New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

But you were half right, which is really good for you!

"Assumes facts not in evidence: the question assumes something as true for which no evidence has been shown."

Looks like jj was all right.

 

[12AX7]

Well, of course you think that 100s of Americans died on attacks on US Diplomatic Facilities during the Bush years, which is laughably ridiculously false, so good luck with your strawmen!

Cool tu quoque fallacy though. Try to use real facts next time

I love it. Hundreds? No, but are you saying attacks at US Diplomatic Facilities under Bush didn't happen?*

I wonder if 16.5 and his ilk were this upset in 2002 when the U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan was attacked and 10 Killed, 51 Injured?

Or in 2004 when the U.S. Embassy was bombed In Uzbekistan with 2 Killed, 9 Injured?

Or again in 2004 when gunmen stormed the U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia with 8 Killed?

Or in 2006 when armed men attacked the U.S. Embassy In Syria resulting in 1 Killed and several injured?

Or in 2007 when a grenade was launched into U.S. Embassy in Athens?

Or in 2008 when rioters set fire to the U.S. Embassy In Serbia?

Or again in 2008 when 10 people were killed in bombings at the U.S. Embassy in Yemen?


But in 2012 at the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya an attack kills 4 people and suddenly there's outrage and concern about the safety and security of Americans abroad. Cover-ups! Incompetence! Poutrage! We need investigations! Hearings! We need criminal charges filed! Impeach someone!

*I don't really expect an answer; you've avoided many pointed questions in this long thread.

Does anyone?

Still waiting for 16.5 to answer that. I got a feeling we're gonna be here a while.

 

[The Big Dog]

I love it. Hundreds? No, but are you saying attacks at US Diplomatic Facilities under Bush didn't happen?*

I wonder if 16.5 and his ilk were this upset in 2002 when the U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan was attacked and 10 Killed, 51 Injured?

Or in 2004 when the U.S. Embassy was bombed In Uzbekistan with 2 Killed, 9 Injured?

Or again in 2004 when gunmen stormed the U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia with 8 Killed?

Or in 2006 when armed men attacked the U.S. Embassy In Syria resulting in 1 Killed and several injured?

Or in 2007 when a grenade was launched into U.S. Embassy in Athens?

Or in 2008 when rioters set fire to the U.S. Embassy In Serbia?

Or again in 2008 when 10 people were killed in bombings at the U.S. Embassy in Yemen?


But in 2012 at the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya an attack kills 4 people and suddenly there's outrage and concern about the safety and security of Americans abroad. Cover-ups! Incompetence! Poutrage! We need investigations! Hearings! We need criminal charges filed! Impeach someone!

*I don't really expect an answer; you've avoided many pointed questions in this long thread.

Still waiting for 16.5 to answer that. I got a feeling we're gonna be here a while.

Huh, someone flat out lies about hundreds of Americans getting killed under the Bushes and I'M the bad guy? Really?

In your complete threadjack, which we discussed endlessly in this thread (I get it you didn't read the thread. protip: that list was spammed relentlessly by a person who no longer posts in this thread after making jokes about the murders). I understand that you feel you are clever, and all, but you might want to look up tu quoque fallacies, just for a start.

Next, Elpsis, what is MISSING from that fancy *********** threadjack? Well considering that we just came on the anniversary of the African Embassy Bombings, you'll note THAT is missing. What else is missing? Oh right, the other embassy attacks under Obama that predated and post dated the Benghazi attacks.

Further, considering that we were talking about a fraudulent claim that 100's of Americans were killed, why don't you tell everyone how many Americans were killed in those attacks, how many American Ambassadors were killed in those attacks, how many American Diplomatic facilities were completely overrun? C'mon man, make your *********** case that they are anything alike. Don't give me a half ass list, facts, make your case.

Whar the outrage about Athens? Total casualty list: NO ONE. Sounds legit.

Further what is REALLY missing is the fact that the Administration completely dropped the ball on providing security and then spun a complete fable about the attacks for political reasons, and none of the terrorists are in American Custody.

Another post that has nothing to say about the developments in Benghazi. Just the same old tired partisan thread jack from someone to lazy to read the entire thread.

 

[A'isha]

Further what is REALLY missing is the fact that the Administration completely dropped the ball on providing security and then spun a complete fable about the attacks for political reasons

Why would the list include flat-out falsehoods like that?

 

[The Big Dog]

As part of our commitment to the very finest summary of developments regarding the Benghazi Massacre, the latest:

The Armed Forces Committee (whose chairman is not Rep. Issa) is investigating the failures in Benghazi. Military Leaders, including General Ham and LTC Gibson, testified in a closed classified hearing.

Readout of Hearing here

There were two significant issues disclosed. The most significant was:

When questioned about this process today, General Ham, the combatant commander responsible for one of the most volatile threat environments in the world, stated that neither he or anyone working for him was consulted as part of the Brennan 9/11 planning process.

Brennan was promoted to the head of the CIA. Unbelievable.

The second issue disclosed was that Gibson confirmed Hicks' testimony about Gibson's "understandable desire to lead a group of three other Special Forces soldiers to Benghazi."

However, Gibson stated that he was not ordered to "stand down," but rather "he was ordered to remain in Tripoli to defend Americans there in anticipation of possible additional attacks, and to assist the survivors as they returned from Benghazi." The release also states something that does not make sense at all: "Gibson acknowledged that had he deployed to Benghazi he would have left Americans in Tripoli undefended." Beyond the fact that this appear to contradict the claim that they were armed only with sidearms (which is a minor claim of course, as we know that Gibson had access to the entire armory in the Embassy) this does contradict Hicks testimony that:

"In Tripoli, we had -- the defense attache had persuaded the Libyans to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and wanted to airlift -- we had -- since we had consolidated at the annex, and the Libyan government had now provided us with external security around our facilities, we wanted to send further reinforcements to Benghazi.

We determined that Lieutenant Gibson and his team of special forces troops should go. The people in Benghazi had been fighting all night. They were tired. They were exhausted."

It appears that on 9/12, Gibson concluded that the situation in Tripoli was secure enough to go, but now concludes that it would have left the Americans "undefended." That does not make sense.

My thoughts exactly, but not in the sense that you mean.

Oh man, I know what you mean. I post and link to a detailed summary of the ongoing investigation being conducted by the House Armed Services Committee which reveals:

When questioned about this process today, General Ham, the combatant commander responsible for one of the most volatile threat environments in the world, stated that neither he or anyone working for him was consulted as part of the Brennan 9/11 planning process.

And the response is to say "There is no investigation.... no new information."

Talk about crazy.

N.b.: The above quote is taken from the "read out" of the House Armed Forces Committee, not a "blog," and to which I earlier referred and linked.

If one thinks I did not give "attribution" to it, it is because perhaps certain posters were too lazy to read my links.

 

[The Big Dog]

Much Ado About Nothing, Wm. Shakespeare

HTH

Four Americans died in the attack: Ambassador Chris Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and two embassy security personnel, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

"What difference at this point does it make?”

Hy. Clinton

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Oh man, I know what you mean. I post and link to a detailed summary of the ongoing investigation being conducted by the House Armed Services Committee which reveals:

When questioned about this process today, General Ham, the combatant commander responsible for one of the most volatile threat environments in the world, stated that neither he or anyone working for him was consulted as part of the Brennan 9/11 planning process.

And the response is to say "There is no investigation.... no new information."

Talk about crazy.

N.b.: The above quote is taken from the "read out" of the House Armed Forces Committee, not a "blog," and to which I earlier referred and linked.

If one thinks I did not give "attribution" to it, it is because perhaps certain posters were too lazy to read my links.

As a way to evaluate the significance of this, could you provide a list of which Army generals were consulted about security arrangements at which diplomatic outposts?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

As a way to evaluate the significance of this, could you provide a list of which Army generals were consulted about security arrangements at which diplomatic outposts?

P.S. How does this relate to some sort of conspiracy or cover-up?

 

[The Big Dog]

Time to supplement the list with the new development and disclosures:

1. General Ham asked Stevens if he wanted the troops
a. Although Obama's Intelligence Adviser John Brennan was in charge of contingency planning, Brennan never talked to Ham, and never therefore learned of Ham's concerns.
2 Stevens said no while...
3 begging the state department for additional security
a. Stevens last entry in his diary reveals that his last entry was "Never ending security concerns"
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, in part to disguise the incompetent security planning on behalf of the white house and the Clinton State Department..

QED

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Time to supplement the list with the new development and disclosures:

1. General Ham asked Stevens if he wanted the troops
a. Although Obama's Intelligence Adviser John Brennan was in charge of contingency planning, Brennan never talked to Ham, and never therefore learned of Ham's concerns.

The relationship between these is not clear. Ham's concerns were based on info from DoS in Libya, which Brennan would have known about.

2 Stevens said no while...
3 begging the state department for additional security

Which seems to imply that he didn't perceive any immediate security threat.

a. Stevens last entry in his diary reveals that his last entry was "Never ending security concerns"

And this shows that, given Stevens' decision to travel to Benghazi on his own accord?

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

Not proven, not even supported by any evidence. There are more plausible reasons for wanting to have a "soft footprint" in Libya.

7 which lead to the bs talking points and subsequent nonsense story that he attack was spontaneous in response to a video, in part to disguise the incompetent security planning on behalf of the white house and the Clinton State Department..

Once again, where is the evidence that the people who wrote the talking points memo knew that it was wrong? Where is the evidence that Obama was personally involved in deciding what the security arrangements at every diplomatic outpost? Where is the evidence that security arrangements at diplomatic outposts ever get above mid-level managers at the DoS?

QED

A list of statements in and by itself does not qualify as "proof". When speculation is added, what results is more speculation.

How many security agents did the folks in Libya want for the Benghazi outpost? How many security agents were present at the time of the attack?

 

[A'isha]

Once again, where is the evidence that the people who wrote the talking points memo knew that it was wrong?

And, more importantly, where is the evidence that they specifically tailored the talking points memo "to disguise the incompetent security planning on behalf of the white house and the Clinton State Department"?

