New Disclosures on Benghazi

[RandFan]

What is ironic is that we see nobody addressing the house-led budget cuts that led to cuts in Dept. of State security. Tsk.

GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security

 

[Newtons Bit]

What is ironic is that we see nobody addressing the house-led budget cuts that led to cuts in Dept. of State security. Tsk.

It would be fair game.

 

[Newtons Bit]

No, when you provide the evidence and stop speculating like a TWOOFER I'll stop asking you for evidence. If you have a claim it's your job to support it.

What is your claim and where is your evidence?

I already posted it. Stop asking the same question over and over again (like a twoofer!)

 

[The Big Dog]

What is ironic is that we see nobody addressing the house-led budget cuts that led to cuts in Dept. of State security. Tsk.

Because it is not true.

 

[A'isha]

The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by a protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated. On 10 September the Agency notified Embassy Cairo of social media reports calling for a demonstration and encouraging jihadists to break into the Embassy.

The investigation is ongoing as to who is responsible for the violence, although the crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals. That being said, there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

This is the CIA's draft of the talking points memo, before anyone from the State Department or the White House saw it or commented on it, and before any of the changes that non-CIA officials suggested were made to the memo.

Why do you think it was written this way? For what purpose, do you think, did the CIA right from the start and before any State Department officials saw it make references to "demonstrations" that "evolved into a direct assault" in Benghazi, as well saying that they "spontaneously" arose out of the anti-Innocence of Muslims demonstrations that took place in Cairo?

 

[RandFan]

I already posted it.

Argument by assertion is a fallacy.

Stop asking the same question over and over again (like a twoofer!)

Sorry no. I'm not the one here speculating so I'm hardly a "twoofer". I'm not making any claims. I'm being a skeptic. Now, either you have a claim and evidence or you don't.

What is your claim and where is your evidence?

 

[RandFan]

Because it is not true.

That's an odd claim.

GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security

 

[The Big Dog]

That's an odd claim.

GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security

Didn't pass. You might want to watch the Saturday morning cartoon school house rock called "I'm just a bill."

 

[RandFan]

Didn't pass. You might want to watch the Saturday morning cartoon school house rock called "I'm just a bill."

From the link

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.
​

 

[The Big Dog]

From the link

Look up something other than partisan propaganda.

Thanks.

Check that, your own link says it didn't pass.

Obama signed a bill that cut the spending! Omfg!

 

[Newtons Bit]

Argument by assertion is a fallacy.

Sorry no. I'm not the one here speculating so I'm hardly a "twoofer". I'm not making any claims. I'm being a skeptic. Now, either you have a claim and evidence or you don't.

What is your claim and where is your evidence?

Asked and answered. Maybe you would have noticed it if you weren't so intent on labeling people conspiracy theorists.

 

[A'isha]

Look up something other than partisan propaganda.

Thanks.

Not a single thing at that link is incorrect.

Then again, facts do have a well-known liberal bias.

Obama signed a bill that cut the spending! Omfg!

As part of a compromise bill because the Republicans refused to authorize the amount of money the State Department said they needed for embassy protection.

 

[RandFan]

Look up something other than partisan propaganda.

Thanks.

A.) That's not a rebuttal (it's ad hominem poisioning the well). I thought you were against ad hominem attacks. B.) The source is Washington Post’s Dana Milbank.

 

[RandFan]

Asked and answered. Maybe you would have noticed it if you weren't so intent on labeling people conspiracy theorists.

I can't force you to make a claim and post the evidence. It's your choice.

 

[elbe]

I'm still wondering if anyone has any actual evidence that the incorrect early information wasn't the result of the best possible information from the time.

 

[The Big Dog]

A.) That's not a rebuttal (it's ad hominem poisioning the well). I thought you were against ad hominem attacks. B.) The source is Washington Post’s Dana Milbank.

Yeah, I amended my post when I realized you didn't understand it.

Omg it s teh Obama fault! He signed bill.

Laws, how do they work?

 

[A'isha]

Omg it s teh Obama fault! He signed bill.

Why did that bill end up authorizing less money than the State Department wanted, 16.5?

Laws, how do they work?

You apparently don't actually know.

 

[RandFan]

Yeah, I amended my post when I realized you didn't understand it.

Let me see, you are attacking me, the arguer and not my argument, is that right?

Omg it s teh Obama fault! He signed bill.

And that changes the point how?

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm still wondering if anyone has any actual evidence that the incorrect early information wasn't the result of the best possible information from the time.

Yeah. I posted the email that the state department sent to the Libyan ambassador stating that al quaeda affiliated Ansar al sharia attacked he consulate. In this thread. Look it up. Use the search function

Thumbs up

 

[Newtons Bit]

I can't force you to make a claim and post the evidence. It's your choice.

And I can't force you to go back and read previous posts.