New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

Well your claim that this is secondarily the purpose of the thread is certainly false. You said nothing about this quote in the OP, so it couldn't possibly be true that one of the purposes of this thread was to ask a question about it.

Considering that the quote was one of the many developments that took place after the thread began, I believe your attack is misplaced.

 

[RandFan]

Considering that the quote was one of the many developments that took place after the thread began, I believe your attack is misplaced.

And not a single material fact that demonstrates what anyone knew as opposed to what they believed.

So far the thread has been rumor, speculation and accusations.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Considering that the quote was one of the many developments that took place after the thread began, I believe your attack is misplaced.

No. Your claim that this is what the thread was about is false for this very reason.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So far the thread has been rumor, speculation and accusations.

Including, of course, the extremely wild accusation that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths in Benghazi.

This is the one 16.5 wants to pretend he never made without retracting it.

 

[The Big Dog]

I hadn't spent much time in this part of the forum before this.

Is it common for people to whine about the thread in an effort to disrupt the thread?

One would think that they would just avoid it.

 

[A'isha]

Still no explanation of what the scandal actually is, or why Congress needs to hold interminable hearings about it.

 

[elbe]

Still no explanation of what the scandal actually is, or why Congress needs to hold interminable hearings about it.

I assume the idea is to keep holding hearings until someone says something they want to hear.

 

[RandFan]

I hadn't spent much time in this part of the forum before this.

Is it common for people to whine about the thread in an effort to disrupt the thread?

One would think that they would just avoid it.

• This is a skeptics site.
• Stop whining about skeptics doing their job and projecting on them.
• This thread isn't your free playground to make unchallenged claims.
• If you can't stand the heat and all that...

Got any evidence that demonstrates what the State Department and CIA "knew" as opposed to what they believed during and following the attack?

You can ignore that question until time stops but it's not going away just because you want your critics to avoid this thread.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Thank you for your friendly and lively input.

the purpose of the thread is to track the new developments in connection with the ongoing Benghazi investigation, and secondarily to determine whether this statement:

"said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response: "It's actually closer to us being idiots."

is accurate, or whether they are lying. Thanks for posting

Basing a thread on a quote for which the context isn't even clear?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I hadn't spent much time in this part of the forum before this.

Is it common for people to whine about the thread in an effort to disrupt the thread?

Less common than for people to continually post evasive responses in the hope that everyone else will grow tired of it and quit the thread.

 

[applecorped]

• Stop whining about skeptics doing their job and projecting on them.

I didn't know there was a job, let alone one that called for knee jerk obfuscation and grandstanding in an effort to to muddy the waters and and misdirect responsibility.

 

[elbe]

I didn't know there was a job, let alone one that called for knee jerk obfuscation and grandstanding in an effort to to muddy the waters and and misdirect responsibility.

I take it you have something of merit to add then?

 

[RandFan]

I didn't know there was a job

Yep, there's a job. It's called being a skeptic.

, let alone one that called for knee jerk obfuscation and grandstanding in an effort to to muddy the waters and and misdirect responsibility.

I'm afraid you are directing your criticism at the wrong person. I'm not the one making claims I cannot back up. I'm not the one playing the martyr.

 

[RandFan]

I didn't know there was a job, let alone one that called for knee jerk obfuscation and grandstanding in an effort to to muddy the waters and and misdirect responsibility.

I take it you have something of merit to add then?

Good point, apple, as skeptics we've been asking for a single material fact that demonstrates what the State Department and CIA new as opposed to what the believe. AFAIK, no such fact has ever been given.

So, you really don't have anything substantive to add, right?

 

[The Big Dog]

• This is a skeptics site.
• Stop whining about skeptics doing their job and projecting on them.
• This thread isn't your free playground to make unchallenged claims.
• If you can't stand the heat and all that...

Got any evidence that demonstrates what the State Department and CIA "knew" as opposed to what they believed during and following the attack?

You can ignore that question until time stops but it's not going away just because you want your critics to avoid this thread.

Your job? Hee hee!

Yes, rand fan, I posted it already, you ignored it. It included the interviews with the survivors and the videos. I mentioned it. You were posting "captain hindsight" pictures, "skeptic".

