New Disclosures on Benghazi

[Ausmerican]

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!

Is that what I said? No, it isn't. The thing is, and this looks like you it may be hard for you to understand based on this thread, but facts require evidence to back them up. Opinions don't. That is why an opinion piece, especially from a totally biased source, is not a place any intelligent skeptic would look for facts.
And there you go speaking for your adorable imaginary audience again. Or are you using the royal 'we'?

 

[The Big Dog]

Is that what I said? No, it isn't. The thing is, and this looks like you it may be hard for you to understand based on this thread, but facts require evidence to back them up. Opinions don't. That is why an opinion piece, especially from a totally biased source, is not a place any intelligent skeptic would look for facts.
And there you go speaking for your adorable imaginary audience again. Or are you using the royal 'we'?

Ya gonna address the facts, or they too adorable for you?

You are just going to avoid addressing the substance and flex your snark muscles, aren't you?

Yawn.

 

[Ausmerican]

Ya gonna address the facts, or they too adorable for you?

You are just going to avoid addressing the substance and flex your snark muscles, aren't you?

Yawn.

Someone REALLY ought to post that exploding irony meter for that post.

You mean, exactly like YOU have been doing for nearly 60 pages now?
What now? Another 60 pages of rehashing old news and pretending outrage?

Yawn right back at ya.

 

[The Big Dog]

Just thought I'd roll out some facts:

In her testimony before the Oversight Committee last October, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb answered definitively that the 2012 budget cuts did not factor in to her decision to deny security requests. Moreover, an email exchange between Assistant Secretary Eric Boswell and Diplomatic Security Chief Financial Officer Robert Baldre dated September 28, 2012 reads, “I do not feel that we have ever been at a point where we sacrificed security due to a lack of funding. … Typically Congress has provided sufficient funding.”

The team was funded by the Department of Defense. Yet it was pulled from Libya five weeks before the attacks. From mid-March through the attacks, the number of permanently assigned American security personnel in Benghazi never exceeded three, and occasionally dropped to as low as one, despite the fact that the approved plan for Benghazi called for five permanently assigned diplomatic security agents.

Looking forward to dismissive, smart-ass responses.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

And mine is not until you attack the arguer.

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

Just making the observation that you seem to be the only person for whom this was a "new disclosure". Which seems relevant since you claim this thread is about "new disclosures", something that is sorely lacking in its content.

Thanks for posting.

My pleasure. Any time.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Just thought I'd roll out some facts:

In her testimony before the Oversight Committee last October, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb answered definitively that the 2012 budget cuts did not factor in to her decision to deny security requests. Moreover, an email exchange between Assistant Secretary Eric Boswell and Diplomatic Security Chief Financial Officer Robert Baldre dated September 28, 2012 reads, “I do not feel that we have ever been at a point where we sacrificed security due to a lack of funding. … Typically Congress has provided sufficient funding.”

The team was funded by the Department of Defense. Yet it was pulled from Libya five weeks before the attacks. From mid-March through the attacks, the number of permanently assigned American security personnel in Benghazi never exceeded three, and occasionally dropped to as low as one, despite the fact that the approved plan for Benghazi called for five permanently assigned diplomatic security agents.

Looking forward to dismissive, smart-ass responses.

[smart-ass response]This is important because? As I pointed out earlier, Ambassador Stevens was twice offered a security detail by the US Army and he twice turned down the offer. Obviously, Ambassador Stevens did not deem the security to be inadequate.[/smart-ass response]

 

[The Big Dog]

Just making the observation that you seem to be the only person for whom this was a "new disclosure". Which seems relevant since you claim this thread is about "new disclosures", something that is sorely lacking in its content.

My pleasure. Any time.

You seem to be speaking for everyone. Well make sure everyone knows that the article was published yesterday, and make sure that you let everyone know that you already knew that the State Department completely dropped the ball about the security situation in Benghazi.

Telly knew that.

Say, maybe that is why the State Department under Clinton slaughtered the talking points down to useless pablum?

Oh hell, you probably already knew that!

Thanks for posting!

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

You seem to be speaking for everyone. Well make sure everyone knows that the article was published yesterday,

It took me all of about 5 seconds with Google to find discussions of this issue from within a few weeks of the attack. It isn't new news to anyone but you.

and make sure that you let everyone know that you already knew that the State Department completely dropped the ball about the security situation in Benghazi.

How does this indicate any sort of conspiracy about anything?

Given that Ambassador Stevens, who was actually in Libya, twice turned down an offer of Army troops for security (a fact that you conveniently choose to ignore), what is the basis for believing that the danger in Benghazi was apparent?

Say, maybe that is why the State Department under Clinton slaughtered the talking points down to useless pablum?

You're saying so doesn't make it true. Are you EVER going to present ANY evidence that the talking points were knowingly dishonest? We're approaching 60 pages in this thread, and you have yet to provide anything that shows that they knew that the talking points were wrong.

Oh hell, you probably already knew that!

What I do know is that you continually refuse to provide any support for any of your claims.

Thanks for posting!

You're very welcome.

 

[The Big Dog]

Given that Ambassador Stevens, who was actually in Libya, twice turned down an offer of Army troops for security (a fact that you conveniently choose to ignore), what is the basis for believing that the danger in Benghazi was apparent?

Yeah, I saw that you mentioned that, and I thought, "wow, is he REALLY playing the Blame the Victim card?" I thought, no way, but it appears you are.

The reason that Stevens rejected the offers was because his bosses told him to:

“There were certainly robust debates between State and Defense officials over the mission and controlling authority of such forces. The lack of discussion by the public ARB report about the role inter-agency tension played in a lack of security resources remains a significant concern of the Oversight Committee.”

One person familiar with the events said Stevens rejected the offers because there was an understanding within the State Department that officials in Libya ought not to request more security, in part because of concerns about the political fallout of seeking a larger military presence in a country that was still being touted as a foreign policy success.

“The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct requests for security.”

This news came out the months ago! It isn't new news to anyone but you.
lolz

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

that the State Department completely dropped the ball about the security situation in Benghazi.

Please define "dropped the ball". Is it the same as overtly lying to deflect responsibility for the deaths?

Was the ball similarly dropped in all the other attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities, or is there something unique that happened wrt Benghazi?

 

[The Big Dog]

Please define "dropped the ball". Is it the same as overtly lying to deflect responsibility for the deaths?

Was the ball similarly dropped in all the other attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities, or is there something unique that happened wrt Benghazi?

Well as to the first question, you might want to take that up with Telly, who said:

"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." So that is how I define dropping the ball.

As far as the attacks on other diplomatic facilities, boy howdy, that is a wee bit outside the scope of this thread, don't ya think? I mean, for Pete's Sake, just trying to get a handle on the attacks on diplomatic facilities and personnel during the Obama administration alone is a massive undertaking!

I'd suggest that you start a new thread, and work your way backwards. Start with the death of Anne Smedinghoff in April 2013.

God Speed!

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Yeah, I saw that you mentioned that, and I thought, "wow, is he REALLY playing the Blame the Victim card?" I thought, no way, but it appears you are.

No, I'm simply pointing out the FACT that Ambassador Stevens twice turned down an offer for more security. I realize that to you facts are less important than vague statements that you can interpret in whatever way that you think supports your claims.

The reason that Stevens rejected the offers was because his bosses told him to:

“There were certainly robust debates between State and Defense officials over the mission and controlling authority of such forces. The lack of discussion by the public ARB report about the role inter-agency tension played in a lack of security resources remains a significant concern of the Oversight Committee.”

Ah, yes, Proof By Innuendo (or Proof By Weasel Words?). A vague quote made by a spokesman for Rep. Issa hardly amounts to evidence. In fact, the vagueness implies that there was no substance behind the statement; otherwise, there was no reason not to make a more specific statement.

One person familiar with the events said Stevens rejected the offers because there was an understanding within the State Department that officials in Libya ought not to request more security, in part because of concerns about the political fallout of seeking a larger military presence in a country that was still being touted as a foreign policy success.

“The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct requests for security.”

More vague statements, this time from an unnamed source. Especially if you read the article and see the words that you left out of your post. Why did you leave "might have" out of "Stevens MIGHT HAVE rejected the offers"?

And how does this relate at all to any sort of conspiracy or cover-up? There were concerns about terrorist attacks before 9/11 but airport security was not increased, not even to the level that it had typically been increased to during the Christmas season. Does that imply some sort of conspiracy on the part of the Bush Administration?

 

[The Big Dog]

More vague statements, this time from an unnamed source. Especially if you read the article and see the words that you left out of your post. Why did you leave "might have" out of "Stevens MIGHT HAVE rejected the offers"?

And how does this relate at all to any sort of conspiracy or cover-up? There were concerns about terrorist attacks before 9/11 but airport security was not increased, not even to the level that it had typically been increased to during the Christmas season. Does that imply some sort of conspiracy on the part of the Bush Administration?

“The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct requests for security.”

Seems pretty clear to me.

Funny that the ARB report didn't mention these issues, hmmmm?

Sounds like we need an investigation!

'And how does this relate at all to any sort of conspiracy or cover-up?" lolz! YOU BROUGHT IT UP.

 

[The Big Dog]

Of course, Stevens decision not to ask the DoD for GI's on the ground (while at the same time repeatedly requesting additional security from his own State department) is consistent with Obama administration’s insistence on a “soft footprint” – no US military on the ground – in Libya after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi.

Clearly that is a another fact that shows that the Administration and Hillary were potentially responsible for the tragedy, and why they were so quick to embrace the farcical protest claims and to neuter the talking points.

Thanks for making this important point Telly.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

“The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct requests for security.”

Seems pretty clear to me.

What seems pretty clear to you? Who made this statement? What is the statement based on? What are these "back channels"?

Funny that the ARB report didn't mention these issues, hmmmm?

Or telling. As in there wasn't anything to them. Proof By Choosing The Interpretation Most Favorable To A Claim is not a valid method of argumentation.

Sounds like we need an investigation!

There have been plenty of investigations. Both G. Hicks and Gen. Ham were available to answer questions. The Republicans declined. Why?

'And how does this relate at all to any sort of conspiracy or cover-up?" lolz! YOU BROUGHT IT UP.

Oh, then this thread isn't about any sort of conspiracy or cover-up by the Obama Administration. Rather, it's just an opportunity for you to show off how many blogs you read?

 

[The Big Dog]

There have been plenty of investigations. Both G. Hicks and Gen. Ham were available to answer questions. The Republicans declined. Why?

Declined? Hicks testified, and he wasn't even involved. General Ham is scheduled to testify on June 26.

Is that news to you?

"Funny that the ARB report didn't mention these issues, hmmmm?
Or telling. As in there wasn't anything to them. Proof By Choosing The Interpretation Most Favorable To A Claim is not a valid method of argumentation."

Yeah, that is telling that the ARB didn't mention that DoD's offer to Stevens. Very telling!

 

[A'isha]

Declined? Hicks testified, and he wasn't even on the call.

I'm still curious as to why, if the Republicans on the Committee are really interested in exposing the errors and near-criminal incompetence among State Department and Administration officials that resulted in the attacks and the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three others, they didn't ask Hicks to explain the fact that even though he was in charge at Embassy Tripoli in Stevens' absence and thus fully responsible for the reactions and responses of the entire staff there, he was too busy watching TV on the night of the anniversary of 9/11 while Stevens was staying in a dangerous city without adequate security to even notice he received two phone calls from the Ambassador under attack, and didn't even learn about the attacks until other embassy staffers came to his home to tell him about them.

Don't you think Hicks should answer for his actions (or total lack thereof) when the attack happened, 16.5?

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm still curious as to why, if the Republicans on the Committee are really interested in exposing the errors and near-criminal incompetence among State Department and Administration officials that resulted in the attacks and the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three others, they didn't ask Hicks to explain the fact that even though he was in charge at Embassy Tripoli in Stevens' absence and thus fully responsible for the reactions and responses of the entire staff there, he was too busy watching TV on the night of the anniversary of 9/11 while Stevens was staying in a dangerous city without adequate security to even notice he received two phone calls from the Ambassador under attack, and didn't even learn about the attacks until other embassy staffers came to his home to tell him about them.

Don't you think Hicks should answer for his actions (or total lack thereof) when the attack happened, 16.5?

Wow, that is breathtaking in its cynicism. But if you want to blame one guy, Ant, why Hicks? I know you have seething contempt for him, and consider him an idiot, but my question is how many phone calls did Obama miss that night?

I wasn't as if Hicks could have ordered the immediate dispatch of Military Forces, like Obama could have. I understand he was told the attacks were going on and then retired to his private quarters for the entire night.

Maybe he watched a little TV up there ANT? Oh hell, we'll never know, right?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Declined? Hicks testified, and he wasn't even involved.

Wasn't even involved in what? Stevens may or may not have mentioned the offers to Hicks. No one asked Hicks if Stevens had mentioned them. Was that because it wouldn't have fit the Republican narrative?

"Funny that the ARB report didn't mention these issues, hmmmm?
Or telling. As in there wasn't anything to them. Proof By Choosing The Interpretation Most Favorable To A Claim is not a valid method of argumentation."

Yeah, that is telling that the ARB didn't mention that DoD's offer to Stevens. Very telling!

What is telling about it? The ARB report faulted the State Dept. for not providing better security. How does it help your side to know that Ambassador Stevens turned down an offer from the Army?

It looks like we can make it all the way to page 60 without the person who originated this thread ever stating what the purpose of it is.

 

[The Big Dog]

Wasn't even involved in what? Stevens may or may not have mentioned the offers to Hicks. No one asked Hicks if Stevens had mentioned them. Was that because it wouldn't have fit the Republican narrative?

What is telling about it? The ARB report faulted the State Dept. for not providing better security. How does it help your side to know that Ambassador Stevens turned down an offer from the Army?

It looks like we can make it all the way to page 60 without the person who originated this thread ever stating what the purpose of it is.

Say you backed off your Ham claim! Progress!

Now, how a Congressional hearing works is that both republicans and Democrats get to ask questions! I know, amazeballs! And, you won't believe this, but someone else asked Hicks!

Hicks’ lawyer, said Hicks did not know the details of conversations between Stevens and Ham and was not aware of Stevens turning down an offer of additional security.

“As far as Mr. Hicks knows, the ambassador always wanted more security and they were both frustrated by not getting it,” she said.

Now it appears that the real narrative (without regard to your unseemly partisan comments) is that the decision not to ask the DoD for GI's on the ground (while at the same time repeatedly requesting additional security from his own State department) is consistent with Obama administration’s insistence on a “soft footprint” – no US military on the ground – in Libya after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi.

Clearly that is a another fact that shows that the Administration and Hillary were potentially responsible for the tragedy, and why they were so quick to embrace the farcical protest claims and to neuter the talking points.

Dynamite points, telly!!!