New Disclosures on Benghazi

[RandFan]

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

See the CIA original draft and subsequent memo. They included the riot scenario.

 

[The Big Dog]

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

You said there was contradictory evidence supporting the claim that the attack spontaneously arose out of a protest outside the consulate.

Lets see it.

I've shown the statements of he consulate personnel and state department video.

What do you have that contradicts these and supports the claim made in the talking points?

 

[RandFan]

You said there was contradictory evidence supporting the claim that the attack spontaneously arose out of a protest outside the consulate.

Lets see it.

I've shown the statements of he consulate personnel and state department video.

What do you have that contradicts these and supports the claim made in the talking points?

Read the damn draft the CIA prepared. How hard is it to do that simple thing?

 

[The Big Dog]

• Nothing now tells us what was "known" at the time. It was preliminary with lots of contradictory data.

• 
  
  

  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.

  
  

  The claim was that here are contradictory facts. Tell me what they are.
  
  
  Whatcha got? Anything?

  
  

  You said there was contradictory evidence supporting the claim that the attack spontaneously arose out of a protest outside the consulate.
  
  Lets see it.
  
  I've shown the statements of he consulate personnel and state department video.
  
  What do you have that contradicts these and supports the claim made in the talking points?

  
  

  Read the damn draft the CIA prepared. How hard is it to do that simple thing?

  
  The contradictory date that supports the talking points is, according to Randfan? the damn talking points.
  
  You cannot make this stuff up folks.

 

[RandFan]

The contradictory date that supports the talking points is, according to Randfan? the damn talking points.

You cannot make this stuff up folks.

Do you or do you not have a material fact that demonstrates what was known? Yes? No?

That is what YOU can't make up.

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you or do you not have a material fact that demonstrates what was known? Yes? No?

That is what YOU can't make up.

That is the response you wish to submit after I went through and showed that you have refused to show the "contradictory data" you claimed??

Cools, works for me.

On this page I posted the following:

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 next post should be the contradictory data you claimed above, and that I quoted.

 

[RandFan]

That is the response you wish to submit after I went through and showed that you have refused to show the "contradictory data" you claimed??

Cools, works for me.

On this page I posted the following:

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 next post should be the contradictory data you claimed above, and that I quoted.

The CIA didn't provide a single narrative. The CIA had self serving motivations to pawn the consequences and responsibility off on the State Department. For that reason nothing you've posted proves positively what the CIA knew and what the State Department knew.

Most importantly, there is a parsimonious explanation that does not include any malice or cover up. This was a CIA operations and they tried to pawn off responsibility on the State Department. They hedged their bets with contradictory scenarios.

Those are the facts and don't need partisan speculation.

At best your claims rely on speculation and bias to draw your conclusions. An objective and intellectually honest observer would not have a reasonable basis to conclude otherwise.

 

[RandFan]

The CIA didn't provide a single narrative. The CIA had self serving motivations to pawn the consequences and responsibility off on the State Department. For that reason nothing you've posted proves positively what the CIA knew and what the State Department knew.

Most importantly, there is a parsimonious explanation that does not include any malice or cover up. This was a CIA operations and they tried to pawn off responsibility on the State Department. They hedged their bets with contradictory scenarios.

Those are the facts and don't need partisan speculation.

At best your claims rely on speculation and bias to draw your conclusions. An objective and intellectually honest observer would not have a reasonable basis to conclude otherwise.

It's the speculative nature of your claims and refusal to accept plausible and parsimonious explanations that make your claims transparently partisan and venture into the realm of conspiracy theory.

 

[The Big Dog]

The next post should be the contradictory data you claimed above, and that I quoted.

The CIA didn't provide a single narrative. The CIA had self serving motivations to pawn the consequences and responsibility off on the State Department. For that reason nothing you've posted proves positively what the CIA knew and what the State Department knew.

Most importantly, there is a parsimonious explanation that does not include any malice or cover up. This was a CIA operations and they tried to pawn off responsibility on the State Department. They hedged their bets with contradictory scenarios.

Those are the facts and don't need partisan speculation.

At best your claims rely on speculation and bias to draw your conclusions. An objective and intellectually honest observer would not have a reasonable basis to conclude otherwise.

It's the speculative nature of your claims and refusal to accept plausible and parsimonious explanations that make your claims transparently partisan and venture into the realm of conspiracy theory.

And that folks is that. He neither addressed the evidence I cited, nor posted anything to support his claim regarding contradictory data.

Thanks Randfan.

 

[RandFan]

And that folks is that. He neither addressed the evidence I cited, nor posted anything to support his claim regarding contradictory data.

Thanks Randfan.

Thanks, what evidence do you have of what the State Department "knew" and what the CIA "knew"?

As far as "contradictory", that's easy, riot vs coordinated attack. Guess which scenario included? That's right, both.

Thanks 16.5

 

[The Big Dog]

Thanks, what evidence do you have of what the State Department "knew" and what the CIA "knew"?

As far as "contradictory", that's easy, riot vs coordinated attack. Guess which scenario included? That's right, both.

Thanks 16.5

You claimed contradictory data, randfan. This is the part of the thread where you post your claimed contradictory data.

The part of the data that shows a protest outside the consulate before the terrorist attack.

"Guess which scenario included." Oh dear....

Just the Data.

Thanks RandFan.

/ eta: I did enjoy who he tried to put the question back on me, though, despite the fact that he never addressed my actual evidence/ data.

 

[RandFan]

You claimed contradictory data, randfan. This is the part of the thread where you post your claimed contradictory data.

The part of the data that shows a protest outside the consulate before the terrorist attack.

"Guess which scenario included." Oh dear....

Just the Data.

Thanks RandFan.

/ eta: I did enjoy who he tried to put the question back on me, though, despite the fact that he never addressed my actual evidence/ data.

Thanks 16.5. This is an easy one. One which has been explained to you many times.

The CIA made the following claims:

• There was a riot based on a video.
• It was a coordinated terrorism attack.

It's rather odd that after all this time you don't know the facts. ANTPogo has posted the facts probably a hundred times. If not a hundred at least a dozen.

How is it that you don't know the contradictory nature of what was believed at the time?

 

[RandFan]

Still looking for the unequivocal evidence of what was known as what was believed. Hindsight is a fair gauge about what was true. But what was believed?

Evidence?

 

[A'isha]

It's rather odd that after all this time you don't know the facts. ANTPogo has posted the facts probably a hundred times. If not a hundred at least a dozen.

Maybe he has me on ignore again.

 

[A'isha]

We know that the state department had reviewed videos in almost real time showing no protest.

This is not true, by the way.

 

[RandFan]

We know that the state department had reviewed videos in almost real time showing no protest.

This is not true, by the way.

I'm not sure the facts even matter.

 

[The Big Dog]

Thanks 16.5. This is an easy one. One which has been explained to you many times.

The CIA made the following claims:

• There was a riot based on a video.
• It was a coordinated terrorism attack.

It's rather odd that after all this time you don't know the facts. ANTPogo has posted the facts probably a hundred times. If not a hundred at least a dozen.

How is it that you don't know the contradictory nature of what was believed at the time?

Rand fan has a curious definition of data. He claimed there was contradictory "data," when asked to supply the "data" he provides no data at all.

Now the story has devolved down to "contradictory nature."

Where is the contradictory data you so confidently lectured us all about this morning rand fan?

Even one little "data" point to support you earlier bloviations rand fan?

 

[The Big Dog]

This is not true, by the way.

antpogo leaps into the fray.

I say that state department was watching video in near real time.

Ant says Nuh huh, posts an old news piece about DoD video.

I chuckle, and direct ant pogo to the state department briefing that stated that it was never their story that there was a protest outside the consulate. They based that on, and I quote, "we saw on the cameras." October 9, 2012 .

Thanks for your input, ant

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm not sure the facts even matter.

Hence your excuse for not posting any, rand fan?

 

[A'isha]

I say that state department was watching video in near real time.

Yes, and you were wrong.

Ant says Nuh huh, posts an old news piece about DoD video.

No, that article has nothing to do with DoD videos. It specifically cites State Department officials, and notes that Charlene Lamb's testimony (which is where this notion was originally distorted from) was about telephone communications, not video.

I chuckle, and direct ant pogo to the state department briefing that stated that it was never their story that there was a protest outside the consulate. They based that on, and I quote, "we saw on the cameras." October 9, 2012

They weren't referring to real-time monitoring by State Department people anywhere outside of Benghazi, but closed-circuit cameras only monitorible from the Tactical Operations Center there in the compound:

A few minutes later – we’re talking about 9 o’clock at night – the Ambassador retires to his room, the others are still at Building C, and the one agent in the TOC. At 9:40 p.m., the agent in the TOC and the agents in Building C hear loud noises coming from the front gate. They also hear gunfire and an explosion. The agent in the TOC looks at his cameras – these are cameras that have pictures of the perimeter – and the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound. One special agent immediately goes to get the Ambassador in his bedroom and gets Sean, and the three of them enter the safe haven inside the building.

They only report, second-hand, on what the security agent in the TOC reported he saw after the attack started, not before. And once the TOC was abandoned, there was no monitoring of anything from those cameras.