By the way, while declaring that you are a skeptic, you have proven yourself to be quite partisan. Post how you used to be a republican again, though, rand fan. Hell that has to be a sizable percentage of your 53,000 posts. But it is your job.

Let me know when the Obama releases the interviews with the survivors, skeptic. Or the video showing no protest.

 

[RandFan]

Your job? Hee hee!

Childish.

Yes, rand fan, I posted it already, you ignored it. It included the interviews with the survivors and the videos. I mentioned it. You were posting "captain hindsight" pictures, "skeptic".

No, you posted no such thing. This is a lie.

By the way, while declaring that you are a skeptic, you have proven yourself to be quite partisan. Post how you used to be a republican again, though, rand fan. Hell that has to be a sizable percentage of your 53,000 posts. But it is your job.

This isn't about me.

Let me know when the Obama releases the interviews with the survivors, skeptic. Or the video showing no protest.

I'm sorry that you still haven't figured this out but it's your claim. Your burden of proof. When you have evidence to support your claim then you let us know.

 

[The Big Dog]

Back to the developments.

Two top republicans have come out in support of Nuland.

And the incompetent rise far above their level.

 

[The Big Dog]

First of all, your accusations of "trolling" are a violation of the Rules for this forum.

Second, the question is fallacious. It says "In all of those emails..." There are several problems with this question that are readily obvious:

1. not all e-mails have been released
2. not all information regarding the talking points have been released.
3. there is substantial evidence outside the limited facts discussed in those emails that show what we all now know is the truth: there was NO PROTEST outside the consulate before the attack.

These include:

1. State department videos;
2. the statements of Hicks and the five surviving U.S. diplomatic security agents.

If you want to start a thread in conspiracy theories, by all means do it.

Yeah, I'll just leave this here.

 

[RandFan]

Captain hindshight has 20/20 vision for the past (with a rhetoric thrown in)

Back to the developments.

Two top republicans have come out in support of Nuland.

And the incompetent rise far above their level.

Did Nuland break a law or violate any ethics? What did Nuland know vs what she believed? Do you have material evidence of what she knew as opposed to what she believed? What did the CIA know vs what they believed. Were either agency motivated to spin the memo to their favor based on the admittedly preliminary information?

Until you resolve those questions you are left with CT innuendo, speculations and nothing concrete as to what anyone knew as opposed to what they believe.

Not a single material fact. Just a witch hunt at worst and a fishing expedition at best.

In all of these pages none of those facts have changed.

None.

No one in the media as far as I can tel has made claimed material facts that would demonstrate a crime or even a cover up. That requires speculation and CT don't connecting.

Of course we know cap'n that you are excellent at hindsight and no one I know of disputes the facts, in hindsight.

 

[RandFan]

Got any evidence that demonstrates what the State Department and CIA "knew" as opposed to what they believed during and following the attack?

Yes, rand fan, I posted it already, you ignored it. It included the interviews with the survivors and the videos. I mentioned it.

No, you posted no such thing. This is a lie.

Yeah, I'll just leave this here. Remember this the next time a self proclaimed skeptic posts. "You posted no such thing. This is a lie."

First of all, your accusations of "trolling" are a violation of the Rules for this forum.

Second, the question is fallacious. It says "In all of those emails..." There are several problems with this question that are readily obvious:

1. not all e-mails have been released
2. not all information regarding the talking points have been released.
3. there is substantial evidence outside the limited facts discussed in those emails that show what we all now know is the truth: there was NO PROTEST outside the consulate before the attack.

These include:

1. State department videos;
2. the statements of Hicks and the five surviving U.S. diplomatic security agents.

If you want to start a thread in conspiracy theories, by all means do it.

Gee right here in this thread. Huh, right in this thread. Well 53,000 posts, not all of them can be a winner....

None of this demonstrates what anyone "knew" as opposed to what they "believed".

You flat out lied. You've posted no material facts that demonstrate conclusively that anyone lied or covered up anything. Not one iota of conclusive evidence. You are now left to lying along with the CT style connect the dots BS.

A flat out lie Cap'n.

Try again?