New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

Yes, and you were wrong.



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.



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



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.

Zomg the November 9 article totally makes you the first correct member of the hoard today, and therefore we should completely ignore the fact that on October 9, 2012, the State Department, in a background briefing on the same day they said there was no protest before the attack, also said that they were in fact watching the cameras showing the attack.

You read that, right?

Post the worthless, silly wrong partisan blog piece again, ant.

The funny part is he is only quibbling about the near real time, not the fact that the available videos showed that their bull **** talking points were bull ****.

 

[A'isha]

Zomg the November 9 article totally makes you the first correct member of the hoard today, and therefore we should completely ignore the fact that on October 9, 2012, the State Department, in a background briefing on the same day they said there was no protest before the attack, also said that they were in fact watching the cameras showing the attack.

No, on October 9, 2012, the State Department, in a background briefing on the same day, they said that a security agent in the compound looked at the cameras after an attack began.

They had no conclusion about what started the attack, but that's not because they had "real time" monitoring of any videos outside of Benghazi.

Post the worthless, silly wrong partisan blog piece again, ant.

Everything in that "worthless, silly wrong partisan blog piece", unlike what you have posted about it, is entirely true.

The funny part is he is only quibbling about the near real time, not the fact that the available videos showed that their bull **** talking points were bull ****.

No, it shows that your claim "that the state department had reviewed videos in almost real time showing no protest" is utterly false and based on right-wing echo chamber fictions. There was no video, monitored by anyone in Benghazi, much less by the State Department outside of Benghazi, in real time or otherwise, which had any information about protests one way or the other in Benghazi. The only video mentioned in the briefing you cite was visible only to people in the Benghazi compound TOC, and then was specifically mentioned as being viewed after the attack started.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, on October 9, 2012, the State Department, in a background briefing on the same day, they said that a security agent in the compound looked at the cameras after an attack began.

They had no conclusion about what started the attack, but that's not because they had "real time" monitoring of any videos outside of Benghazi.



Everything in that "worthless, silly wrong partisan blog piece", unlike what you have posted about it, is entirely true.



No, it shows that your claim "that the state department had reviewed videos in almost real time showing no protest" is utterly false and based on right-wing echo chamber fictions. There was no video, monitored by anyone in Benghazi, much less by the State Department outside of Benghazi, in real time or otherwise, which had any information about protests one way or the other in Benghazi. The only video mentioned in the briefing you cite was visible only to people in the Benghazi compound TOC, and then was specifically mentioned as being viewed after the attack started.

Yeah that is what your stupid article that didn't at all mention the briefing said. Sounds legit!

What is extra special is that hicks and the five security agents who were actually in benghazi said there was no protest either!

You gonna help rand fan out with his data problem or just keep pretending there was a protest outside the consulate in benghazi? Hmm ant?

Whar the contradictory data whar?

 

[tyr_13]

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!

There is the post to which I responded. Tell me what 'facts' are in there. Really, go for it.

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?

You have nothing and are dishonest or incoherent in argument.

 

[RandFan]

Rand fan has a curious definition of data. He claimed there was contradictory "data,"...

The CIA included talking points about a riot and a coordinated attack. That's contradictory.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Ask teh Senators at the meetings under seal, that is not so off is it?

Oh, you mean that all the information isn't released to you? Well then get yourself a security clearance.

Palme and Iraq and secrecy have everything to do with it, ask the Senators on the committee that hears evidence behind closed doors. Or do you deny that they know all there is to know about Benghazi?

 

[The Big Dog]

There is the post to which I responded. Tell me what 'facts' are in there. Really, go for it.

You have nothing and are dishonest or incoherent in argument.

The whole video, statements and jones email references, which in turn referred to a more detailed post a few earlier in the thread wasn't a *********** clue?

Cripes.

Personal attack noted and ignored. consulate video, statements of survivors from the consulate, Elizabeth jones email.

Thanks for posting, why don't you read the last couple of days of the thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

Ask teh Senators at the meetings under seal, that is not so off is it?

Oh, you mean that all the information isn't released to you? Well then get yourself a security clearance.

Palme and Iraq and secrecy have everything to do with it, ask the Senators on the committee that hears evidence behind closed doors. Or do you deny that they know all there is to know about Benghazi?

Thanks for posting dancing David, I'll ask the senators who are not holding hearings all about he secret information that the House of Representatives who are holding the actual hearings have already said they don't have.

 

[tyr_13]

The whole video, statements and jones email references, which in turn referred to a more detailed post a few earlier in the thread wasn't a *********** clue?

Cripes.

Personal attack noted and ignored. consulate video, statements of survivors from the consulate, Elizabeth jones email.

Thanks for posting, why don't you read the last couple of days of the thread.

So there were no 'facts' or 'evidence' in the post I replied to after all?

It's not a personal attack to describe your arguments as dishonest or incoherent.

You've posted plenty of things and claimed they were evidence for other things. That doesn't mean any of them have actually been the evidence for the things you claimed they were evidence for. I'm not going to repeat RandFan's and ANTPogo's points. They're more complete and articulate than I am anyway.

 

[The Big Dog]

The CIA included talking points about a riot and a coordinated attack. That's contradictory.

Rand fan? I asked for the claimed data to support the claim that here was a riot before the attack. Where is the data to support that? You said "contradictory data," remember? Post it, or admit there was and is none.

 

[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.

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?

The whole video, statements and jones email references, which in turn referred to a more detailed post a few earlier in the thread wasn't a *********** clue?

Cripes.

Personal attack noted and ignored. consulate video, statements of survivors from the consulate, Elizabeth jones email.

Thanks for posting, why don't you read the last couple of days of the thread.

So there were no 'facts' or 'evidence' in the post I replied to after all?

It's not a personal attack to describe your arguments as dishonest or incoherent.

You've posted plenty of things and claimed they were evidence for other things. That doesn't mean any of them have actually been the evidence for the things you claimed they were evidence for. I'm not going to repeat RandFan's and ANTPogo's points. They're more complete and articulate than I am anyway.

Rolls eyes. You have any contradictory data like the articulate pal you referred to claimed exists?

 

[tyr_13]

Rolls eyes. You have any contradictory data like the articulate pal you referred to claimed exists?

Contradictory to which of your speculations or insinuations?

EDIT: Like I said, there is always one more document to demand, one more 'question' to answer for any CT. That's never evidence of anything besides the need for a CTer to grasp onto the conspiracy.

 

[The Big Dog]

Contradictory to which of your speculations or insinuations?

EDIT: Like I said, there is always one more document to demand, one more 'question' to answer for any CT. That's never evidence of anything besides the need for a CTer to grasp onto the conspiracy.

Ask your pal, he claimed there was contradictory data, I asked him for it after he said in this thread that it exists, and we are not getting an answer.

And now the conspiracy theory dodge.... Hoo boy.

 

[tyr_13]

Ask your pal, he claimed there was contradictory data, I asked him for it after he said in this thread that it exists, and we are not getting an answer.

And now the conspiracy theory dodge.... Hoo boy.

I'm asking you. Almost everything that you bring up has been explained in this thread. So without knowing what claim you're trying to defend I, or he or she, wouldn't be able to help you.

You keep throwing out 'fact's and 'questions' and then daring people to prove otherwise. Any given point has already been shown to be false/mischaracterized (that'd be the 'dishonest' part I stated before), or not even related (incoherent).

Calling it CT isn't a dodge. You're not even making sense. You're like a man at a party who told his date that they'll see the host's cat. The host has told you that they don't have a cat, but you decide they must be lying because you found a hair on the carpet, the host says is his. But that doesn't explain it because the angry neighbor who hates the host complains about the cat all the time, so it must exist. And another guest mentioned a water dish! But that was for their dog and has nothing to do with the host. You aren't satisfied because the host won't let you check the bedroom and crawl space, where there must be evidence that there's a cat. Why else would that woman in the corner have red, ichy eyes and where oh where are the mice! Plus you heard about the cat on Thursday, and the party is Saturday. Why didn't he say there was no cat for all those days? His wife says there isn't a cat either, she must be in on it. They're probably hiding it because cat's aren't allowed in the building, so they have every reason to hide it...even though you've been shown that cats are allowed in the building.

There is no cat. There is no conspiracy.

 

[The Big Dog]

There is the post to which I responded. Tell me what 'facts' are in there. Really, go for it.

You have nothing and are dishonest or incoherent in argument.

Curious. You asked me to explain the facts in my post. I did. You have since ignored it and well:

I'm asking you. Almost everything that you bring up has been explained in this thread. So without knowing what claim you're trying to defend I, or he or she, wouldn't be able to help you.

You keep throwing out 'fact's and 'questions' and then daring people to prove otherwise. Any given point has already been shown to be false/mischaracterized (that'd be the 'dishonest' part I stated before), or not even related (incoherent).

Calling it CT isn't a dodge. You're not even making sense. You're like a man at a party who told his date that they'll see the host's cat. The host has told you that they don't have a cat, but you decide they must be lying because you found a hair on the carpet, the host says is his. But that doesn't explain it because the angry neighbor who hates the host complains about the cat all the time, so it must exist. And another guest mentioned a water dish! But that was for their dog and has nothing to do with the host. You aren't satisfied because the host won't let you check the bedroom and crawl space, where there must be evidence that there's a cat. Why else would that woman in the corner have red, ichy eyes and where oh where are the mice! Plus you heard about the cat on Thursday, and the party is Saturday. Why didn't he say there was no cat for all those days? His wife says there isn't a cat either, she must be in on it. They're probably hiding it because cat's aren't allowed in the building, so they have every reason to hide it...even though you've been shown that cats are allowed in the building.

There is no cat. There is no conspiracy.

That is the response. Oh dear. You appear unaware that the talking points were wrong, and we are discussing (well I am, anyway) why they are wrong.

 

[RandFan]

Rand fan? I asked for the claimed data to support the claim that here was a riot before the attack. Where is the data to support that? You said "contradictory data," remember? Post it, or admit there was and is none.

The burden of proof is yours my friend. I don't claim to know what the CIA and/or State knew. And you sill haven't provided any to demonstrate what they knew as opposed to what they believed.

It's not my job to prove anything.

 

[The Big Dog]

• 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.

The burden of proof is yours my friend. I don't claim to know what the CIA and/or State knew. And you sill haven't provided any to demonstrate what they knew as opposed to what they believed.

It's not my job to prove anything.

It is not your "job" to support your claim that there was lots of contradictory data?

Huh, and yet you posted snarky comments like "I don't think facts even matter" (ouch bro, that has to hurt now, huh) and I think you said it was easy twice?

And now your claim is not your burden.

Yesterday you said your job was being a skeptic. You just don't feel that your job includes supporting your claims. Gotcha

Thanks for posting.

 

[jj]

I don't claim to know what the CIA and/or State knew.

Nonsense. You argue, insinuate, and otherwise insist that there is an extreme, enormous, and horrid, intentionally evil thing done by the Obama administration.

That, in a nutshell, is what you actually behave as though your are claiming. Therefore, it is utterly on you to prove this claim. Do not keep trying to shift the burden.

ETA: This is directed to 16.5, NOT Randfan. I managed to quote the article replying to 16.5's attempt to evade the burden of proof, NOT 16.5's evasion.

I repeat, this is directed to 16.5, via a poorly done reply to Randfan. Oh well.

 

[Shalamar]

Nonsense. You argue, insinuate, and otherwise insist that there is an extreme, enormous, and horrid, intentionally evil thing done by the Obama administration.

That, in a nutshell, is what you actually behave as though your are claiming. Therefore, it is utterly on you to prove this claim. Do not keep trying to shift the burden.

Are you thinking of someone else? I'm pretty sure that RandFan doesn't claim or believe any of these things.

 

[tyr_13]

Curious. You asked me to explain the facts in my post. I did. You have since ignored it and well:

Wrong. You claimed there were facts in the post I replied to that I needed to contradict. There were none. You then reposted other posts which I had not replied to with other assertions and jumbles by you, which I was supposed to contradict...something...out of.

That is the response. Oh dear. You appear unaware that the talking points were wrong, and we are discussing (well I am, anyway) why they are wrong.

What makes you say that?

You're not trying to figure out why they are wrong, you're trying to insinuate and support your conclusion about why they are wrong without making any claims directly. Working backwards from the government and Obama being badong and trying to figure out how the talking points prove that.