New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tying Up a Few Loose Ends

Avid readers of this thread will recall Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Raymond Maxwell, one of the four mid-level employees at the State Department, and a man who made a fairly convincing case (in poetry, no less) that he did not deserve his fate.

Well it appears that not only does SoS John Kerry agree, he went a step further and asked all of the individuals who were identified as responsible in the "independent" Accountability Review Board to come back to work.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/19/kerry-clears-benghazi-officials-clinton-punished.html
 
jhunter1163 said:
I just want to ask one more question. If the CIA had 400 SAMs sitting around someplace, wouldn't you think they'd have more than two guys guarding them?
Click to expand...

Think about how much space (how many shipping containers) you would need to store 400 Stinger's in their shipping cases. And they store them in Benghazi if their destination was Syria? There are already large numbers of Stingers in Turkey and all one needs to do is carry them over the border.

The whole thing makes no sense.
 
16.5 said:
I'm certain I do not understand the reference to "two guys." For example, a six man security team left the annex to go to the Diplomatic facility and attempt to rescue (and did rescue) many of the staff at the diplomatic facility.

So we know that there was at least one six man security team, which included several former Navy Seals. We also know that CNN has reported that there were "dozens" of CIA operatives in Benghazi. Of course, the CIA (with Hicks and others from the Embassy) deployed another seven-person security team from Tripoli during the attack itself.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't there be real-live soldiers guarding this military hardware? And more than just a few?
 
jhunter1163 said:
Wouldn't there be real-live soldiers guarding this military hardware? And more than just a few?
Click to expand...

Say, I thought you just wanted to ask one more question! ;)

By real live soldiers, I assume you mean active duty DoD personnel? On an CIA project in Benghazi Libya? Almost certainly not. Also keep in mind that we know that two former Navy Seals were working with the CIA in Libya, and while I'm sure they would resent being referred to as "soldiers," I think we can safely assume that they had bona fide military and Special Operations background.

Recall, in this thread that we have discussed Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration's "light footprint" approach in some detail. Here's a short piece discussing that approach .

The thought of a substantial active duty DoD presence in Benghazi would have been directly inconsistent with the light footprint approach.
 
Mike! said:
Wonder who's going to be pointing fingers and crying the blues when one of those bad-boys takes out a passenger airliner?
Click to expand...

It's been 11 months since this cache of 400 Manpad SAMs had been absconded with.

Why haven't one of them been used yet?

In light of that, what should critical thinking skills tell us about this part of the story?
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
It's been 11 months since this cache of 400 Manpad SAMs had been absconded with.

Why haven't one of them been used yet?

In light of that, what should critical thinking skills tell us about this part of the story?
Click to expand...

critical thinking skills would tell us that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
 
16.5 said:
critical thinking skills would tell us that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Click to expand...

True, but saying they could exist despite any evidence of them existing we be equally uncritical. And the fact that none of 400 missiles have apparently been used is a strong indicator of them not existing.
 
Leaked report regarding the abysmal security in Benghazi

Al Jazeera America makes a splash, publishing the The Independent Security Panel's Report regarding the Benghazi Attack.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/3/exclusive-benghazireportdetailssecurityflawsatusdiplomaticposts.html

One take away that should sound familiar to avid readers of this thread:

The Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the State Department security arm created following the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, does not have a review process in place to learn from previous security failures. Inexplicably, Diplomatic Security officials never conducted what is known as a "hot wash" debriefing of Benghazi survivors to learn from their experience.

Well worth your time to read.
 
A round up of developments

In anticipation of the One Year Anniversary of the terrorist attack, the murders of four Americans remain in the news. Four Americans died in the attack: Ambassador Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and two embassy security personnel, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

Here is a short summary of several new articles.

The Guardian outlines "striking inconsistencies: the US version of events compared with those of witnesses and the facts on the ground. The two do not tally. And so, a year later, there remain pressing questions about what happened that night – and what the Americans say happened."

The link: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-consulate-benghazi-attack-challenge

Gregory Hicks sits down with ABC News regarding what he feels is retaliation, as well as a interesting discussion regarding his views on what went on that night. (Avid readers of the thread may remember that Mr. Hicks has been bizarrely targeted by administration apologists, and pilloried by some). As readers know, the State Department has locked down most of its other employees with non-disclosure agreements; you are on a need to know basis, citizen.

As always, a link:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/gregory-hicks-hearing-of-death-of-christopher-stevens-saddest-moment-in-my-career/

Finally, the Libyan Government refuses to assist the FBI in arresting the perpetrators. It appears they think that Ansar Al-Sharia is too strong.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/world/africa/libya-thwarts-arrests-in-benghazi-attack.html?_r=0
 
Here is a terrific piece from CBS that summarizes the unanswered questions, and the status of CBS's and others' investigations.

As avid readers of my posts in this thread will remember, the State Department has been using several different methods of trying to avoid answering questions about Benghazi, most appallingly using private "Non Disclosure Agreements" to thwart Congress and the press.

As always, a link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57602348/one-year-later-benghazis-lingering-issues/
 
Mark F said:
Think about how much space (how many shipping containers) you would need to store 400 Stinger's in their shipping cases. And they store them in Benghazi if their destination was Syria? There are already large numbers of Stingers in Turkey and all one needs to do is carry them over the border.

The whole thing makes no sense.
Click to expand...
It's what happens when something that "sounds good" at the Hollywood level gets scrutinized using real world conditions.
 
The Investigation Picks Up Speed

As avid readers of this thread are aware, we anticipated that the investigation would pick up after Labor Day, and it will.

This Thursday, the House Oversight Committee has scheduled hearings and testimony by Thomas Pickering and Mike Mullins, and the family members of the deceased will finally have their chance to speak.

In anticipation of that hearing, the House Oversight Committee has released a report analyzing the ARB report, and calling in for specific criticism Patrick Kennedy.

In addition, as avid readers of this thread will recall, it appears that Kennedy was the one that put the kibosh on General Ham's offer of DoD forces to Amb. Stevens. See the discussion here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57603023/benghazi-accountability-review-board-comes-under-renewed-criticism/

In a magnificent piece of double speak, when asked about the decision not to interview Hillary Clinton, in a closed-door interview conducted to prepare for this week's hearing, Admiral Mullen told the committee "it was a universal consensus over time that we did the interviews we needed to do and that we didn't do the interviews we didn't need to do, which would have included the ones obviously that we didn't do, which were Nides and Burns and Secretary Clinton." Embarrassing.
 
16.5 said:
In a magnificent piece of double speak, when asked about the decision not to interview Hillary Clinton, in a closed-door interview conducted to prepare for this week's hearing, Admiral Mullen told the committee "it was a universal consensus over time that we did the interviews we needed to do and that we didn't do the interviews we didn't need to do, which would have included the ones obviously that we didn't do, which were Nides and Burns and Secretary Clinton." Embarrassing.
Click to expand...


It's interesting to note that your signature line is:


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.



Yet you label Admiral Mullen's statements "double speak" and "embarrassing."
 
Loss Leader said:
It's interesting to note that your signature line is:


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.


Yet you label Admiral Mullen's statements "double speak" and "embarrassing."
Click to expand...

Yes, and I absolutely 100% stand behind that assessment without the slightest bit of hesitation.

Lets take a look at that statement again:

"it was a universal consensus over time that we did the interviews we needed to do and that we didn't do the interviews we didn't need to do, which would have included the ones obviously that we didn't do, which were Nides and Burns and Secretary Clinton."

I consider that statement to be absolutely ridiculous. Of course, if you feel that the statement itself (which I don't even consider an "argument" in any event) deserves justification, I would be delighted to consider it.

/your statement is also a bit of a tu quoque....
 
I find it interesting that every single one of these articles comes from the exact same source, CBS, and are all written by the exact same person, Sharyl Atkisson.

And that the "House Oversight Committee report" is just more partisan hackery, since the Committee is chaired by Issa. The report and its "criticisms" aren't newsworthy, it's merely yet another expression of his determination to make a scandal out of the non-scandal that is Benghazi.
 
16.5 said:
Yes, and I absolutely 100% stand behind that assessment without the slightest bit of hesitation.

Lets take a look at that statement again:

"it was a universal consensus over time that we did the interviews we needed to do and that we didn't do the interviews we didn't need to do, which would have included the ones obviously that we didn't do, which were Nides and Burns and Secretary Clinton."

I consider that statement to be absolutely ridiculous. Of course, if you feel that the statement itself (which I don't even consider an "argument" in any event) deserves justification, I would be delighted to consider it.

/your statement is also a bit of a tu quoque....
Click to expand...

I don't understand, you've simply restated your assertion that the line is doublethink and absolutely ridiculous, and further asserted that you're justified in dismissing it as such. What is your justification though apart from the labels? If pointing out that you're engaged in a fallacy that you yourself deplore is a tu quoque...does that admit that you're engaged in the fallacy?
 
ANTPogo said:
I find it interesting that every single one of these articles comes from the exact same source, CBS, and are all written by the exact same person, Sharyl Atkisson.

And that the "House Oversight Committee report" is just more partisan hackery, since the Committee is chaired by Issa. The report and its "criticisms" aren't newsworthy, it's merely yet another expression of his determination to make a scandal out of the non-scandal that is Benghazi.
Click to expand...

On this page alone I have linked to Al Jazeera, Boston Herald, a paper from San Diego, The Guardian, the New York Times, CBS and the Washington Post.

You have cited to "media matters for america," the very embodiment of Fox Derangement Syndrome.

It would be quite simple for me to cite numerous partisan web sites like the one that you have linked, but I have not done so.

If you wish to address the substance of the articles that have been posted, I'm certain that people would be willing to consider it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom