New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
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 short 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 election. 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.
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
Face palm. Why do I bother......
Click to expand...

I'm guessing we are going to get another "I never noticed that before..."
 
I've already responded to this, but if that's all you've got, I'll do it again.

16.5 said:
First, the 100 dead terrorists number was taken from a book, cited above.
Click to expand...
The only source you've given for this unsubstantiated claim is a partisan book that itself doesn't substantiate this claim.

It appears to be the only estimate I've found.
Click to expand...
What a weird thing to say. It conflicts with the numbers provided by all other sources, and again, the fact that all the news agencies are not saying any terrorists was killed is not consistent with the claim that 100 terrorists were killed.

It never occurred to me that people would really care how many terrorist were killed given that it was less than all.
Click to expand...
You used this figure in response to the challenge asking what is exceptional or scandalous about this attack compared to all the other attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities which warrants the extra scrutiny to this attack.

So in fact you are the one trying to assert this claim as significant. It's not only up to you to substantiate the claim, it's also up to you (and not anyone else) to say why it's so significant that it warrants closer scrutiny.

You got a better figure, go for it!
Click to expand...
Already done. The death and injury tallies in the attack are as follows: 4 dead and 10 injured. The 10 injured include 7 Libyans.

Second, people deflect responsibility for lots of reasons short of treason, and there are different types of responsibility shrt of intentional treason.
Click to expand...

Again, your claim was that the Obama administration lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths--not just any arm-waving generic "responsibility". Overly lying to deflect responsibility for the deaths of U.S. agents in an armed assault on a U.S. diplomatic facility would in fact be 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.
Click to expand...
That's not the claim I'm challenging. But here you make 3 other unsubstantiated claims. I challenge you to substantiate or retract them as well.

This thread is primarily to discuss facts in an ongoing investigation.
What recent developments in the ongoing investigation led you to make these claims that I'm challenging?
Click to expand...
 
Yes, we already know that the Benghazi dog-and-pony show has nothing to do with any actual investigation and is solely aimed at bringing down Clinton in advance of the 2016 Presidential race.
 
Although the State department released a handful of documents, and Obama went on the talk shows and justified his promotion of rice this weekend, it has been strangely silent on the investigation front.

I wonder if some other news worthy scandals have dominated the conversation this week!?!

Keep tuning in for the finest summary of developments on benghazi on the tubes, right here on jref!
 
16.5 said:
Although the State department released a handful of documents, and Obama went on the talk shows and justified his promotion of rice this weekend, it has been strangely silent on the investigation front.
Click to expand...

Strangely silent? What's strange about it? Other than your unsubstantiated claims there have been no actual new developments.

Is this why you also think the fact that none of the mainstream news reported any terrorists killed in the Benghazi attacks somehow substantiates your claim that 100 of them were killed?
 
As the Obama administration gears up its defense in the NSA scandal, it trots out the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to claim that the special forces team that the senior American official in Libya requested go to benghazi to help secure the evacuation was held back in tripoli because one of them was a medic!

I guess the American special forces armed with pistols was too silly even for the straight ticket democrat voter to stomach huh?
 
16.5 said:
As the Obama administration gears up its defense in the NSA scandal, it trots out the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to claim that the special forces team that the senior American official in Libya requested go to benghazi to help secure the evacuation was held back in tripoli because one of them was a medic!

I guess the American special forces armed with pistols was too silly even for the straight ticket democrat voter to stomach huh?
Click to expand...

So, are all of your "new disclosures" going to be things we've already known for a while? Because we talked about the fact that one of those four special forces operatives was a medic (who had a broken foot in a cast) last month. You yourself posted about that, in fact...have you forgotten your own words already?
 
16.5 said:
I thought this opinion piece had some pretty informative facts regarding the pre-attack security situation in Benghazi:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/17/benghazi-a-consequence-of-misplaced-priorities-not-lack-of-funding/

Enjoy
Click to expand...

A whine written by the very tool who voted to cut State Department security funding about how the State Department didn't take money from other places to cover the security funding shortfall caused by his cuts? Published on Tucker Carlson's website of fail?

Yeah, no.
 
ANTPogo said:
So, are all of your "new disclosures" going to be things we've already known for a while? Because we talked about the fact that one of those four special forces operatives was a medic (who had a broken foot in a cast) last month. You yourself posted about that, in fact...have you forgotten your own words already?
Click to expand...

And why won't 16.5 answer my question about the connection between allegedly "new disclosures" and the unsubstantiated (and unretracted) claims he's made in this thread.

The only reason I can think of is that he thinks his own posts making these claims weren't at all connected to any "new developments" about Benghazi. If that's the case, then it makes a strong argument that his current claim that the thread is only about "new developments" is false.

If it's false, that raises the oft-asked question, "What is this thread about?

I suggest again it's about trying to create a scandal where there is none.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
And why won't 16.5 answer my question about the connection between allegedly "new disclosures" and the unsubstantiated (and unretracted) claims he's made in this thread.

The only reason I can think of is that he thinks his own posts making these claims weren't at all connected to any "new developments" about Benghazi. If that's the case, then it makes a strong argument that his current claim that the thread is only about "new developments" is false.

If it's false, that raises the oft-asked question, "What is this thread about?

I suggest again it's about trying to create a scandal where there is none.
Click to expand...

Joe:

I have answered your question. I substantiated the claim. We understand that you moved the goalposts and declared that you were unhappy with the substantiation. You have since then attempted to disrupt the thread by posting the same claim repeatedly.

The reason I posted the 100 dead terrorist claim to respond to a person who was spamming a tu quoque graphic. I note that you did not take him to task for doing that.

After I outed him as making a mockery of the thread, he wisely left.

I understand that you intend to persist. It is what you do.

Any comments about the article or the testimony last week?
 
Admiral Mike Mullen, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and co-chair of the Accountability Review Board (ARB) will sit for a closed door interview before the House Oversight Committee Wednesday morning. Ambassador Thomas Pickering sat for his interview a few weeks ago.

The Open Testimony will follow later this summer.
 
16.5 said:
Joe:

I have answered your question. I substantiated the claim. We understand that you moved the goalposts and declared that you were unhappy with the substantiation. You have since then attempted to disrupt the thread by posting the same claim repeatedly.

The reason I posted the 100 dead terrorist claim to respond to a person who was spamming a tu quoque graphic. I note that you did not take him to task for doing that.

After I outed him as making a mockery of the thread, he wisely left.

I understand that you intend to persist. It is what you do.

Any comments about the article or the testimony last week?
Click to expand...

Finally! My day is never complete until I read a post in which 16.5 ducks questions and challenges.

Incidentally, the discussion of whether the State Dept. properly allocated security forces to Benghazi hardly qualifies as a "new disclosure". At least not for the rest of us.

We still have a shot at 2500 posts in this thread, which would be an impressive total for a thread that consists of little more than a discussion about what the discussion is about.
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
Finally! My day is never complete until I read a post in which 16.5 ducks questions and challenges.

Incidentally, the discussion of whether the State Dept. properly allocated security forces to Benghazi hardly qualifies as a "new disclosure". At least not for the rest of us.
Click to expand...

And mine is not until you attack the arguer.

"At least not for the rest of us.... Sniff."

Thanks for posting.
 
16.5 said:
I thought this opinion piece had some pretty informative facts regarding the pre-attack security situation in Benghazi:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/17/benghazi-a-consequence-of-misplaced-priorities-not-lack-of-funding/

Enjoy
Click to expand...

You see those two bolded words? Facts are things that not all people have. Opinions? Well I am sure you know the old saying about them.
And that yutz is the furthest thing possible from an unbiased source apart from Issa himself writing an "opinion piece".
 
16.5 said:
Keep tuning in for the finest summary of developments on benghazi on the tubes, right here on jref!
Click to expand...

Can you provide a link to that thread? This one seems to contain nothing but old news, disproven rumors, and repetitive claims.
And someone addressing an imaginary audience of "folks" much like BeALoser used to do.
 
Ausmerican said:
You see those two bolded words? Facts are things that not all people have. Opinions? Well I am sure you know the old saying about them.
And that yutz is the furthest thing possible from an unbiased source apart from Issa himself writing an "opinion piece".
Click to expand...

Are you really saying that an opinion piece cannot have facts cited therein?

That is fascinating. Please tell me more about how the facts cited in the article are not there.

We are all ears and eyes!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom