New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

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.

Oh wait, I see the difference! Hee hee!

Man, you people are a stitch.

So the general has the authority to send troops into a foreign country if an ambassador asks accepts his offer to do so?

Hee hee! Say maybe the German ambassador asked the army to join him for a beer in Warsaw in 1939, say antpogo? Oh wait, I meant accepted his offer to join the ambassador for a beer.

 

[A'isha]

Oh wait, I see the difference! Hee hee!

No, it's pretty clear that you don't.

So the general has the authority to send troops into a foreign country if an ambassador asks accepts his offer to do so?

If you don't think so, then why did General Ham make the offer? Was he going to say "I can't do that after all! Hah! Gotcha!" if Stevens had accepted?

Hee hee! Say maybe the German ambassador asked the army to join him for a beer in Warsaw in 1939, say antpogo? Oh wait, I meant accepted his offer to join the ambassador for a beer.

You do remember the presence of US military personnel in Libya on September 11, 2012, right? There were already troops in a foreign country - Ham was offering an additional US military security team.

Or do you honestly believe that your astonishingly stupid Godwin comparing this security team to the Nazi force that invaded Poland is really equivalent to what Ham was offering to Stevens?

 

[The Big Dog]

No, it's pretty clear that you don't.


If you don't think so, then why did General Ham make the offer? Was he going to say "I can't do that after all! Hah! Gotcha!" if Stevens had accepted?



You do remember the presence of US military personnel in Libya on September 11, 2012, right? There were already troops in a foreign country - Ham was offering an additional US military security team.

Or do you honestly believe that your astonishingly stupid Godwin comparing this security team to the Nazi force that invaded Poland is really equivalent to what Ham was offering to Stevens?

You are correct I don't see a difference except in the most ridiculously pedantic way possible.

It wasn't a Godwin, but you knew that.

Whoa the DoD people were there because of a deal between the ambassador and a general? Holy ****** The sec of state and the *********** pentagon must have been pissed!

 

[A'isha]

It wasn't a Godwin, but you knew that.

Yes, I'm sure you using the example of the German Army in Poland in 1939 was just selected at random.

Whoa the DoD people were there because of a deal between the ambassador and a general? Holy ****** The sec of state and the *********** pentagon must have been pissed!

So General Ham was making an offer he knew he'd never have to actually live up to? Was he just teasing Stevens, do you think? A funny joke between the two men, perhaps?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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!

My post clearly stated that the Army general offered the troops to the ambassador. Are you seriously so poorly educated that you couldn't understand that?

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?

I pointed it out at the time. But since you clearly have trouble reading, I will go back and find it for you. When I have time.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Telly raised the issue.

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

I doubt that given your demonstrated inability to read and comprehend what other people have posted here that anyone cares whether you think this "back fired" on me.

 

[A'isha]

My post clearly stated that the Army general offered the troops to the ambassador. Are you seriously so poorly educated that you couldn't understand that?

He somehow seems to think that Ham offering a security team to Stevens is the same thing as Stevens asking an Army general to deploy troops to Libya.

I pointed it out at the time. But since you clearly have trouble reading, I will go back and find it for you. When I have time.

I even went and did that (with links to the posts and original article that he snipped words from), when he asked there.

He apparently ignored me.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, I'm sure you using the example of the German Army in Poland in 1939 was just selected at random.

So General Ham was making an offer he knew he'd never have to actually live up to? Was he just teasing Stevens, do you think? A funny joke between the two men, perhaps?

The whole invasion of Poland thing was in the news and everything, you should look it up.

Now, the protection of diplomatic facilities is a function of the state department. The use of combat troops would be extraordinary and would require the consent of at least cabinet level officials, not a new ambassador and a general.

So the general may have offered (knowing that a final decision on such a deployment would be far above his pay grade) and the ambassador politely rejected it, knowing that his ultimate boss (hills and Obama) had a soft footprint policy in Libya.

C'mon man, this **** is basic.

 

[A'isha]

The whole invasion of Poland thing was in the news and everything, you should look it up.

Not for about three quarters of a century, it hasn't. And, again, it bears zero resemblance to Ham's offer and Stevens' refusal.

Now, the protection of diplomatic facilities is a function of the state department. The use of combat troops would be extraordinary and would require the consent of at least cabinet level officials, not a new ambassador and a general.

So the general may have offered (knowing that a final decision on such a deployment would be far above his pay grade) and the ambassador politely rejected it, knowing that his ultimate boss (hills and Obama) had a soft footprint policy in Libya.

C'mon man, this **** is basic.

What, that you're building your entire argument on a hollow foundation of your own speculations and misunderstandings?

 

[The Big Dog]

Not for about three quarters of a century, it hasn't. And, again, it bears zero resemblance to Ham's offer and Stevens' refusal.

What, that you're building your entire argument on a hollow foundation of your own speculations and misunderstandings?

No I'm building it on:

1. Ham asked Stevens if he wanted the troops
2 Stevens said no while...
3 begging the state department for additional security
4 which was not provided because
5 hills had a soft footprint policy in Libya as part of
6 obama's larger claims of success in Libya and against the war on terror
7 which lead to the bs talking points and subsequent nonsense story that he attack was spontaneous in response to a video.

QED

Damn, I'm good.

 

[The Big Dog]

In keeping with our commitment to be the finest one stop shop for news regarding developments regarding the ongoing investigation into the murders in Benghazi, the latest:

The State Department has finally responded to a FOIA request, releasing a handful of "declassified" photos, which are remarkable primarily for the seething contempt that the State Department has for perfectly legal requests by Americans for information.

New Photos here

 

[A'isha]

In keeping with our commitment to be the finest one stop shop for news regarding developments regarding the ongoing investigation into the murders in Benghazi, the latest:

The State Department has finally responded to a FOIA request, releasing a handful of "declassified" photos, which are remarkable primarily for the seething contempt that the State Department has for perfectly legal requests by Americans for information.

New Photos here

Ah, the looney bin that is "Judicial Watch".

So, tell us what new insights into the criminal coverup of the Truth About Benghazi^TM are revealed by these photos?

 

[The Big Dog]

Ah, the looney bin that is "Judicial Watch".

So, tell us what new insights into the criminal coverup of the Truth About Benghazi^TM are revealed by these photos?

Did you READ my post, ANTPogo?

I assume not.

/remember folks, issuing a *********** FOIA request to the US government makes you a "looney."

 

[A'isha]

Did you READ my post, ANTPogo?

Yes.

Can you point out where in the photos the "seething contempt that the State Department has for perfectly legal requests by Americans for information" can be seen? Is it behind the burnt-out car? Maybe concealed behind the palm tree?

/remember folks, issuing a *********** FOIA request to the US government makes you a "looney."

Judicial Watch aren't loonies because they issue FOIA requests to the US government. That's just one of the ways by which they express their looniness.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes.

Can you point out where in the photos the "seething contempt that the State Department has for perfectly legal requests by Americans for information" can be seen? Is it behind the burnt-out car? Maybe concealed behind the palm tree?

Maybe it is the letter, the delay in producing them, the frivolous claim that they were classified, ANTPogo?

Sad

 

[A'isha]

Maybe it is the letter, the delay in producing them, the frivolous claim that they were classified, ANTPogo?

Ah, so "nowhere", in other words. The letter seems quite polite, if formal, to me.

And why is the claim "frivolous"?

 

[The Big Dog]

Ah, so "nowhere", in other words.

And why is the claim "frivolous"?

Facepalm.

Folks, don't let ANTPogo's disinformation campaign dissuade you from looking at the link and making your own judgment.

 

[A'isha]

Facepalm.

Folks, don't let ANTPogo's disinformation campaign dissuade you from looking at the link and making your own judgment.

How about your own judgment, then? Why is the claim "frivolous", in your opinion? What, specifically, about that letter indicates the "seething contempt that the State Department has for perfectly legal requests by Americans for information"?

 

[The Big Dog]

It appears that the investigation and holding people responsible is moving as slowly in Libya as it is here.

Here is an interesting and informative article about the return of Ansar al Sharia to the streets of Benghazi

It’s not lost on residents that Ansar al Shariah has been reborn and that none of the 70 men involved in the U.S. consulate attack has been charged. It reinforces their ideas about who’s in charge – and it’s not the nascent Libyan government.

 

[A'isha]

It appears that the investigation and holding people responsible is moving as slowly in Libya as it is here.

Here is an interesting and informative article about the return of Ansar al Sharia to the streets of Benghazi

It’s not lost on residents that Ansar al Shariah has been reborn and that none of the 70 men involved in the U.S. consulate attack has been charged. It reinforces their ideas about who’s in charge – and it’s not the nascent Libyan government.

Yes, spin0 posted in this thread about this more than a month ago.