do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom