New Disclosures on Benghazi

[RandFan]

Sincere question:

Can you put this in context with the other attacks? Has there been more attacks on diplomatic targets than under other administrations?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

To be fair to 16.5, the "100 deaths" he cited includes the number of casualties among the attackers.

I know. It's still false--or at the very least unsubstantiated--as I've shown.

http://www.libyaherald.com/2012/09/15/no-libyans-died-in-benghazi-attack/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Fatalities_and_injuries

It really would take a huge conspiracy to get the competing news media to keep mum about these 100 deaths.

At this point, the 100 deaths is a wholly unsubstantiated claim.

 

[A'isha]

At this point, the 100 deaths is a wholly unsubstantiated claim.

It's pretty clear he just lifted it from the Wiki cite to Benghazi: the Definitive Report, which in turn cites no sources or anything else for the number.

Anyway, how's this for a "new disclosure" on Benghazi: Louie "terror babies" Gohmert, on Frank "deranged liar" Gaffney's radio show, blamed John McCain for the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's pretty clear he just lifted it from the Wiki cite to Benghazi: the Definitive Report, which in turn cites no sources or anything else for the number.

Anyway, how's this for a "new disclosure" on Benghazi: Louie "terror babies" Gohmert, on Frank "deranged liar" Gaffney's radio show, blamed John McCain for the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans.

I saw that. He actually blamed McCain AND Obama.

He actually makes a pretty good point about Syria though, a place I would be delighted if the USA stayed completely the hell out of.

But that is a whole other thread....

 

[Unabogie]

I have really been trying to focus on the facts, but because the answers are simple to your dismissive and exaggerated post, I will briefly say:

No one is forcing you to care.
no one is forcing you to read.
No one is forcing you to post.

There are lots of other threads. Heck, start you own!

Thanks.

I'm asking you to justify why you think your set of "facts", which is really just haggling over minutiae, are important. Why are they material? Why is it a "scandal" at all? That's the opposite of dismissive. I'm inviting you to convince me, but it seems you aren't interested in laying out your case.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's pretty clear he just lifted it from the Wiki cite to Benghazi: the Definitive Report, which in turn cites no sources or anything else for the number.

And disagrees with all other sources including large media companies who are fierce competitors. As I said, this claim requires an absurdly huge conspiracy of silence such that only that one unsubstantiated source is correct and everyone else is wrong.

Or has 16.5 retracted the claim?

And again, what about the claim that the Obama administration overly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths? Whether 4 or 104 deaths, this claim is still huge. If it were true, it would easily be an impeachable crime. In fact, it'd be the crime of treason for the Obama administration to shield someone who was responsible for an armed attack against a U.S. diplomatic facility.

There's a lot of quibbling over trivial matters (what exactly did the memos say about the talking points the day after the attack? was the preliminary assessment correct? etc.) while ignoring this really big allegation.

I'll happily drop my harping on this if 16.5 would simply retract the allegation and admit that it's not true.

 

[RandFan]

And disagrees with all other sources including large media companies who are fierce competitors. As I said, this claim requires an absurdly huge conspiracy of silence such that only that one unsubstantiated source is correct and everyone else is wrong.

Or has 16.5 retracted the claim?

I could be wrong and I apologize for any cynicism but this thread doesn't appear to be about finding the truth. "New disclosures" seems to actually just be repackaged rumors, speculation, baseless allegations and aspersions.

I don't think there is anything to be gained by those who are propagating scandal by being intellectually honest.

 

[RandFan]

I'm asking you to justify why you think your set of "facts", which is really just haggling over minutiae, are important. Why are they material? Why is it a "scandal" at all? That's the opposite of dismissive. I'm inviting you to convince me, but it seems you aren't interested in laying out your case.

At this point I'm quite confident there is no case to be made. Throughout this thread the skeptics have had to ask over and over for sources and explanations only to have them ignored or dismissed.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well a busy Saturday over, we have time to catch up on things.

First, the 100 dead terrorists number was taken from a book, cited above. It appears to be the only estimate I've found. It never occurred to me that people would really care how many terrorist were killed given that it was less than all. You got a better figure, go for it!

Second, people deflect responsibility for lots of reasons short of treason, and there are different types of responsibility shrt of intentional treason. Here they wanted to deflect responsibility because they were grossly incompetent, because their soft foot print theory was silly, and because they wanted to win an electon. An investigation is ongoing.

By he way, calling yourself a skeptic in a "politics" thread is hilarious, doubly so when one is fanatically partisan and endeavoring to disrupt the thread.

This thread is primarily to discuss facts in an ongoing investigation.

 

[elbe]

This thread is primarily to discuss facts in an ongoing investigation.

Not really. It's pretty much just you reposting the same things over and over again.

 

[RandFan]

This thread is primarily to discuss facts in an ongoing investigation.

It would be nice if that were true and not simply a means to argue ad nauseam and to cast aspersions on the administration. And I'm NOT a partisan. I'm actively involved in documenting liberal craziness. I grew up a conservative and I'm an independent.

Ad hominem poisoning the well is a fallacy.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not really. It's pretty much just you reposting the same things over and over again.

Well I tried this week to post articles published within the last 12 hours, many of which confirmed facts we already knew (thanks to this thread!). We knew it was going to be a slow week, but next week should be a popcorn machine of facts served hot and fresh in this thread!

Keep reading, you might learn something!

 

[elbe]

Well I tried this week to post articles published within the last 12 hours, many of which confirmed facts we already knew (thanks to this thread!). We knew it was going to be a slow week, but next week should be a popcorn machine of facts served hot and fresh in this thread!

Keep reading, you might learn something!

How is posting articles with only already known information possibly helpful?

 

[RandFan]

Well I tried this week to post articles published within the last 12 hours, many of which confirmed facts we already knew

That's what you call it? How is that helpful?

(thanks to this thread!). We knew it was going to be a slow week, but next week should be a popcorn machine of facts served hot and fresh in this thread!

Sure.

Facts about what? What do you think this little fishing trip will eventually lead?

 

[The Big Dog]

How is posting articles with only already known information possibly helpful?

Looks around... Who said they only had known information?

Most of them had new information, and confirmed old information that we've already discussed, or had new sources.

The fantastic thing about this thread is that we have probably already discussed facts that are breaking news to most people!

 

[The Big Dog]

It would be nice if that were true and not simply a means to argue ad nauseam and to cast aspersions on the administration. And I'm NOT a partisan. I'm actively involved in documenting liberal craziness. I grew up a conservative and I'm an independent.

Ad hominem poisoning the well is a fallacy.

With all due respect, referring to yourself as "the skeptics" in a thread, and claiming that you are an independent is actually fallacious, and opens up your objectivity to question.

 

[RandFan]

With all due respect, referring to yourself as "the skeptics" in a thread, and claiming that you are an independent is actually fallacious, and opens up your objectivity to question.

How is it fallacious? I'm skeptical of your claims. I've asked you repeatedly to outline what the scandal is and you refuse to. Since this thread started you have not provided a single material fact to demonstrate that the CIA and/or the State Department knew what the facts were. You have not addressed the conflicting data present in every draft and final memo.

There is no mystery here. You keep the thread alive by spamming the thread with the same minutiae you've been posting since the start.

 

[RandFan]

Looks around... Who said they only had known information?

Most of them had new information, and confirmed old information that we've already discussed, or had new sources.

The fantastic thing about this thread is that we have probably already discussed facts that are breaking news to most people!

Bullet the new information?

 

[A'isha]

Here they wanted to deflect responsibility because they were grossly incompetent, because their soft foot print theory was silly, and because they wanted to win an electon.

How, exactly, was this supposed to have helped them win the election? Why did the White House explicitly clear the version of the memo that contained the information about al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia if its removal was deliberately engineered a part of an electioneering scheme? Were the CIA, FBI, and DOJ also in on this electioneering scheme?

An investigation is ongoing.

No, there's no investigation going on at all.

 

[RandFan]

How, exactly, was this supposed to have helped them win the election? Why did the White House explicitly clear the version of the memo that contained the information about al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia if its removal was deliberately engineered a part of an electioneering scheme? Were the CIA, FBI, and DOJ also in on this electioneering scheme?

The conspiracy widens.