New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
Yeah, the CIA timeline mentioned in my post.

Sorry if that is Unproductive.

Did you read the *********** timeline????
Click to expand...

I don't offhand recall you posting a link to the timeline, just quotes from. I'm not sure the tone of your response is quite called for.

Google wasn't extremely helpful. I've found a timeline that claims to be the CIAs but it's not a "what we knew when we knew it" timeline but a timeline of events from the incident, which isn't useful for identifying what the CIA actually knew on 9/12. I've also found several right wing sites that don't like the CIA timeline, but I didn't bother with them.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
I should also note that Watergate was a criminal conspiracy and obstruction of justice to cover up a crime. Does anyone in this thread think that Benghazi was a criminal conspiracy or that laws have been broken in order to cover up another crime?

Yes, two people died in Benghazi and that shoudn't be minimized but those people did not die because of criminal activity of Obama, Clinton or the State Department. At least I haven't seen any evidence of that.
Click to expand...

Four died. Begging for help btw. Incompetence but not criminal.

So it goes.
 
New Yorker:

Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.
 
16.5 said:
...but this is jref, we focus on facts!
Click to expand...
Really? When did you address the following fact.

ANTPogo said:
What major evidence exists that contradicts the fact that the CIA initially thought the attack was born out of spontaneous protests originating in Cairo, and specifically wrote that into the talking points memo right from the very beginning of the drafting process?
Click to expand...
 
DDWW said:
Four died. Begging for help btw. Incompetence but not criminal.
Click to expand...
Other than the refusal to give Clinton the money she asked for to secure embasies what incompetence led to these deaths?
 
elbe said:
I don't offhand recall you posting a link to the timeline, just quotes from. I'm not sure the tone of your response is quite called for.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I posted it. The CIA timeline. I mentioned it in the post you responded to.

Getting tired of folks JAQ'ing off.
 
16.5 said:
New Yorker:

Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.
Click to expand...

The memo? Yes, we've gone over that. They never actually identify Ansar al Sharia as the attackers in any of the iterations of the talking points. They may be name checked, but they also say that they denied involvement and make no further statements of fact.
 
16.5 said:
Yeah, I posted it. The CIA timeline. I mentioned it in the post you responded to.

Getting tired of folks JAQ'ing off.
Click to expand...

Are you honestly upset with me because you mentioned the CIA timeline but you didn't link to it and I wanted to see it? That is... disappointing.
I would like to have thought that if you were going to make claims you would be willing to back them up. If not I guess I don't understand why you even want to make the claim.
 
Last edited:
elbe said:
The memo? Yes, we've gone over that. They never actually identify Ansar al Sharia as the attackers in any of the iterations of the talking points. They may be name checked, but they also say that they denied involvement and make no further statements of fact.
Click to expand...

HA! Seriously? Everything you just said was bull ****.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vide...-documents-scrubbed-terror-reference-19152258

lolz! Elbe is just asking questions! Ploink

The United States told Libya that it was Ansar al Sharia, and then Rice punked the President of Libya on a Sunday Morinng news show.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
HA! Seriously? Everything you just said was bull ****.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vide...-documents-scrubbed-terror-reference-19152258

lolz! Elbe is just asking questions! Ploink
Click to expand...

I think we've all read the talking points. All 8 revisions.

Are you sure you've read them?

Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved. Ansar al-Sharia's Facebook page aims to spread Sharia in Libya and emphasizes the need for jihad to counter what it views as false interpretations of Islam, according to an open source study.
Click to expand...

As a talking point it's essentially says "there are reports that ansar al sharia is responsible but they've denied it and we can't confirm at this time", it then goes on to explain who they are so, assuming it was released to the public, the talking head could explain who this group was.
 
Last edited:
elbe said:
Are you honestly upset with me because you mentioned the CIA timeline but you didn't link to it and I wanted to see it? That is... disappointing.
I would like to have thought that if you were going to make claims you would be willing to back them up. If not I guess I don't understand why you even want to make the claim.
Click to expand...

Here you go.

Note the date of when it was released...it's not a timeline from that first week after the attacks, but a timeline compiled a month and a half later.

And I see 16.5 has so far completely ignored spin0's post about it.

EDIT: And, of course, Senator McCain called that very timeline a cover-up.
 
Last edited:
ANTPogo said:
Here you go.

Note the date of when it was released...it's not a timeline from that first week after the attacks, but a timeline compiled a month and a half later.

And I see 16.5 has so far completely ignored spin0's post about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I found from the poorly attributed quote 16.5 posted. It certainly isn't evidence of what the CIA knew at a specific point in time. It would have been nice if the CIA released a "this is when we learned X" timeline, but I think I'd be very surprised by that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom