New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

Wow, that is breathtaking in its cynicism.

No, it's highlighting the partisan nature of Issa's "investigation". The Committee has no interest in actually finding out what went wrong so the underlying issues can be fixed and hopefully preventing anything like this from happening again.

They just want a club to beat Democrats with, particular Obama and (as you yourself pretty much admitted) Clinton.

But if you want to blame one guy, Ant, why Hicks?

I don't want to blame one guy. As the ARB Report noted, there was lots of blame to go around.

I want to know why Hicks does not deserve a share of that blame and deserve to be investigated for his role, in the opinions of you and Issa's Republican Committee members.

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?

You tell me, if you think you know. Nice attempt at trying to change the subject away from Hicks' responsibilities and his odd inaction, however.

I wasn't as if Hicks could have ordered the immediate dispatch of Military Forces, like Obama could have.

And did.

I understand he was told the attacks were going on and then retired to his private quarters for the entire night.

And from whence does this "understanding" of yours come from?

 

[A'isha]

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.

So your argument is that because Hicks knew that Stevens talked to Ham but admitted he has no idea what they talked about or what was said, that therefore Stevens was ordered to refuse additional DoD personnel?

 

[The Big Dog]

I want to know why Hicks does not deserve a share of that blame and deserve to be investigated for his role, in the opinions of you and Issa's Republican Committee members.

Please calculate the blame that Hicks deserves for 1. watching TV; 2. missing two phone calls at 9:45 at night.

Plus now we should start a list of PEOPLE TO BLAME:

1. Hicks, number one (obviously)
2. 16.5
3. Stevens

 

[The Big Dog]

So your argument is that because Hicks knew that Stevens talked to Ham but admitted he has no idea what they talked about or what was said, that therefore Stevens was ordered to refuse additional DoD personnel?

No! Not at all! That was, however, some fancy pants Strawmen though!

 

[A'isha]

Please calculate the blame that Hicks deserves for 1. watching TV; 2. missing two phone calls at 9:45 at night.

So, you're saying it was perfectly okay for Hicks (in charge of Embassy Tripoli in Stevens' absence) to be so engrossed in watching TV on the night of the anniversary of 9/11 while the Ambassador was staying in a dangerous city will insufficient security that he missed two phone calls from the Ambassador while the attack was going on, and only learned about the attack when several lower-ranking staffers interrupted his TV watching with the news?

I just want to be clear on your position regarding Hicks.

No! Not at all! That was, however, some fancy pants Strawmen though!

Then how, exactly, is Hicks' admitted ignorance of the entire topic relevant?

 

[The Big Dog]

So, you're saying it was perfectly okay for Hicks (in charge of Embassy Tripoli in Stevens' absence) to be so engrossed in watching TV on the night of the anniversary of 9/11 while the Ambassador was staying in a dangerous city will insufficient security that he missed two phone calls from the Ambassador while the attack was going on, and only learned about the attack when several lower-ranking staffers interrupted his TV watching with the news?

I just want to be clear on your position regarding Hicks.



Then how, exactly, is Hicks' admitted ignorance of the entire topic relevant?

Did I say it was "perfectly ok"? No, I asked you to calculate the blame: I'm guessing you think that we should give Hicks two in the heart and one in the head, and send his family the bill for the bullets?

Then how, exactly, is Hicks' admitted ignorance of the entire topic relevant?

**** if i know, bro, ask Telly, he brought it up.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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.

You're trying to make what point? Hicks not knowing that Stevens turned down the Army offer proves that there was some sort of conspiracy involving Obama and Clinton? Or what?

Ham's testimony will show what? According to the news article that you've been quoting (and mis-quoting) from, Stevens did not tell Ham why he turned down the offer for security forces. Since Rep. Issa declined to ask Hicks about the request, is there any reason to believe that he will ask Ham? The "someone else" who asked apparently was a journalist.

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.

This is based on what? You haven't yet established why Stevens turned down the request yet you are blaming Obama for it.

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.

What "fact"? Your statements consist of nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation. And once again you come back to the talking points without offering a reason to believe that they were intentionally dishonest. Believe it or not, the number of times that a claim is repeated does not determine its validity.

Dynamite points, telly!!!

Thank you! Complements are always appreciated.

 

[The Big Dog]

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

You're trying to make what point? Hicks not knowing that Stevens turned down the Army offer proves that there was some sort of conspiracy involving Obama and Clinton? Or what?

Ham's testimony will show what?

Thank you! Complements are always appreciated.

I love it when people can't keep their story straight!

Telly: Hicks and Ham were not asked to testify! Republicans!
Me: Hicks said he didn't know, and Ham is up to testify next week.
Telly: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE!

Lolz!

“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.

You people do understand that the whole Stevens turned down the DoD offer, while begging the State Department for additional security looks really, really bad for Obama and the State Department?

Keep on knocking them in for Team 16.5 and Justice, Telly!

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I love it when people can't keep their story straight!

Telly: Hicks and Ham were not asked to testify! Republicans!
Me: Hicks said he didn't know, and Ham is up to testify next week.
Telly: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE!

Lolz!

I see that reading comprehension is not one of your strengths (at least I'm giving you credit for not being dishonest). I said that Hicks was not asked about the Army's offer. This is completely different from saying that Hicks did not testify.

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

And you mentioned this why?

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.

Once again, you are making a claim without any basis for making that claim. Speculation is not evidence. Choosing one out of a number of interpretations is not proof.

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.

Again, what "fact" are you talking about? I'm not sure that you even understand the difference between "fact" and "interpretation". They are not the same thing.

You people do understand that the whole Stevens turned down the DoD offer, while begging the State Department for additional security looks really, really bad for Obama and the State Department?

This is not logical. If Stevens thought that he was in imminent danger, he either would not have gone to Benghazi or would have accepted the Army's offer. Unless you believe that Stevens was a really stupid person.

Keep on knocking them in for Team 16.5 and Justice, Telly!

I will. It's so entertaining to watch you dance and weave and change what you claim this thread is about every time you can't come up with a good response. By the way, I've noticed that you haven't explained why you left 2 important words out of a quote you took from a new article.

 

[The Big Dog]

I see that reading comprehension is not one of your strengths (at least I'm giving you credit for not being dishonest). I said that Hicks was not asked about the Army's offer. This is completely different from saying that Hicks did not testify.

And you mentioned this why?

nce again, you are making a claim without any basis for making that claim. Speculation is not evidence. Choosing one out of a number of interpretations is not proof.

Again, what "fact" are you talking about? I'm not sure that you even understand the difference between "fact" and "interpretation". They are not the same thing.

This is not logical. If Stevens thought that he was in imminent danger, he either would not have gone to Benghazi or would have accepted the Army's offer. Unless you believe that Stevens was a really stupid person.

I will. It's so entertaining to watch you dance and weave and change what you claim this thread is about every time you can't come up with a good response. By the way, I've noticed that you haven't explained why you left 2 important words out of a quote you took from a new article.

This posting style is the written version of the Gish Gallop. Lots of mid context questions, well not questions so much as moving goal posts, a couple of false dilemmas, etc.

Fact:

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.

Bad news for Obama.

What no one has explained though, is how an Ambassador can ask an Army General to deploy troops in Libya, particularly if the Secretary of State tells him not to do so.

 

[A'isha]

You've got a serious case of begging the question going on there.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

This posting style is the written version of the Gish Gallop. Lots of mid context questions, well not questions so much as moving goal posts, a couple of false dilemmas, etc.

You're the last one who should be complaining about moving goal posts. You won't even give a straight answer about what this thread, which you started is about. Your charge reflects a total lack of understanding of logical fallacies anyway. You're the one making claims and I'm asking you to justify the claims. Charging other people with logical fallacies (which you are committing as often as anyone) is just one of your tactics for avoiding responding to anything that you can't address.

Fact:

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.

Which proves what? Do you understand the difference between "It could have happened this way" and "It did happen this way"?

What no one has explained though, is how an Ambassador can ask an Army General to deploy troops in Libya, particularly if the Secretary of State tells him not to do so.

I know that it's useless to ask, but please post a citation to documentation that Clinton ordered Stevens not to accept the offer from Gen. Ham.

And why did you leave 2 important words out of the quote from the news article?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

You've got a serious case of begging the question going on there.

It's more like a serious case of evading every challenge until everyone else grows tired of playing his game so that he can declare that he won because everyone else dropped out.

 

[jj]

16.5 has taken the outcome as given, and is going to put any square peg in a hexagonal hole, even if he has to file it down and run it through a joiner first, in order to "prove" his demonstrably false "conclusion".

It's just another example of trying to usurp the lawfully elected government via relentless lying in my book.

 

[Shalamar]

It's more like a serious case of evading every challenge until everyone else grows tired of playing his game so that he can declare that he won because everyone else dropped out.

I notice that 16.5 'quotes' people, without actually attributing them, or lining where he got them. I'm thinking of doing the same thing.

"When asked for the Iron patriot to come to the rescue at Benghazi, we were informed that he was given an immediate Stand Down order. Mr. Rhodes gave no comment." he said.

 

[The Big Dog]

I know that it's useless to ask, but please post a citation to documentation that Clinton ordered Stevens not to accept the offer from Gen. Ham.

And why did you leave 2 important words out of the quote from the news article?

I know it is useless to ask, but please post a citation to documentation that an Ambassador can ask an Army General to deploy troops in Libya. I asked first!

Did I take two "important words" out of a "quote" from the news article? If I did so, I apologize

Where did I do that?

 

[A'isha]

I know it is useless to ask, but please post a citation to documentation that an Ambassador can ask an Army General to deploy troops in Libya. I asked first!

Where did this "an Ambassador ask[ing] an Army General to deploy troops in Libya" thing come from?

EDIT:

Did I take two "important words" out of a "quote" from the news article?

Where did I do that?

Right here. Did you not read TellyKNeasuss' post calling you out on your edit? Here's the actual article, containing the words you snipped out without acknowledging that you snipped them out.

 

[The Big Dog]

1

It's just another example of trying to usurp the lawfully elected government via relentless lying in my book.

Bwhahaha!!! Seriously bro, you just typed that I was trying to usurp the government by posting facts on JREF?

Too much, bro, you slay me.

 

[The Big Dog]

Where did this "an Ambassador ask[ing] an Army General to deploy troops in Libya" thing come from?

Telly raised the issue.

Kinda back fired on him because it is completely consistent with the soft foot print analysis.

 

[A'isha]

Telly raised the issue.

Can you provide a link to TellyKNeassus' post talking about "an Ambassador ask[ing] an Army General to deploy troops in Libya", please? All I see is posts about General Ham offering Army troops to Stevens twice, and Stevens twice rejecting General Ham's offer.