New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

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?

"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."

Rather than attacking me, feel free to justify this ridiculous, Yogi Berra like statement. It is ridiculous on its face: We didn't do the interviews we didn't do because we didn't do interviews we felt we didn't need to do.

Pure doublespeak. And to answer your question, in no way at all was I using a tu quoque fallacy.

Anything to say about the substance of the report? Kennedy's failures? The upcoming testimony?

 

[Unabogie]

Have we yet discovered what the scandal is? Or are we still in the "just asking questions" phase where all questions are "troubling" and the administration is "hiding things" in their "coverup"?

So far, it still seems like a group of bad people attacked a CIA outpost and Americans got hurt, something that happened dozens of times before and wasn't considered a scandal until the GOP latched onto it.

Anything new that puts this in the realm of actual wrongdoing?

 

[tyr_13]

"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."

Rather than attacking me, feel free to justify this ridiculous, Yogi Berra like statement. It is ridiculous on its face: We didn't do the interviews we didn't do because we didn't do interviews we felt we didn't need to do.

Pure doublespeak. And to answer your question, in no way at all was I using a tu quoque fallacy.

Anything to say about the substance of the report? Kennedy's failures? The upcoming testimony?

The statement makes sense to me and doesn't involve doublespeak. If you please, try to argue why it is. You've simply declared that it is.

I'm not 'attacking' you, I've criticized your lack of an argument, your lack of substance in this issue.

 

[The Big Dog]

The statement makes sense to me and doesn't involve doublespeak. If you please, try to argue why it is. You've simply declared that it is.

I'm not 'attacking' you, I've criticized your lack of an argument, your lack of substance in this issue.

So nothing about Kennedy's failures or the fact that the ARB didn't feel it necessary to talk to Hillary Clinton?

I certainly understand that you disagree with my assessment of the Yogi Berra type statement from Mullins. As it is fully distracting anyone from discussing the substance of anything, I respectfully retract my comments about that statement.

He will have a chance to testify this week, along with the family members. Lets hope he comes up with something better than we didn't talk to Hillary. Agree?

 

[The Big Dog]

Now that we have fully explored 16.5's opinion regarding Mullins ridiculous double talk, it is time to get back into what is looking more and more like a complete whitewash of an Accountibility investigation.

It appears that Pickering claims that the ARB recommended that two staffers be fired for the Benghazi debacle. None were of course. The ARB left that up to the subjects of the investigation to decide. Sort of a fox guarding the hen house kind of thing. Except they didn't bother talking to the queen fox.

I am certain we can agree that Pickering's testimony (and Mullins, to the extent he stops channeling yogi Berra) should be enlightening.

Check back Thursday for all the developments.

 

[The Big Dog]

Possible Candidate for Randi's Prize?

Despite the notable lack of cooperation from the State Department and other departments reporting to the White House, the investigation presses on.

Yesterday, Under Secretary and apparent clairvoyant Patrick Kennedy testified before the House Oversight Committee. As avid readers of this thread will recall, he was the one who made the decision to stand down FEST while Amb. Stevens was still missing and before attacks on the CIA annex had ended, explaining "since it did not bring any military assets to bear, [and] it was based in the U.S. and would have taken at least 16 or 18" hours he decided not to send them. How Undersecretary Kennedy knew that the situation would be resolved in 16-18 hours (and that the FEST team's investigative capabilities would not be necessary) remains a mystery.

"Kennedy's view of FEST is at odds with that of FEST leader Mark Thompson. He previously testified that Benghazi was precisely the sort of crisis to which his team is trained to respond, and that nobody knew at the outset how long the crisis was going to last. FEST's mission statement describes a seasoned team of counterterrorism professionals who can respond "quickly and effectively to terrorist attacks... providing the fastest assistance possible" including "hostage negotiating expertise" and "time-sensitive information and intelligence."

Regarding the lack of discipline Kennedy said "They were relieved of their senior-level positions. That is a serious disciplinary action," Kennedy said. something to keep in mind when you hear the State Department talking heads explaining that Jref Forum whipping boy, Greg Hicks, was not disciplined.

As always, a link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57603554/state-department-defends-benghazi-decisions/

Fair Warning: That article was written by Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News!

The investigation continues TODAY, with the authors of the ARB Report explaining why they didn't bother to talk to presumptive 2016 Candidate Hillary Clinton.

Check back for details as they emerge.

 

[A'isha]

Yesterday, Under Secretary and apparent clairvoyant Patrick Kennedy testified before the House Oversight Committee. As avid readers of this thread will recall, he was the one who made the decision to stand down FEST while Amb. Stevens was still missing and before attacks on the CIA annex had ended, explaining "since it did not bring any military assets to bear, [and] it was based in the U.S. and would have taken at least 16 or 18" hours he decided not to send them. How Undersecretary Kennedy knew that the situation would be resolved in 16-18 hours (and that the FEST team's investigative capabilities would not be necessary) remains a mystery.

"Kennedy's view of FEST is at odds with that of FEST leader Mark Thompson. He previously testified that Benghazi was precisely the sort of crisis to which his team is trained to respond, and that nobody knew at the outset how long the crisis was going to last. FEST's mission statement describes a seasoned team of counterterrorism professionals who can respond "quickly and effectively to terrorist attacks... providing the fastest assistance possible" including "hostage negotiating expertise" and "time-sensitive information and intelligence."

And yet Kennedy was 100% correct in his assessment of the situation, and Thompson was 100% incorrect.

 

[The Big Dog]

And yet Kennedy was 100% correct in his assessment of the situation, and Thompson was 100% incorrect.

From the article:

"Obama administration officials argue FEST most certainly wouldn't have made it to Benghazi in time. But officials familiar with FEST say it could have helped pave the way for the FBI to get into Benghazi much faster than the three weeks that it ultimately took. An administration official who was part of the Benghazi response told CBS News of FEST last May: "I wish we'd sent it."

Avid readers of this thread will recall that I linked the article last May regarding the Obama administration official's comments, and I would refer to anyone curious about that article to review my posts in that time frame.

 

[The Big Dog]

The latest regarding the whitewash

The lead authors of the ARB report had their chance to explain their side of the story, yesterday. As avid readers of this thread will recall, on the day the whistleblowers were scheduled to testify, Pickering pulled a stunt asserting that he wanted to testify that day, even though he had not been scheduled and had rejected an earlier scheduled day.

Well he got his chance yesterday, and objective reports suggest that they did not cover themselves in glory....

Republicans questioned whether Mullen's communications with Cheryl Mills, the chief of staff for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, constituted a conflict of interest. Mullen acknowledged giving Mills a "heads-up" after the ARB interviewed State Department security official Charlene Lamb. Mullen told Mills that Lamb would not make a good congressional witness for the State Department.

Mullen said "...I didn't think that Charlene Lamb would be a witness at that point in time that would represent the department well." He added, "the intent was to get the best possible witness, identified for the State Department."

Sounds legit..... rolls eyes.

As we all know, the ARB chose not to interview Hillary Clinton. Note I did not say meet with her. They appear to have met with her for several hours to go over the "draft" report. That sounds independent.

The parents of two of the men murdered in Benghazi also testified. I understand that all of but two of the Democratic members of the Committee walked out before they testified.

As always, a link: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57603749/benghazi-investigators-defend-their-probe/

TRIGGER WARNING: Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News.

Here is a link to ABC too: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/house-gop-grills-pickering-mullen-benghazi-20308286

 

[A'isha]

Ranking Oversight Committee member Elijah Cummings documents some of the errors and lies Darrell "I want seven hearings a week!" Issa has tried to foist off on everyone during his pathetic witchhunt.

 

[The Big Dog]

Here is another article that gives more substance to the description "whitewash" when referring to the ARB report.

The leaders of the Administrative Review Board that investigated the attacks on US facilities in Benghazi, Libya, appeared before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Thursday, and offered testimony that further undermined the already-tattered credibility of their own probe.

Well worth your time to read, and fully establishes just what kind of Clinton political cover the ARB report was intended to provide.

 

[A'isha]

Here is another article that gives more substance to the description "whitewash" when referring to the ARB report.

Considering that it comes from the Weekly Standard, the same journalistic powerhouse that just this week uncritically repeated a no-name website's attempt to pass off a three year old quote from Warren Buffett as a recent attack on the Affordable Care Act, describing that article as containing "substance" is giggle-worthy.

 

[The Big Dog]

Considering that it comes from the Weekly Standard, the same journalistic powerhouse that just this week uncritically repeated a no-name website's attempt to pass off a three year old quote from Warren Buffett as a recent attack on the Affordable Care Act, describing that article as containing "substance" is giggle-worthy.

