New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

Whatever happened with the claim of 400 Stinger missiles at the CIA annex, or the claims being peddled by the anonymous "whistleblowers" purportedly being represented by crackpot hyperpartisan lawyers Victoria Toesing and Joe diGenova? Or the claims that Petraeus' scandal-ridden resignation was the result of the Obama Administration blackmailing him to participate in the Benghazi cover up?

Any news on those "developments"?

Just Asking Questions, AntPogo? As far as I am aware, there hasn't been any (I'll ignore the hyperbole regarding Petraeus)

Of course, The 400 stingers story got lots of responses in this thread.

The several posts about the State Department muzzling its employees?

None.

 

[A'isha]

Just Asking Questions, AntPogo? As far as I am aware, there hasn't been any (I'll ignore the hyperbole regarding Petraeus)

Why is it you dismiss as "hyperbole" the claims made about Petraeus, but lend credence to the other claims, considering that they were all advanced by Toesing and diGenova?

Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, their willingness to spout such conspiracy-theory nonsense as the claims about Petraus kind of casts doubt on, say, their ludicrous claims about 400 Stingers?

Of course, The 400 stingers story got lots of responses in this thread.

Yes, generally of the mocking and "citation needed" variety.

The several posts about the State Department muzzling its employees?

None.

Who was "muzzled", again?

 

[The Big Dog]

While claiming that they are offering "unprecedented cooperation" The State Department once again belatedly offers to respond to Congress's request for information and documents regarding the talking points. The latest article is here:

http://news.yahoo.com/state-department-yes-well-send-benghazi-documents-again-150203567.html

Keep in mind, that while proclaiming "unprecedented cooperation" the State Department has locked down its personnel with "unprecedented" Non Disclosure Agreements.

In other developments, we would be remiss to (at the very least) not include a reference to the story that has rippled across numerous news outlets over the last week, "400 US surface-to-air missiles were 'STOLEN' from Libya during the Benghazi attack and are 'now in the hands of Al Qaeda'."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2390642/400-surface-air-missiles-STOLEN-Libya-Benghazi-attack-says-whistle-blowers-attorney.html

Why is it you dismiss as "hyperbole" the claims made about Petraeus, but lend credence to the other claims, considering that they were all advanced by Toesing and diGenova?

Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, their willingness to spout such conspiracy-theory nonsense as the claims about Petraus kind of casts doubt on, say, their ludicrous claims about 400 Stingers?

Yes, generally of the mocking and "citation needed" variety.

Who was "muzzled", again?

The STOPPERS ignored the first article, but were thrown into a frenzy by the second.

How's that Senate Investigation going anyway?

 

[A'isha]

The STOPPERS ignored the first article,

Probably because it doesn't say anything. Issa subpoenaed emails that State already released, and doesn't say anything at all about Stinger missiles or muzzled State Department employees.

but were thrown into a frenzy by the second.

Which goes right back to my question. Why do you dismiss as hyperbole the conspiracy theory nonsense that Toesing and diGenova tried to peddle about Petraus, but totally believe them when they claim that their anonymous "whistleblowers" are being threatened, muzzled, and are reporting 400 Stinger missiles?

If you know and acknowledge that they've already engaged in hyperbole and making false and ridiculous claims, why do you lend their other claims credence?

How's that Senate Investigation going anyway?

There is no Senate investigation.

 

[The Big Dog]

I was referring to YOUR HYPERBOLE. I'm not certain where I said "I TOTALLY BELIEVE THEM 111!@!!" either. hyper-linking an article in the MSM that was getting a lot of play is not "TOTALLY BELIEVE THEM."

In fact, as you might have gathered from my tone "we would be remiss to (at the very least) not include a reference to the story that has rippled across numerous news outlets over the last week," I am not particularly impressed by that story.

Hell, there is no way I ever would have linked it if I thought it was going to be used as an excuse to ignore the State Department Non-Disclosure Agreement story.

Live and learn.

Yes, Issa's farcical political theater is indeed the perfect case in point for the kind of thing Mister Earl is talking about.

It's too bad Issa's nonsense has gotten in the way of a real investigation.

There is no Senate investigation.

I don't have a whole lot more I feel I need to add to that.....

 

[A'isha]

I was referring to YOUR HYPERBOLE. I'm not certain where I said "I TOTALLY BELIEVE THEM 111!@!!" either. hyper-linking an article in the MSM that was getting a lot of play is not "TOTALLY BELIEVE THEM."

My hyperbole? I'm not the one who tried to claim that Petraus' resignation was because he was being blackmailed by the Obama Administration to cover up Benghazi. Toesing and diGenova were the ones claiming that.

In fact, as you might have gathered from my tone "we would be remiss to (at the very least) not include a reference to the story that has rippled across numerous news outlets over the last week," I am not particularly impressed by that story.

Then why did you not only repeat it (for the second time), but defend it earlier in the thread?

Hell, there is no way I ever would have linked it if I thought it was going to be used as an excuse to ignore the State Department Non-Disclosure Agreement story.

What State Department Non-Disclosure Agreement story?

 

[The Big Dog]

Then why did you not only repeat it (for the second time), but defend it earlier in the thread?

What State Department Non-Disclosure Agreement story?

I was applying critical thinking skills.

What State Department Non-Disclosure Agreement story?

You know, never mind.

Thanks for posting.

 

[A'isha]

I was applying critical thinking skills.

Uh huh.

What State Department Non-Disclosure Agreement story?

You know, never mind.

Thanks for posting.

The only one I could find is Representative Wolf claiming that anonymous sources passed that information on to him.

Was there another story?

 

[The Big Dog]

Today the Department of State has designated the Muhammad Jamal Network (MJN) and founder, Muhammad Jamal, as Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order (E.O.) 13224, which targets terrorists and those providing support to terrorists or acts of terrorism.

As avid readers of this thread will recall, Jamal has reportedly been tied to the terrorist attack in Benghazi. Some of the terrorists who had trained in his camps took part in the assault.

The Wall Street Journal first reported that "[f]ighters linked to" Jamal were among those who assaulted the US diplomatic mission. "Intelligence reports suggest that some of the attackers trained at camps [Jamal] established in the Libyan Desert, a former U.S. official said." The New York Times has cited "American officials" as saying that some of the participants came from "the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt."

Check back here for the latest Developments.

 

[Mister Earl]

You mean tenacity, not veracity. Veracity, in fact, has been the problem.

Aye. Apologies; Suffering from the debilitating condition of entirely too much afternoon and not nearly enough coffee. I hear coffee can treat the symptoms, and I've got a large cup now.

 

[The Big Dog]

Aye. Apologies; Suffering from the debilitating condition of entirely too much afternoon and not nearly enough coffee. I hear coffee can treat the symptoms, and I've got a large cup now.

No problem, you had it correct both times.

 

[The Big Dog]

No doubt many of you have wondered whether the recent capture of a high-profile target in Tripoli had any connection to the Benghazi Terror Attack. As best I can determine, "Despite his presence in Libya, Abu Anas was not believed to have played any role in the 2012 attack on the United States diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, senior officials briefed on that investigation have said, but he may have sought to build networks connecting what remains of the Qaeda organization to like-minded militants in Libya."

From the New York Times.

Notably, leading suspects for the Benghazi attack associated with the Ansar Al-Sharia gang have been living openly in Benghazi.

Will these US attacks drive them to ground? You know that this thread will have that information when it becomes public.

Here is a much more detailed article regarding the search for the Benghazi suspects and the differences regarding the recent Delta Force snatch of the Al Qua-ida suspect in Tripoli.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/08/libya-raid-benghazi-suspects/2937543/

""There is no doubt the success of the operation (in Tripoli) would raise the question in the United States and in Libya about whether another operation like this could and might well be carried out in Benghazi," Zarate said."

Although this isn't really clear, the context indicates that the snatch operation in Tripoli makes it less likely of a similar episode in Benghazi, speculation with which I agree.

 

[The Big Dog]

Libya Gives "Tacit" Approval to US to Capture Terror Suspects

The title says it all folks.

As avid readers of the thread have come to expect, the link:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/09/libya-approves-u-s-operations-to-get-benghazi-suspects/

As always, keep checking back for one of the most comprehensive news aggregation threads in the world on the situation in Benghazi.

16.5

 

[remirol]

As always, keep checking back for one of the most comprehensive the only news aggregation threads in the world on the situation historical events in Benghazi.

Fixed that for you. Also, wouldn't it be quicker to just type "bump"? That way you could quit repeating the bits that not even Congressional Republicans can be bothered to care about anymore, largely because they're too busy doing nothing and calling it a "shutdown".

 

[The Big Dog]

Fixed that for you. Also, wouldn't it be quicker to just type "bump"? That way you could quit repeating the bits that not even Congressional Republicans can be bothered to care about anymore, largely because they're too busy doing nothing and calling it a "shutdown".

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to modify my posts, remirol. I'm sure you know better.

Are the links in my posts to breaking news stories about on-going investigations not working?

 

[Puppycow]

The title says it all folks.

As avid readers of the thread have come to expect, the link:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/09/libya-approves-u-s-operations-to-get-benghazi-suspects/

As always, keep checking back for one of the most comprehensive news aggregation threads in the world on the situation in Benghazi.

16.5

Why the hell is this being leaked to and reported by the news media before the operation happens?

 

[The Big Dog]

Confirmation

Avid readers will recall that in this thread a poster noted that the snatch and grab of an Al Qua-ida leader in Libya might have a detrimental impact on the on going, as in today, investigation into the murder of four Americans.

here is some confirmation of what you read three days ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-the-consequences-of-an-obama-administration-leak/2013/10/10/cfd5b43c-31ad-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html

Washington Post.

I do request that the thread go back on moderation.

 

[The Big Dog]

yet successfully explained why _this_ particular embassy attack deserves a thorough scouring, while all the others which occurred under Bush (and in which fifty-odd Americans died) were simply an unfortunate "business as usual"; the cost of having embassies in countries with powerful hostile, militant, Anti-American groups.

I'll ignore most of your post, except this part.

"and in which fifty-odd Americans died." This is utterly false and is the product of false and grossly misleading information provided by people that intentionally attempt to derail the discussion about Benghazi due to false tu quoque fallacies.

False claims like this are why this thread exists. Doesn't it piss you off that what you believed is FALSE and is the product of administration apologists lying to you?

Now you know that that your claim was false. I don't expect that you will thank me. Come back anyway, I am sure if you read my posts and my links you might learn something.

 

[remirol]

I'll ignore most of your post, except this part.

"and in which fifty-odd Americans died." This is utterly false and is the product of false and grossly misleading information provided by people that intentionally attempt to derail the discussion about Benghazi due to false tu quoque fallacies.

You might want to look up "tu quoque" first before you continue being mistaken about whether the statement is false. Hope this helps.

 

[The Big Dog]

You might want to look up "tu quoque" first before you continue being mistaken about whether the statement is false. Hope this helps.

OK, after I told you that "and in which fifty-odd Americans died" was completely false, you double down.

I'd ask you to support that claim, but avid readers of this thread know that is false, because I have explained it SEVERAL TIMES in this thread.

I also explained why it is a tu quoque fallacy several times as well.

It is your claim that "and in which fifty-odd Americans died." We expect you to try to do do.

Until that time, please stop misleading serious readers with bald faced lies.