New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

This one had me rolling on the floor laughing. You've been claiming that the only intel available was the interview with 5 survivors and then you have the audacity to claim that my suggestion that there might have been other information available was actually a claim that only the CIA had any information on what happened.



And just what "institutional knowledge" was what?



This has what to do with what?

While you were rolling around the floor laughing, you should have read the thread.

The claim that I said the only intell available was the interviews is pants on head ridiculous.

How about the fact that he cia identified ansar al sharia at he hospital. How about the fact that Liz jones identified ansar al sharia in an email to the Libyans. The fact that hicks identified them?

I never expected such seething partisan apologists on jref.

Never.

And we have not even begun talking about the fact that they kept telling the lie after even the simplest people knew it was nonsense, and then lied and said it was the best intelligence available.

We'll pick that up tomorrow.

 

[RandFan]

We'll pick that up tomorrow.

Oh good, then you can tell us how you know what the CIA "knew" and how you know what The State Department "knew"?

I'm guessing it's just making **** up because it seems unlikely you can read minds. It should be noted we've been asking this question of you for a long time and you've been ignoring it for a long time.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So. . . has this thread started generating discussion of policy matters yet? Or is it still in CT mode?

 

[RandFan]

So. . . has this thread started generating discussion of policy matters yet? Or is it still in CT mode?

It's run its course. Reasonable republicans jumped ship pages ago. It's entertaining to see how long someone can run a con while holding a straight face.

 

[The Big Dog]

So. . . has this thread started generating discussion of policy matters yet? Or is it still in CT mode?

Well, the whole thread jacking ct stuff ain't sticking.

News about congressional hearing being a conspiracy theory?

Lolz.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's run its course. Reasonable republicans jumped ship pages ago. It's entertaining to see how long someone can run a con while holding a straight face.

This from the guy who claimed that when he sent that there was contradictory "data" supporting the talking points claimed that he meant that the talking points were the contradictory data.

Partisan apologist gonna apologize.

Tomorrow we'll focus on why our government stuck to their silly story about a nonexistent protest.

 

[qayak]

This from the guy who claimed that when he sent that there was contradictory "data" supporting the talking points claimed that he meant that the talking points were the contradictory data.

Partisan apologist gonna apologize.

Tomorrow we'll focus on why our government stuck to their silly story about a nonexistent protest.

More interesting would be why you can't let this fabricated story go but I am sure it would take a huge team of doctors, a few new designations in the DSM and an endless supply of couches to sort through that.

 

[RandFan]

This from the guy who claimed that when he sent that there was contradictory "data" supporting the talking points claimed that he meant that the talking points were the contradictory data.

Partisan apologist gonna apologize.

Tomorrow we'll focus on why our government stuck to their silly story about a nonexistent protest.

It IS data. You can hand wave all you want but it's a fact that there were two seemingly contradictory scenarios. You have refused to account for both and you have refused to accept that you cannot know what the CIA "knew" or what the State Department "Knew".

In all of this time you've failed to give a single material fact to demonstrate that this was anything other than the fog of war. Nothing. Nada Zip. Rice said it was preliminary and that's all it was. Hindsight doesn't make you a mind reader.

So you can make jokes about data but it IS DATA. Saying that it isn't is just gainsaying. It's childish.

Have you found a smoking gun yet? No. Okay. So you've got nothing.

 

[The Big Dog]

More interesting would be why you can't let this fabricated story go but I am sure it would take a huge team of doctors, a few new designations in the DSM and an endless supply of couches to sort through that.

The fabricated story being the claim that the attack spontaneously arose out of a non existent protest outside the consulate?

Which of course was untrue? There was no protest, and the claim that there was being based on the best intelligence available being an abject lie? You mean that?

You meant the goverment's fabrications right? Of course you did.

Hell they called themselves idiots, the least a few skeptics can do is hold their feet to the fire right?

Great post, thanks for your support.

 

[RandFan]

The fabricated story being the claim that the attack spontaneously arose out of a non existent protest outside the consulate?

A.) Why did the CIA include that in the initial draft and all of the subsequent drafts? B.) Demonstrate that the CIA knew they were lying. Demonstrate that the State Department knew the CIA was lying.

Which of course was untrue? There was no protest, and the claim that there was being based on the best intelligence available being an abject lie?

Best intelligence doesn't mean absolute truth and you haven't demonstrated that they knew was was accurate and what wasn't you are just speculating.

Until you can point to a material fact that demonstrate either the CIA and/or State Department knew the riot was false you have absolutely nothing and many, if not most of your posts are the stuff of the conspiracy theorists.

You be sure to let us all know when you have that material fact.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

While you were rolling around the floor laughing, you should have read the thread.

The claim that I said the only intell available was the interviews is pants on head ridiculous.

Do you remember saying

that leaves us with:

testimony of the five agents that were evacuated from Benghazi, v. nothing.

?

How about the fact that he cia identified ansar al sharia at he hospital.

That has been explained several times. A number of militias, including Ansar al Sharia, were used for security by various organizations in Benghazi. A Libyan militia was even used to guard the US diplomatic mission.

How about the fact that Liz jones identified ansar al sharia in an email to the Libyans. The fact that hicks identified them?

It still hasn't been established what role Ansar al Sharia played in the attack, but you're claiming that these people had definitive evidence the day after the attack? What was the context of Liz Jones' statement? Did she claim to know or was she responding to a suggestion by a Libyan official?

And we have not even begun talking about the fact that they kept telling the lie after even the simplest people knew it was nonsense, and then lied and said it was the best intelligence available.

There's only one person who has been shown to be posting claims in this thread that are known to be untrue and repeated some of those claims even after they had been debunked.

 

[The Big Dog]

1. Do you remember saying


?



2. That has been explained several times. A number of militias, including Ansar al Sharia, were used for security by various organizations in Benghazi. A Libyan militia was even used to guard the US diplomatic mission.



3. It still hasn't been established what role Ansar al Sharia played in the attack, but you're claiming that these people had definitive evidence the day after the attack? What was the context of Liz Jones' statement? Did she claim to know or was she responding to a suggestion by a Libyan official?



4.There's only one person who has been shown to be posting claims in this thread that are known to be untrue and repeated some of those claims even after they had been debunked.

1. grossly misleading, go back and quote the entire posts and the ones leading up to it. tsk tsk tsk.

2. the CIA identified ansar al sharia as the entity that "conducted" the attack, and because that militia as surrounding the hospital, the team from the airport decided not to go there. I've said this a dozen times.

3. you don't know what the jones email said or its content, and you are accusing me of posting things that are untrue? Un-***********-believble. It has been posted by me a dozen times in this thread. Read it.

4. see above. Do some research of your own, and for gods sake stop swallowing the partisan nonsense from the hoard.

 

[A'isha]

Needs more "WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!!"

 

[Upchurch]

Needs more "WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!!"

er... Isn't that what 16.5 just said?

4. see above. Do some research of your own, and for gods sake stop swallowing the partisan nonsense from the hoard.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In fact, the only one I can really think of is the transition from British to Americ

Well, the whole thread jacking ct stuff ain't sticking.

What does that mean? By "ain't sticking" do you mean that most people here don't accept the idea that what you're pushing (largely through just-asking-questions, insinuation, and the like) is a CT? If so, not only is that the bandwagon fallacy, it's also false.

The fact is, it is a CT you're pushing.

You've even gone so far as to claim that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths at Benghazi.

Even if you had evidence to support this extraordinary claim, it would still be a conspiracy theory. (As I noted earlier, the truth value of a claim isn't what determines whether or not it's a conspiracy theory.)

News about congressional hearing being a conspiracy theory?

What does that mean?

Again, I think you're trying to insinuate something without making a claim or allegation that you need to defend.

Are you saying Issa's hearing is evidence that this isn't a conspiracy theory? If so, what is the logical connection? There were Congressional hearings into Watergate, the Iran-Contra deal, etc., and yet those were conspiracy theories (that turned out to be true).

 

[The Big Dog]

In keeping with the spirit and purpose of the thread, the very latest:

Congress has issued a subpoena to the State Department seeking documents relating to the Benghazi attack:

Nuland, Deputy Secretary William Burns, Elizabeth Dibble, principle deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs; Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs; Patrick Kennedy, under secretary for management; and Cheryl Mills, counselor and chief of staff to Clinton, were among those named in the subpoena.

Congress has given the State Department until June 7 to comply.

I am particularly interested in the documents relating to Jones' email regarding her discussion with the Libyans during which she told them that Ansar al Sharia conducted the attacks, and the documents relating to Kennedy's decision to stand down FEST.

It looks like next week is shaping up to be a big week for all the fans of this thread, what with Pickering scheduled for his interview on the 3rd and the documents due next Friday. I am not aware of the schedule for the other interviews.

/The Fallacy of Pseudo-refuting Descriptions

The art of labeling an argument in a dismissive fashion being used as an argument in and of itself. Ex: Labeling an argument as a conspiracy theory

 

[elbe]

What does that mean? By "ain't sticking" do you mean that most people here don't accept the idea that what you're pushing (largely through just-asking-questions, insinuation, and the like) is a CT? If so, not only is that the bandwagon fallacy, it's also false.

It's not sticking because he's ignoring it and just keeps reposting the same things over and over again.

 

[A'isha]

In keeping with the spirit and purpose of the thread, the very latest:

Congress has issued a subpoena to the State Department seeking documents relating to the Benghazi attack:

Nuland, Deputy Secretary William Burns, Elizabeth Dibble, principle deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs; Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs; Patrick Kennedy, under secretary for management; and Cheryl Mills, counselor and chief of staff to Clinton, were among those named in the subpoena.

Congress has given the State Department until June 7 to comply.

Undeterred by the fact that 8 months and numerous hearings have not uncovered any scandal regarding Benghazi, Issa's determined to keep fishing until he finds something, I see.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's not sticking because he's ignoring it and just keeps reposting the same things over and over again.

It is not "sticking" because I'm sure that most people recognize that dismissive labeling is fallacious.

 

[RandFan]

It is not "sticking" because I'm sure that most people recognize that dismissive labeling is fallacious.

During the Bush administration, as much as it hurt me, I owned up to the lies and incompetence. I still supported him. If there was a real story here I'd be all over it. I'm not an Obama sycophant. He upsets me about a lot of things.

You have one problem. There is absolutely nothing to this story that warrants anyone's care. There is no material fact that demonstrates what was known. There is a parsimonious explanation that doesn't require going crazy. That's why all of your former GOP supporters in this thread have abandoned you.

It's a political witch hunt. Nothing more.