New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

Is there a reasonably coherent timeline (maybe with notes) of what happened on the net somewhere? I'm confused by who did what, when. If there's one at a trusted source, I'd love to see it.

And a second question. What ever happened to the allegations that the embassy grounds were also home to a "black site" operation by the CIA that shaped the response to the attack. Was that complete crap?

My suggestion is that you read Hick's opening statement today. It is incredibly moving and very detailed.

The CIA annex was located about a Kilometer away from the consulate grounds. The survivors from the Consulate were moved there, and Ansar al Sharia militia followed them there with heavy machine guns and mortars.

 

[A'isha]

Is there a reasonably coherent timeline (maybe with notes) of what happened on the net somewhere? I'm confused by who did what, when. If there's one at a trusted source, I'd love to see it.

The State Department's ARB Report has a detailed writeup of who did what starting on page 18, and there's also a CIA timeline and a Pentagon timeline of events.

My suggestion is that you ignore anything 16.5 says.

 

[The Big Dog]

The State Department's ARB Report has a detailed writeup of who did what starting on page 18, and there's also a CIA timeline and a Pentagon timeline of events.

My suggestion is that you ignore anything 16.5 says.

Yeah, don't read today's testimony. Here is the opening testimony that ANT doesn't want you to read:

http:Transcript and video

That is what ANT wants you not to do.

And he has been extremely reasonable all day.

A perfect little Administration mouthpiece.

The part I liked best? When he questioned Hick's situational knowledge.

Remember, 16.5 is the bad guy. Hicks? Don't read his testimony.

 

[RandFan]

Daily show nailed it tonight. The video hasn't been released as far as I can tell. I'll post it as soon as it's available.

In the meantime: What the promoters of this faux outrage don't want you to know.

The Truth About Attacks on Our Diplomats

The UMd. database lists 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets during the George W. Bush administration, including car bombs at the US embassy in Yemen and armed attackers assaulting a US consulate in Saudi Arabia.

No outrage about those. People died but hey, it was Bush not Obama.

 

[RandFan]

Yeah, don't read today's testimony. Here is the opening testimony that ANT doesn't want you to read:

http:Transcript and video

Was there a smoking gun? What is your claim that the Obama administration did wrong? I've said over and over, if someone lied, or if there was a conspiracy then I want to know about it and I want the proof and I would like people to be held accountable. What is your evidence?

 

[RandFan]

EDIT: And it wasn't the Administration, but military officials themselves.

Not a valid reason not to impeach Obama.

 

[The Big Dog]

Was there a smoking gun? What is your claim that the Obama administration did wrong? I've said over and over, if someone lied, or if there was a conspiracy then I want to know about it and I want the proof and I would like people to be held accountable. What is your evidence?

They lied about the attack spontaneously arising out of a anti-video protest.

C'mon, keep up Obama fan.

Cool tu quoque in the last post, though!

 

[tyr_13]

They lied about the attack spontaneously arising out of a anti-video protest.

C'mon, keep up Obama fan.

Cool tu quoque in the last post, though!

Evidence they lied and were not simply mistaken?

 

[The Big Dog]

Was there a smoking gun? What is your claim that the Obama administration did wrong? I've said over and over, if someone lied, or if there was a conspiracy then I want to know about it and I want the proof and I would like people to be held accountable. What is your evidence?

"President Magarief was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced. His ability to govern was [damaged]. He was angry... He was still steamed about the talk shows two weeks later. I definitely believe it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi."

 

[The Big Dog]

Evidence they lied and were not simply mistaken?

The fact that the Administration deleted the reference to Al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia in the 9/14 talking point memo, as already mentioned in this thread.

 

[tyr_13]

The fact that the Administration deleted the reference to Al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia in the 9/14 talking point memo, as already mentioned in this thread.

So you have nothing of any substance then.

 

[RandFan]

They lied about the attack spontaneously arising out of a anti-video protest.

To what end?

Cool tu quoque in the last post, though!

A tu quoque is when you try and justify an action with another. I have said over and over that if there was lying then I would want someone to be held accountable. I have not tried to justify anything. I have demonstrated that outrage is fake. There was no outrage about diplomatic deaths under Bush.

 

[The Big Dog]

So you have nothing of any substance then.

Please explain how this:

The fact that the Administration deleted the reference to Al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia in the 9/14 talking point memo, as already mentioned in this thread.

Is nothing of substance. C'mon, I'm fascinated by your response.

 

[RandFan]

"President Magarief was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced. His ability to govern was [damaged]. He was angry... He was still steamed about the talk shows two weeks later. I definitely believe it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi."

This isn't evidence of anything except President Magarief's emotions. I'll ask again, do you have any evidence that will stop fox news from saying "if" the president lied (on the Daily Show tonight Stewart documents all of the times FOX has said "if" there was wrong doing. Where is the evidence?

 

[The Big Dog]

A tu quoque is when you try and justify an action with another. I have said over and over that if there was lying then I would want someone to be held accountable. I have not tried to justify anything. I have demonstrated that outrage is fake. There was no outrage about diplomatic deaths under Bush.

Wrong. Look up tu quoque, it is fallacy. You have used it a dozen times in this thread.

 

[RandFan]

Please explain how this:

The fact that the Administration deleted the reference to Al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia in the 9/14 talking point memo, as already mentioned in this thread.

Is nothing of substance. C'mon, I'm fascinated by your response.

No, that's not proof that Obama lied. That's your claim. Do you have proof that Obama conspired to mislead the American people? Do you even have proof that he lied?

 

[The Big Dog]

This isn't evidence of anything except President Magarief's emotions. I'll ask again, do you have any evidence that will stop fox news from saying "if" the president lied (on the Daily Show tonight Stewart documents all of the times FOX has said "if" there was wrong doing. Where is the evidence?

Re-read Hick's testimony today.

If you have something other than "the Daily Show" to contradict that assessment (and arguments from incredulity) bring it.

When did the FBI get to Benghazi?

 

[RandFan]

Wrong. Look up tu quoque, it is fallacy. You have used it a dozen times in this thread.

I've looked it up and posted the definition dozens of times.

Tu Quoque

Translation: "You, also" or "You're another", Latin Type:

• Argumentum ad Hominem
• Two Wrongs Make a Right

I don't claim that two wrongs make a right. I don't claim that anything Bush did excuses Obama. I do claim that the outrage is demonstrably fake. That's my claim and the proof of that is that there was no outrage before.

YOU look it up.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, that's not proof that Obama lied. That's your claim. Do you have proof that Obama conspired to mislead the American people? Do you even have proof that he lied?

Cool. Thanks for your opinion.

The Administrations claims that the attack spontnelously arose out of n anti-video protest, including Obama's on Letterman and others were false.

That is a fact.

Do you dispute that? Do you dispute that the fact that the Administration deleted the reference to Al Quaeda and Ansar al Sharia in the 9/14 talking point memo, as already mentioned in this thread?

Yes or No?

 

[RandFan]

Re-read Hick's testimony today.

I did. I see no smoking gun. It's your claim. Why can't you support it with evidence. Telling others to go read something ISN'T evidence of your claim. Do you have evidence?

If you have something other than "the Daily Show" to contradict that assessment (and arguments from incredulity) bring it.

The Daily Show does more than an adequate job of demonstrating how there is no there there.

When did the FBI get to Benghazi?

ANTPogo provided a time line. Look it up. Stop asking questions like a typical conspiracy theorist and provide the evidence.