 

[remirol]

Four Americans died in the attack: Ambassador Chris Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and two embassy security personnel, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

My condolences to their families. However:

I wonder if 16.5 and his ilk were this upset in 2002 when the U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan was attacked and 10 Killed, 51 Injured?

Or in 2004 when the U.S. Embassy was bombed In Uzbekistan with 2 Killed, 9 Injured?
Or again in 2004 when gunmen stormed the U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia with 8 Killed?

Or in 2006 when armed men attacked the U.S. Embassy In Syria resulting in 1 Killed and several injured?

Or in 2007 when a grenade was launched into U.S. Embassy in Athens?

Or in 2008 when rioters set fire to the U.S. Embassy In Serbia?

Or again in 2008 when 10 people were killed in bombings at the U.S. Embassy in Yemen?

Working at an embassy in a foreign country, especially one that is or has recently been somewhat hostile towards the USA, clearly carries certain risks -- one of those being that the less stable residents of that country will attack said embassy, and your life may be in danger.

Until you or anyone can demonstrate what is significantly different about this attack than all those previous ones that you didn't throw fits about, I see no reason why my reaction, or any other rational person's, should be anything other than the five words which I began this post with.

The whole issue is nothing more than a storm in a Republican teacup. The rest of the world has moved on; the GOP can clutch its pearls all it wants, but it won't actually cause anything to happen other than decrease my already-abysmally-low respect for the remnants of the party.

 

[jhunter1163]

Thread closed for cleanout. When it is reopened, it will likely be moderated. As always, do not attempt to restart this discussion elsewhere.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[jhunter1163]

Thread reopened as moderated.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[The Big Dog]

That is a tu quoque fallacies, just for a start.

Well considering that we just came on the anniversary of the African Embassy Bombings, you'll note THAT is missing. What else is missing? the other embassy attacks under Obama that predated and post dated the Benghazi attacks.

Further, considering that we were talking about a fraudulent claim that 100's of Americans were killed, how many Americans were killed in those attacks, how many American Ambassadors were killed in those attacks, how many American Diplomatic facilities were completely overrun?

Whar the outrage about Athens? Total casualty list: NO ONE.

Further what is REALLY missing is the fact that the Administration completely dropped the ball on providing security and then spun a complete fable about the attacks for political reasons, and none of the terrorists are in American Custody.
.

My condolences to their families. However:



Working at an embassy in a foreign country, especially one that is or has recently been somewhat hostile towards the USA, clearly carries certain risks -- one of those being that the less stable residents of that country will attack said embassy, and your life may be in danger.

Until you or anyone can demonstrate what is significantly different about this attack than all those previous ones that you didn't throw fits about, I see no reason why my reaction, or any other rational person's, should be anything other than the five words which I began this post with.

The whole issue is nothing more than a storm in a Republican teacup. The rest of the world has moved on; the GOP can clutch its pearls all it wants, but it won't actually cause anything to happen other than decrease my already-abysmally-low respect for the remnants of the party.

Remirol, I think you'll find I responded already.

 

[The Big Dog]

Will the overthrow of the Morsi government in Egypt portend the final solution to the Benghazi terror attack?

Last week, several major Arabic newspapers were ablaze with a story, first reported by the Kuwaiti paper Al Rai, quoting a Libyan intelligence report on the Benghazi attack that mentions an alleged connection to Morsi and other prominent Egyptian figures.

While the Obama administration's cozy relationship with Morsi will be debated, hopefully the new government will be more willing to assist.

English translations here:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/egypts-morsi-behind-murder-of-u-s-ambassador/

 

[A'isha]

Will the overthrow of the Morsi government in Egypt portend the final solution to the Benghazi terror attack?

Last week, several major Arabic newspapers were ablaze with a story, first reported by the Kuwaiti paper Al Rai, quoting a Libyan intelligence report on the Benghazi attack that mentions an alleged connection to Morsi and other prominent Egyptian figures.

While the Obama administration's cozy relationship with Morsi will be debated, hopefully the new government will be more willing to assist.

English translations here:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/egypts-morsi-behind-murder-of-u-s-ambassador/

World Net Daily? You're citing World Net Daily?!

 

[The Big Dog]

Interesting story developing regarding whether the administration is hiding key witnesses regarding the Benghazi attacks:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...to-talk-to-col-george-bristol-about-benghazi/

As we've discussed before, fantastic reporting from CBS.

 

[banquetbear]

Interesting story developing regarding whether the administration is hiding key witnesses regarding the Benghazi attacks:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...to-talk-to-col-george-bristol-about-benghazi/

...can you cite the part of the article that supports your claim that the administration is hiding key witnesses regarding the Benghazi attacks? The word "hide" doesn't even appear on the page in question.

 

[The Big Dog]

World Net Daily? You're citing World Net Daily?!

I'm not certain that attacking the source is a substantive argument, but Al Rai is a mainstream, very legitimate news outlet in Kuwait (in fact I believe it is the largest paper in Kuwait). Al Rai published what it claimed to be the entire document in its original Arabic, and was picked up and translated by WND. Of course, other newspapers in the Arab world picked up the Al Rai report before it reached English language news services.

Further given the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood, perhaps we will see some progress in the investigation, agreed?