New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

What the hell are you talking about? Let's go back:

In my "analogy" there is nothing about hearings. I've not a clue what you are on about.

• There can be hearings and conspiracy.
• There can be hearings and no conspiracy.

One has nothing to do with the other. So, one more time, what in the sam hell are you talking about? Your questions and implications are very, very conspiratorial. IMO you are no different from a 9/11 truther. Hearings or no hearings changes absolutely nothing as to your implications. The singular fact that there are hearings doesn't make your theory true. The singular fact that there are hearings doesn't lend any credence to what looks to me amounts to nothing more than conspiracy theory.

From what I've seen to date Issa's "hearings" appear self serving.

I'm talking about the Congressional Hearings. Tomorrow. Under Oath.

I am not talking about any conspiracy theories at all.

You are:

From what I've seen to date Issa's "hearings" appear self serving.

 

[The Big Dog]

If it was his call, he wouldn't have needed authorization, now would he? And considering that his group was just an advisory survey team armed with pistols, and Embassy Tripoli had just sent all of its own protection to Benghazi to assist there, what, exactly, is the issue with SOCAFRICA denying authorization for them to go on the 6:30 AM flight?

"advisory survey team"? A what now? Gibson was locked and ready to go, he clearly felt his armament was sufficient. He was the boots on the ground, he was leading the mission. He was ready.

I understand that a source claims that they were armed only with 9mm sidearms.

Interesting! Thank GOD we are going to get to the bottom of this with the hearings tomorrow, right?

 

[The Big Dog]

That's your inference. Hicks' quote is elided in the transcript, so we don't know. I'm curious as to why it was edited, and what the rest of his reply was.

Aren't you?

I am curious too! Thank god we can explore this new information during the Hearing Tomorrow!

 

[A'isha]

Gibson was locked and ready to go, he clearly felt his armament was sufficient. He was the boots on the ground, he was leading the mission. He was ready.

He was not on, nor was he prepared for, a combat mission.

 

[A'isha]

I am curious too! Thank god we can explore this new information during the Hearing Tomorrow!

I want to know why it was edited out of the released excerpts of his April testimony.

And I take it you're never going to answer my questions, then?

 

[elbe]

He was not on, nor was he prepared for, a combat mission.

And just because he was, I'm assuming, willing to go doesn't mean even he thought he was really prepared for it.

 

[RandFan]

I'm talking about the Congressional Hearings. Tomorrow. Under Oath.

And this has WHAT to do with what I said? Let me remind you of the sub thread one more time.

Exactly. It's the same nonsense as 9/11. A malevolent presidential administration was indifferent to Americans in harms way and they did everything they could to have them die... or something. I don't know but its got CT written all over it.

Just so we are clear here, using your analogy, we never should have had the 911 Commission hearings?

Interesting.

• In the first post I give my opinion that your claims are conspiratorial.
• In the second post you try to find a conclusion about the hearings from my post. That conclusion is a non-sequitur as far as I can tell.

So, I'll ask you one more time in the vain hope that you will explain to me what the hearings have to do with my original post about your claims being conspiratorial? Could you just focus on that? How do you go from my claim that you are being conspiratorial to the straw man about hearings?

Help me out?

 

[The Big Dog]

I want to know why it was edited out of the released excerpts of his April testimony.

And I take it you're never going to answer my questions, then?

Which "transcript" are you using? Linky please. I've seen several versions.

 

[jj]

• In the first post I give my opinion that your claims are conspiratorial.
• In the second post you try to find a conclusion about the hearings from my post. That conclusion is a non-sequitur as far as I can tell.

His second post is a straw man, built partially from appeal to incredulity and insinuated (false) relationships between items, with a taste of "correlation implies causation" and a bit of "well poisoning".

Please don't ask me what that has to do with his OP. I can't tell.

 

[A'isha]

Which "transcript" are you using? Linky please. I've seen several versions.

The one linked in my very first reply in this thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

The one linked in my very first reply in this thread.

ABC had a different quote.

I also want to know what was edited out of the transcript.

Hopefully they will cover this new information tomorrow.

 

[RandFan]

His second post is a straw man, built partially from appeal to incredulity and insinuated (false) relationships between items, with a taste of "correlation implies causation" and a bit of "well poisoning".

Please don't ask me what that has to do with his OP. I can't tell.

I can't either and I have a feeling that my question isn't going to be answered.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...allowed-to-fly-to-benghazi-during-attack?lite

U.S. military officials confirmed late Monday that a four-man Special Operations Forces team was denied permission to leave the US Embassy in Tripoli following reports that the consulate in Benghazi had been attacked.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the team was reviewing security at U.S. embassies throughout the Middle East and was not prepared for a combat assault mission, being armed with only 9mm sidearms.

They also noted that the situation at Benghazi remained unclear and there were concerns the Embassy in Tripoli also could become a target.

I'm just going to point out here that the date (September the 11th) should have been enough to have back up security forces on a higher alert than "Only armed with 9mm sidearms". That alone is worth looking at more closely. Someone seriously dropped the ball on that and should have their feet held to the fire as to why that was.

 

[The Big Dog]

I can't either and I have a feeling that my question isn't going to be answered.

The answer is right there in the quote:

"Please don't ask me what that has to do with his OP. I can't tell."

 

[RandFan]

I'm just going to point out here that the date (September the 11th) should have been enough to have back up security forces on a higher alert than "Only armed with 9mm sidearms". That alone is worth looking at more closely. Someone seriously dropped the ball on that and should have their feet held to the fire as to why that was.

I suspect it's a bit more complicated than just ignoring the risks. However, if there was negligence or malfeasance then you are right and I agree. It's too bad that the people who dropped the ball that resulted in the invasion of Iraq that resulted in the death of thousands of American service personnel never got their feet held to the fire. Not a tu quoque. Wrong is wrong. In the case of Iraq it was all predicated on lies and not simply dropping the ball. In that case there actually was a conspiracy to suppress the truth before anyone even died.

 

[RandFan]

The answer is right there in the quote:

"Please don't ask me what that has to do with his OP. I can't tell."

How is my answer in his quote? Okay, one more time, let's go over it again.

Exactly. It's the same nonsense as 9/11. A malevolent presidential administration was indifferent to Americans in harms way and they did everything they could to have them die... or something. I don't know but its got CT written all over it.

Just so we are clear here, using your analogy, we never should have had the 911 Commission hearings?

Interesting.

• In the first post I give my opinion that your claims are conspiratorial.
• In the second post you try to find a conclusion about the hearings from my post. That conclusion is a non-sequitur as far as I can tell.

What does the quote by JJ have to do with your conclusion about the hearings from my post? It's really not that difficult of a question and I've bulleted the premise and the conclusion. What is it that you are not understanding?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

No, my suggestion is that there are no "new disclosures on Benghazi" whatsoever, and this whole farce is merely partisan hackery on Issa and the Republicans' part.

What? If you have someone who was on the ground at the time who hasn't yet given any testimony how can you possibly say that there ARE no new disclosures on Benghazi? You haven't even heard the testimony yet. You seem to be saying that you don't want to hear what the guy has to say because it might not fit into what you want to believe.

 

[The Big Dog]

[*]In the first post I give my opinion that your claims are conspiratorial.
?

They are not my claims. They are Mr. Hicks.

I understand that you think they are a "conspiracy."

Feel free to take your "sub-thread" to the appropriate forum.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I suspect it's a bit more complicated than just ignoring the risks. However, if there was negligence or malfeasance then you are right and I agree. It's too bad that the people who dropped the ball that resulted in the invasion of Iraq that resulted in the death of thousands of American service personnel never got their feet held to the fire. Not a tu quoque. Wrong is wrong. In the case of Iraq it was all predicated on lies and not simply dropping the ball. In that case there actually was a conspiracy to suppress the truth before anyone even died.

But, but, but Iraq? Seriously? Take it to a different thread.

 

[mikedenk]

Apologies to fellow conservatives, but this just Benghazi thing just isn't going to go anywhere. No proof of wrongdoing. No traction. No public interest. There's no "there" there.

The administration should rightly be criticized for trying to pin the blame on a YouTube video, which seems to have been done for political reasons.

But that's just politics. Not much of a scandal IMHO.