I notice you did not address any of the substance of the testimony discussed in that article. I would characterize your argument as:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

I did read the partisan report from the House Democrats. Did you note this:

"Democrats did find significant fault with the State Department for establishing Benghazi as a "temporary post" without the full security of an embassy or consulate."

I did.

 

[A'isha]

I notice you did not address any of the substance of the testimony discussed in that article. I would characterize your argument as:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

I did read the partisan report from the House Democrats.

The report does an adequate job of dismantling the Weekly Standard's article, since the Weekly Standard is merely regurgitating Issa's partisan accusations.

The Weekly Standard apparently does a lot of uncritical repetition of other people's garbage.

Did you note this:

"Democrats did find significant fault with the State Department for establishing Benghazi as a "temporary post" without the full security of an embassy or consulate."

And if the Republicans were focusing on that and how to fix the problem in the future, there would be no problem. Instead, we get hysterical ******** like the "stand down order" thing, the laughable nonsense about Stinger missiles, or Issa's distortion of Mullins' testimony.

The Republicans on the Committee aren't interested in what happened at Benghazi and how to prevent it from happening again, they're grabbing at straws in order to dig up something, anything they can use against Hillary Clinton.

 

[A'isha]

Darrell Issa plans an Oversight Committee "fact finding" mission to Libya, and doesn't invite any of the Democrats on the Committee to go along.

 

[The Big Dog]

The report does an adequate job of dismantling the Weekly Standard's article, since the Weekly Standard is merely regurgitating Issa's partisan accusations.

The Weekly Standard apparently does a lot of uncritical repetition of other people's garbage.



And if the Republicans were focusing on that and how to fix the problem in the future, there would be no problem. Instead, we get hysterical ******** like the "stand down order" thing, the laughable nonsense about Stinger missiles, or Issa's distortion of Mullins' testimony.

The Republicans on the Committee aren't interested in what happened at Benghazi and how to prevent it from happening again, they're grabbing at straws in order to dig up something, anything they can use against Hillary Clinton.

We are not sure what "report" you are referring to, as there is no link to any report in your post. Well we will take your word for it. Kind of like how you claimed that Kennedy was right about FEST except for the fact that Obama administration disagreed with you.

Mullins testimony that he gave a draft to Hillary was linked as was his testimony that he advised the state department who should testify. Do you have a link that contradicts that testimony antpogo?

 

[A'isha]

We are not sure what "report" you are referring to, as there is no link to any report in your post.

That's because I put the link in an earlier post.

Kind of like how you claimed that Kennedy was right about FEST except for the fact that Obama administration disagreed with you.

No, the "Obama administration" does not disagree with me. An some anonymous "official" quoted by Sharyl Atkisson disagreed, but he or she hardly speaks for the administration.

 

[The Big Dog]

That's because I put the link in an earlier post.



No, the "Obama administration" does not disagree with me. An some anonymous "official" quoted by Sharyl Atkisson disagreed, but he or she hardly speaks for the administration.

You were referring to the "report" issued by the Democrats before Pickering and Mullins testified? You claim that contradicted an article regarding their testimony establishing without any question that the ARB report was a complete whitewash that occurred after the partisan report was issued?

I disagree.

 

[A'isha]

You were referring to the "report" issued by the Democrats before Pickering and Mullins testified? You claim that contradicted an article regarding their testimony establishing without any question that the ARB report was a complete whitewash that occurred after the partisan report was issued?

Yes, because Weekly Standard is recycling the same claims that Republicans were making before the recent hearings, claims that were not supported by the testimony at those hearings and which were addressed in Cummings' report.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, because Weekly Standard is recycling the same claims that Republicans were making before the recent hearings, claims that were not supported by the testimony at those hearings and which were addressed in Cummings' report.

Rather than attacking the messenger (in this case Weekly Standard) why don't you point out where you feel the testimony was misrepresented?

For example, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that Admiral Mullen gave Cheryl Mills a "heads up" that he believed Charlene Lamb would be a "weak" witness.

There is no question that the authors of the so-called independent ARB did not bother interviewing Hillary Clinton, but did spend several hours with her going over the draft report.

You linked to a partisan report issued by the Democrats, without suggesting what you think we ought to look for, other than to claim that somewhere in there is information that contradicts the testimony that was given several days after it was released. That seems to be quite a remarkable claim, and one that you should easily be able to support with specific citations. You have not done so.

Most of your other "arguments" appear to be ad hominems on various media outlets (although curiously, you do not appear to apply the same standard to openly partisan outlets like Media Matters, or the House Democrats report)