New Disclosures on Benghazi

[RandFan]

A.) Why did the CIA include that [the riot] 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.

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.

The elephant in the room. Wishful thinking isn't evidence.

 

[RandFan]

/The Fallacy of Pseudo-refuting Descriptions

Hang on there sparky.

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 without pointing out the errors.

You have been fairly labeled a Conspiracy Theorist because you act like one. You allude to crimes and breaches of ethics without evidence.

You've yet to show a single material fact that demonstrates what the CIA and State Department knew. There is a parsimonious and plausible explanation that does not rely on your conspiracy theory, therefore, it is an adequate label as we have adequately pointed out your error. You are not being labled so as to dismiss you. You are being labeled because you are acting like a conspiracy theorist. You are the only one left of your GOP counterparts who will stomach this vile nonsense.

Try again.

 

[BDBoop]

Hang on there sparky.
You have been fairly labeled a Conspiracy Theorist because you act like one. You allude to crimes and breaches of ethics without evidence.

You've yet to show a single material fact that demonstrates what the CIA and State Department knew. There is a parsimonious and plausible explanation that does not rely on your conspiracy theory, therefore, it is an adequate label as we have adequately pointed out your error. You are not being labled so as to dismiss you. You are being labeled because you are acting like a conspiracy theorist. You are the only one left of your GOP counterparts who will stomach this vile nonsense.

Try again.

He still hasn't provided anything factual? I was gone like a week, and he's still unable to come up with anything documenting his stance?

Wow.

 

[RandFan]

He still hasn't provided anything factual? I was gone like a week, and he's still unable to come up with anything documenting his stance?

Wow.

Last night I went back through the thread to see if I was being a bit unfair. And I'll admit, when the thread first started I was a little quick to dismiss him. Even though there was no mystery there was some possibility something new would come out. I can't find anything of substance no matter how far back I go. It's kinda like reading a script for Rainman. Nuland sucks.

 

[BDBoop]

last night i went back through the thread to see if i was being a bit unfair. And i'll admit, when the thread first started i was a little quick to dismiss him. Even though there was no mystery there was some possibility something new would come out. I can't find anything of substance no matter how far back i go. It's kinda like reading a script for rainman. Nuland sucks.

"jeopardy!"

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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

Why don't you do it for me? I think that my interpretation was reasonable.

2. the CIA identified ansar al sharia as the entity that "conducted" the attack,

When did they make a definitive determination?

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.

And it's been pointed out to you a dozen times that organizations, including the US DoS, hired militias as security forces and that Ansar al Sharia was one of the militias that hired itself out for security.

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.

I didn't claim to know what was in the Jones email and nothing in my post claimed, or even implied, that I do. And this is irrelevant anyway. YOU are the one who is claiming that the Jones email is evidence and I was ASKING YOU what was in the email, what the context was, what the email was in response to.

 

[The Big Dog]

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

Fans of this thread know that this week will be relatively uneventful, seeing as the Holiday was Monday, and next week seems jammed packed.

I thought that a Republican Congressman from South Carolina had a pretty astute comment:

He said the unwillingness of administrations of either party to provide information to Congress is why the scandals are not Democrat versus Republican, but the executive branch versus the legislative branch of the federal government.

Read more: Union Daily Times - Mulvaney Congress will get to the bottom of Benghazi IRS scandals

 

[RandFan]

The dream continues. Somehow. Someway. Somewhere is the evidence to make this a true scandal. Just keep making accusations and refuse to acknowledge facts, you know, like we don't know what the CIA and State Department knew. We do know there was a riot scenario and coordinated attack scenario. Conflicting and contradictory information != knowledge.

 

[The Big Dog]

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

Fans of this thread know that this week will be relatively uneventful, seeing as the Holiday was Monday, and next week seems jammed packed.

I thought that a Republican Congressman from South Carolina had a pretty astute comment:
Read more: Union Daily Times - Mulvaney Congress will get to the bottom of Benghazi IRS scandals

I'm sorry, I thought that at the bottom was a link:

http://www.uniondailytimes.com/view/full_story/22743926/article-Mulvaney--Congress-will-get-to-the-bottom-of-Benghazi--IRS-scandals

 

[A'isha]

I'm sorry, I thought that at the bottom was a link:

http://www.uniondailytimes.com/view/full_story/22743926/article-Mulvaney--Congress-will-get-to-the-bottom-of-Benghazi--IRS-scandals

Thanks for the link.

Mulvaney pointed out that it had been through whistleblowers that the committees — and through them the public — had learned that American military forces in Italy had been prepared to go to Benghazi in response to the attack when the order came from Washington for them to stand down.

It lets us know that Mulvaney has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[RandFan]

Read more: Union Daily Times - Mulvaney Congress will get to the bottom of Benghazi IRS scandals

Doesn't that presume there is a bottom that has not been plumbed? What material evidence is there that there is any more to this story?

 

[BDBoop]

IF he were to answer that question honestly, this thread would end right now.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Hang on there sparky.
You have been fairly labeled a Conspiracy Theorist because you act like one. You allude to crimes and breaches of ethics without evidence.

To some extent, I disagree. I personally have labeled his allegations a conspiracy theory because they are allegations of a conspiracy, not because he has failed to substantiate these allegations with evidence. (He has failed to do so, but that's not what makes it a CT.)

Again, the allegation that the Nixon administration conspired to cover up the break in and planting of bugs is a conspiracy theory that was well substantiated by evidence.

The allegations 16.5 has made here are of a much more serious conspiracy. He said explicitly that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths at Benghazi. As I've pointed out, if it were true, this is a conspiracy to commit treason.

This thread has not produced any discussion of policy, and only a brief discussion of political ramifications of the bogus scandal.

Otherwise, it's been typical CT stuff--who said what when, who knew what when, etc. It's also typical of incredible CTs (like the 9/11 Truther CT) in that it's been characterized by unwillingness to make or stand behind any clear allegations*, lots of JAQing off and insinuations, and simply repeating known falsehoods.

*The reason I keep returning to the assertion made by 16.5 (and Newton's Bit) that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the Benghazi deaths.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In keeping with the spirit and purpose of the thread,

Except you've still failed to give a coherent answer to what the purpose of this thread is. Last time you tried (that I'm aware of anyway), you said part of the purpose of this thread was to examine a quote that you didn't mention at all in the OP.

 

[RandFan]

To some extent, I disagree. I personally have labeled his allegations a conspiracy theory because they are allegations of a conspiracy, not because he has failed to substantiate these allegations with evidence. (He has failed to do so, but that's not what makes it a CT.)

Again, the allegation that the Nixon administration conspired to cover up the break in and planting of bugs is a conspiracy theory that was well substantiated by evidence.

The allegations 16.5 has made here are of a much more serious conspiracy. He said explicitly that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths at Benghazi. As I've pointed out, if it were true, this is a conspiracy to commit treason.

This thread has not produced any discussion of policy, and only a brief discussion of political ramifications of the bogus scandal.

Otherwise, it's been typical CT stuff--who said what when, who knew what when, etc. It's also typical of incredible CTs (like the 9/11 Truther CT) in that it's been characterized by unwillingness to make or stand behind any clear allegations*, lots of JAQing off and insinuations, and simply repeating known falsehoods.

*The reason I keep returning to the assertion made by 16.5 (and Newton's Bit) that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the Benghazi deaths.

Thanks, I accept your qualifications completely.

I have tried to take this seriously. I've said that the allegations deserve a hearing and investigation, even after all of these months. But at some point if you are going to insinuate or claim that Obama or someone in his administration broke a law or committed a serious ethical breach then you need to put up or be labeled a CT.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions so long as those questions aren't simply leading and rhetorical and so long as you accept the facts as they are. To date, AFAIK, 16.5 has never acknowledged that the CIA and State Department had preliminary data and could only come up with their best guesses as to what happened. He has not admitted, again AFAIK, that there was contradictory data and a parsimonious explanation for the removal of one of the talking points.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's nothing wrong with asking questions so long as those questions aren't simply leading and rhetorical and so long as you accept the facts as they are. To date, AFAIK, 16.5 has never acknowledged that the CIA and State Department had preliminary data and could only come up with their best guesses as to what happened. He has not admitted, again AFAIK, that there was contradictory data and a parsimonious explanation for the removal of one of the talking points.

Very good point.

And I'll cede that investigation into a CT that is credible or supported by evidence may well deserve to be discussed in U.S. Politics because it would generate discussion on policy and political ramifications of the CT/scandal. (During the Watergate televised saga, it pretty much *was* the sum total of U.S. political discussion for some time.)

But as you point out, 16.5's thread has none of that.

 

[The Big Dog]

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

Fans of this thread know that we have been talking about what we can expect next week and from the subpoena for documents. We have discussed the Jones email, and the fact that she told the Libyan Ambassador on 9/12 that they knew that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, had an affiliation with "Islamic terrorists" or is it "Islamic terrorists"? Our State Department is quibbling over the word "terrorists" v. "extremists." Yet the State Department refuses to release the actual e-mail!

Jones wrote: September 12 that “the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic (extremists).”

Of course, that is the purpose of the Congressional Hearing, like a trial, to find out who said what when, who knew what when, etc.

 

[RandFan]

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

Do you have a material fact to demonstrate that the Obama administration acted illegally or unethically? Yes? No?

 

[A'isha]

Fans of this thread know that we have been talking about what we can expect next week and from the subpoena for documents. We have discussed the Jones email, and the fact that she told the Libyan Ambassador on 9/12 that they knew that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, had an affiliation with "Islamic terrorists" or is it "Islamic terrorists"? Our State Department is quibbling over the word "terrorists" v. "extremists." Yet they refuse to release the actual e-mail!

Republican Representative Trey Gowdy read the email out loud during one of the hearings. Why doesn't he release the actual email he read?

 

[The Big Dog]

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

Fans of this thread know that we have been talking about the fact that the Ambassador was taken to the hospital that was surrounded by hostile militia. Jones identified them as Ansar al Sharia, as did the CIA. Jones and the CIA identified Ansar Al Sharia as "mounting" or "conducting" the attack. We know that the team that flew from Tripoli to Benghazi made the tactical decision not to go to the hospital.

Tonight we have learned additional details confirming this story, this time from another source.

"The hospital was known to be under the influence of hostile militia and Embassy officials sensed a possible trap, so they opted not to attempt to send a U.S. rescue team now waiting at Benghazi's airport."

The story deals with the retrieval of the Ambassador's body, and contains vivid descriptions of the steps non-extremist Libyans took to assist.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57586952/officials-instructed-benghazi-hospital-to-list-stevens-as-john-doe/