New Disclosures on Benghazi

[RandFan]

Pro Tip:

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.

Don't claim there is evidence. Provide the evidence. CT folks are found of claiming evidence when there is absolutely none. Zero. Zip. Nada.

To state that there is evidence when there is no evidence is prevarication. Obfuscation. Acting as if you've posted this evidence when you haven't is lying.

Here's a hint. There is evidence in HINDSIGHT. No evidence that was conclusive at the time. To pretend that the evidence was conclusive when you know after 47 pages no such evidence has ever been posted is deceitful. It's lying. Prevarication.

 

[The Big Dog]

As always, we have discussed in details what we know, and of course what was known at the time. For example, the Administration admitted on October 9 that there was no protest, so that of course is a given.

We know that the state department had reviewed videos in almost real time showing no protest.
We know that Hicks and the five surviving security agents were debriefed by the FBI in Germany.
We know that ansar al sharia had been mentioned in the talking points, identified in emails on the 11' and identified by Liz jones to the Libyans on the 12th

What has the administration refused to release that has compromised the investigation?

1. Any information at all to support the claim that the attack arose out of a spontaneous protest
2. The interview reports of the meetings withe survivors the the FBI took in Germany
3. Any documents regarding the deputies meeting that took place on Saturday morning the 15th.
4. What information the administration relied on to advise a closed session of Congress that the attack was a planned attack on the 20th.

I think we can all agree that the Administration should come clean.

 

[RandFan]

• What we know is in hindsight.
• Nothing now tells us what was "known" at the time. It was preliminary with lots of contradictory data.
• We know what was believed and we now know what is most likely the truth.
• No material facts demonstrate a crime or ethical breach by anyone.

But we are open whenever you find that evidence. Until then this remains speculation. And like the truthers and birthers there will always be demands for more information. Nothing will satisfy those with wishful thinking to bring down the president and/or hurt Hillary (it should be noted I do not personally like her).

FWIW: I don't like holder either. I wish you would go after him. At least you and I would be on the same side for once.

 

[fess]

RandFan

Answering questions with questions…

Calling others a flat out liar…

Claiming to once have been a Republican without saying why you jumped over the fence…

What point are you trying to make other than making a political statement?

I have been a registered Republican since I first registered to vote because; well, you have to register as something. But that didn’t stop me from voting for Kennedy. It would appear to me that you vote a straight party line.

 

[tyr_13]

What point are you trying to make other than making a political statement?

Right back at you champ. Randfan has been asking for evidence and discussing the flaws in the argument being presented to him.

You've not, simply asked questions about political statements and affiliation along with passive-aggressive statement snippets.

So what is your point other than political 'statements'?

 

[RandFan]

RandFan

Answering questions with questions…

Calling others a flat out liar…

Claiming to once have been a Republican without saying why you jumped over the fence…

What point are you trying to make other than making a political statement?

I have been a registered Republican since I first registered to vote because; well, you have to register as something. But that didn't stop me from voting for Kennedy. It would appear to me that you vote a straight party line.

A.) Could you give me examples of me answering questions with questions. B.) What 16.5 is saying is a flat out lie. I'm very specific in asking for evidence that demonstrates what people knew at the time. The claim is based on what people knew. It's dishonest to say that you know what someone was thinking when you demonstrably don't. It's dishonest to claim that you've demonstrated it when you haven't.

I've told my story many times. I came here a staunch Republican. I was a Republican when I voted for Obama. I voted for a few Democrats while I was a Republican. It was the dishonesty and games that drove me from the GOP. The refusal to work with democrats. The demonization of all of THEIR ideas. The refusal to follow their own report on tax increases.

My point (I have two main points). A.) There is no evidence of anything other than a conflict between the State Department and the CIA that, right or wrong, resulted in differences in the final memo. This hypothesis is parsimonious. B.) Having had 3 hearings, an investigation and lots of evidence this focus on Benghazi has simply become a witch hunt as the Heritage Foundation advised.

Heritage Action to House Leaders: Keep Focus on Scandals

Recent events have rightly focused the nation’s attention squarely on the actions of the Obama administration. It is incumbent upon the House of Representatives to conduct oversight hearings on those actions, but it would be imprudent to do anything that shifts the focus from the Obama administration to the ideological differences within the House Republican Conference.

See, that's a smoking gun. Show me a letter by Obama, Hillary or someone that unequivocally demonstrates what they new and intended.

See the difference?

One last thing, I was in a similar thread years ago defending Bush when I came across evidence he had lied. He said no one could have anticipated the devastation of Katrina. That was a lie because it was one of FEMA's top items as detailed in a National Geographic article dated BEFORE Katrina.

It's easy to show Bush lied. That's what I'm looking for. Something to show a conscious lie. A parsimonious explanation and not this CT connect the dots BS the birthers and truthers are so fond of.

Do YOU have any evidence that demonstrates what was absolutely known during and after Benghazi?

 

[The Big Dog]

Right back at you champ. Randfan has been asking for evidence and discussing the flaws in the argument being presented to him.

You've not, simply asked questions about political statements and affiliation along with passive-aggressive statement snippets.

So what is your point other than political 'statements'?

Rand fan has been ignoring the evidence, spamming a silly heritage article and actively disrupting the thread with baseless claims of "conspiracy."

Any comments about the information that we know is missing? Do you wish to point to anything that contradicts the evidence cited in my post from this morning?

Any substantive factual discussion at all?

 

[RandFan]

Rand fan has been ignoring the evidence, spamming a silly heritage article and actively disrupting the thread with baseless claims of "conspiracy."

Any comments about the information that we know is missing? Do you wish to point to anything that contradicts the evidence cited in my post from this morning?

Any substantive factual discussion at all?

There is no evidence of what was known. There is evidence of what people believed. Using hindsight and bias you have determined what was "known".

Do YOU have any evidence that conclusively shows what was known. Sorry that the fact the GOP has decided to focus on scandal rather than legislate is not my fault. I didn't write the damn letter and if I have "spammed" then please report me. The lack of action will adequately demonstrate that I've done no such thing.

 

[The Big Dog]

As always, we have discussed in details what we know, and of course what was known at the time. For example, the Administration admitted on October 9 that there was no protest, so that of course is a given.

We know that the state department had reviewed videos in almost real time showing no protest.
We know that Hicks and the five surviving security agents were debriefed by the FBI in Germany.
We know that ansar al sharia had been mentioned in the talking points, identified in emails on the 11' and identified by Liz jones to the Libyans on the 12th

the absence of any so-called contradictory evidence, means that these facts are established.

On to other news, Pickering is scheduled for his interview on June 3, and the interviews/testimony of the five security agents are being scheduled.

Stay tuned, still lots of information still out there!

 

[tyr_13]

the absence of any so-called contradictory evidence, means that these facts are established.

That's not how it works. An observation being consistent with one possibility in addition to other possibilities is not, cannot be, evidence of only one of those possibilities.

That's why in absence of actual evidence the possibility isn't held to be a fact.

 

[The Big Dog]

That's not how it works. An observation being consistent with one possibility in addition to other possibilities is not, cannot be, evidence of only one of those possibilities.

That's why in absence of actual evidence the possibility isn't held to be a fact.

But it has been claimed that here is contradictory evidence, yet it has not been provided. There has also been actual evidence provided, in fact it is explained in the very post to which you responded.

As such, until the Administration releases the information, and the interviews are completed... Unless of course you have something you wish us to consider?

 

[tyr_13]

But it has been claimed that here is contradictory evidence, yet it has not been provided. There has also been actual evidence provided, in fact it is explained in the very post to which you responded.

As such, until the Administration releases the information, and the interviews are completed... Unless of course you have something you wish us to consider?

No there wasn't. Someone being planned to testify isn't evidence of anything besides that they're going to testify.

Yes, there is always something more, one more document, one more interview, one more cover up, for any CT. That evidence is just around the corner. It's must be there, so just assume it is and claim it's evidence.

 

[The Big Dog]

No there wasn't. Someone being planned to testify isn't evidence of anything besides that they're going to testify.

Yes, there is always something more, one more document, one more interview, one more cover up, for any CT. That evidence is just around the corner. It's must be there, so just assume it is and claim it's evidence.

No there wasn't what? The evidence I cited? The video? The jones email? The statements from the five security guards?

The claim was that here are contradictory facts. Tell me what they are.

Video.
Statements
Jones email.

Whatcha got? Anything?

 

[thaiboxerken]

16.5

Want to place a wager? I bet that there will be no criminal indictments.

Whatcha got?

 

[Dancing David]

As such, until the Administration releases the information, and the interviews are completed... Unless of course you have something you wish us to consider?

When you sit in closed Senate hearing meeting where all the information is discussed, be sure to tell us what is covered as 'secret' and what the committee is charge already knew.

Be sure when you go to that meeting to see who is there and then claims that the information was not released. Oh it was released all right, under seal.

Can anyone say Plame? Hundreds of billions of CIA cash in Iraq? All under seal.

 

[The Big Dog]

When you sit in closed Senate hearing meeting where all the information is discussed, be sure to tell us what is covered as 'secret' and what the committee is charge already knew.

Be sure when you go to that meeting to see who is there and then claims that the information was not released. Oh it was released all right, under seal.

Can anyone say Plame? Hundreds of billions of CIA cash in Iraq? All under seal.

What an odd post. My question was directed to the person(s) claiming that there was contradictory evidence. Where is it.

The House is doing the hearing.

We know that, for example, the statements given to the FBI on 9/13 were not released, we know that the deputies conference notes/discussions have not been released. We know hat because the people conducting the hearing have said it wasn't released and no one has contradicted them.

Palme and Iraq have nothing to do with his discussion.

 

[A'isha]

The claim was that here are contradictory facts. Tell me what they are.

Video.
Statements
Jones email.

Whatcha got? Anything?

The other protests that day, such as in Cairo (the CIA, from Petraeus on down, was keen to include in the memo the warnings about the video protests that they sent to Embassy Cairo), and the comments from witnesses and bystanders that the video was what motivated the attacks, and that other groups and even unaffiliated civilians participated in the attacks.

 

[elbe]

The other protests that day, such as in Cairo (the CIA, from Petraeus on down, was keen to include in the memo the warnings about the video protests that they sent to Embassy Cairo), and the comments from witnesses and bystanders that the video was what motivated the attacks, and that other groups and even unaffiliated civilians participated in the attacks.

And though they thought the attacks were motivated by the protests it doesn't mean they thought there was the same sort of protest in Benghazi.

 

[A'isha]

And though they thought the attacks were motivated by the protests it doesn't mean they thought there was the same sort of protest in Benghazi.

The early version of the talking points, before the CIA revised the draft prior to sending it around for comment and input from outside the CIA, clearly and specifically mentioned that the Benghazi attacks arose spontaneously out of the Cairo protests about the video (ie, that the Benghazi attackers attacked in Benghazi because they were inspired by the events in Cairo).

The statements given by the attackers to witnesses and bystanders and the fact that it wasn't just one group that participated in the attacks is probably what informed the early CIA assessment that the Benghazi attacks were the result of the Cairo protests about the video, and not a preplanned attack that Ansar al-Sharia could be exclusively singled out in.

 

[RandFan]

the absence of any so-called contradictory evidence, means that these facts are established.

The absense of any "so called contradictory evidence" proves leprechauns.

Dude?

Stay tuned, still lots of information still out there!

Keep hope. Someday there will be something to impeach Obama.