New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

That's not how it works. An observation being consistent with one possibility in addition to other possibilities is not, cannot be, evidence of only one of those possibilities.

That's why in absence of actual evidence the possibility isn't held to be a fact.

Wrong. You claimed there were facts in the post I replied to that I needed to contradict. There were none. You then reposted other posts which I had not replied to with other assertions and jumbles by you, which I was supposed to contradict...something...out of.


What makes you say that?

You're not trying to figure out why they are wrong, you're trying to insinuate and support your conclusion about why they are wrong without making any claims directly. Working backwards from the government and Obama being badong and trying to figure out how the talking points prove that.

Huh, maybe you should not have jumped into the conversation without the desire to actually get up to speed on what you were talking about.

Cool cat story though bro.

 

[jj]

Are you thinking of someone else? I'm pretty sure that RandFan doesn't claim or believe any of these things.

Agggghhhh!

I was intending to reply to 16.5.

Silly quoting system!

 

[elbe]

Calling it CT isn't a dodge. You're not even making sense. You're like a man at a party who told his date that they'll see the host's cat. The host has told you that they don't have a cat, but you decide they must be lying because you found a hair on the carpet, the host says is his. But that doesn't explain it because the angry neighbor who hates the host complains about the cat all the time, so it must exist. And another guest mentioned a water dish! But that was for their dog and has nothing to do with the host. You aren't satisfied because the host won't let you check the bedroom and crawl space, where there must be evidence that there's a cat. Why else would that woman in the corner have red, ichy eyes and where oh where are the mice! Plus you heard about the cat on Thursday, and the party is Saturday. Why didn't he say there was no cat for all those days? His wife says there isn't a cat either, she must be in on it. They're probably hiding it because cat's aren't allowed in the building, so they have every reason to hide it...even though you've been shown that cats are allowed in the building.

There is no cat. There is no conspiracy.

If nothing else that was pretty entertaining.

 

[RandFan]

Rand fan? I asked for the claimed data to support the claim that here was a riot before the attack. Where is the data to support that? You said "contradictory data," remember? Post it, or admit there was and is none.

The CIA memo contained data about a riot. That's what I'm talking about. You don't know what the CIA knew. You can claim it was a grand conspiracy and the CIA new the draft and memo were false but then were is your evidence?

We've gone over this time and time again. It's your claim. It's your burden of proof. I only need show that there was contradictory data (see draft and final memo).

 

[RandFan]

It is not your "job" to support your claim that there was lots of contradictory data?

Do you deny that the CIA memo contained the riot scenario?

Huh, and yet you posted snarky comments like "I don't think facts even matter" (ouch bro, that has to hurt now, huh) and I think you said it was easy twice?

The CIA memo contained contradictory scenarios.

And now your claim is not your burden.

Yesterday you said your job was being a skeptic. You just don't feel that your job includes supporting your claims. Gotcha

Thanks for posting.

Have you yet to establish what the CIA and State knew? No, you haven't established this. You don't know what was known. You don't know why the CIA included both the riot and the coordinated attacks scenarios.

In all of these pages nothing has changed. There is not a single material fact that demonstrates what the CIA and State Department knew.

Capn' you are judging based on speculation and hindsight. That's it.

 

[RandFan]

Are you thinking of someone else? I'm pretty sure that RandFan doesn't claim or believe any of these things.

Agggghhhh!

I was intending to reply to 16.5.

Silly quoting system!

It's all good.

 

[The Big Dog]

The CIA memo contained contradictory scenarios.

I've shown that the talking points memo contained a false story about a protest outside the consulate before the attack.

I've shown that there was substantial evidence showing not only that was untrue (which no one challenges) but also that the evidence showed it was untrue existed at the time it was drafted, including: 1. the statements of the consulate personnel (which of course is conclusive) 2. video from the consulate 3. Jones e-mail and 4. lots more (previous attack, surveillance, the nature of the attacks)

The response was that there was contradictory data. That claim, having never been supported had clearly been abandoned, and the word "data" has been dropped from the partisans' talking point.

Now the claim is that the draft of the talking points contained contradictory scenarios (note the absence of "data" in that claim). So what do we know then? That the talking points themselves show that "protest meme" was false!

Fantastic, and then, and this really is special, the real story (that it was a terrorist attack) was removed, and all we were left with is the utterly false story that had no "data" at all to support it!

Thank you Rand Fan!

 

[RandFan]

I've shown that the talking points memo contained a false story about a protest outside the consulate before the attack.

I've shown that there was substantial evidence showing not only that was untrue (which no one challenges) but also that the evidence showed it was untrue existed at the time it was drafted, including: 1. the statements of the consulate personnel (which of course is conclusive) 2. video from the consulate 3. Jones e-mail and 4. lots more (previous attack, surveillance, the nature of the attacks)

The response was that there was contradictory data. That claim, having never been supported had clearly been abandoned, and the word "data" has been dropped from the partisans' talking point.

Now the claim is that the draft of the talking points contained contradictory scenarios (note the absence of "data" in that claim). So what do we know then? That the talking points themselves show that "protest meme" was false!

Fantastic, and then, and this really is special, the real story (that it was a terrorist attack) was removed, and all we were left with is the utterly false story that had no "data" at all to support it!

Thank you Rand Fan!

This is all hand waving. You have not demonstrated what the CIA knew. You have not demonstrated what the State Department Knew. We have demonstrated that there were contradictory scenarios (the draft and memo were data).

So, until you can show what the CIA knew as opposed to what they believed. Until you can show what the State department knew as opposed to what they believed, all you have is hindsight and speculation.

Nothing you have provided is unequivocal proof of that was known. Only what was believed. Which is why Rice used the word (preliminary). You've got nothing but CT speculation.

 

[A'isha]

I've shown that the talking points memo contained a false story about a protest outside the consulate before the attack.

The talking points memo says no such thing. The only protests it mentions were in Cairo, where there were, indeed, protests.

1. the statements of the consulate personnel (which of course is conclusive)

It's both inconclusive and incomplete.

2. video from the consulate

Which wasn't able to be viewed by anyone outside the consulate, and which was only mentioned in the context of what was seen after the attack had already started.

3. Jones e-mail

Which says nothing at all about protests, but was merely information about one of the many groups involved in the attack, so I have no idea why you think it supports your claim.

and 4. lots more (previous attack, surveillance, the nature of the attacks)

And those previous attacks had been carried out in response to perceived insults against Muhammad, including a previous film, which means that they would have reinforced the idea that protests about this film were involved in this attack too, which would be that "contradictory data" you're asking for.

Fantastic, and then, and this really is special, the real story (that it was a terrorist attack) was removed, and all we were left with is the utterly false story that had no "data" at all to support it!

No story was "removed". The very first draft of the memo produced by the CIA read "We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex."

 

[The Big Dog]

I am sure our intrepid friend regrets the use of the word "data." That takes him into the realm of facts.

Now that we have put that issue to rest, the next two issues I raised were: 1. After the steadily rising drum beat made it clear that the talking points that emerged out of the deputies meeting were utterly preposterous, why did the Obama administration persist in continuing to use the; 2. Then the big issue, why did they lie and say it was based on the best intelligence available.

I have my own thoughts, of course. Or perhaps one may wish to take a break and wait for the, for example, testimony of the five witnesses who conclusively stated there was no protest, and which lead to the eventual collapse of the entire house of cards, I am perfectly content to do so as well.

 

[RandFan]

I am sure our intrepid friend regrets the use of the word "data." That takes him into the realm of facts.

Now that we have put that issue to rest, the next two issues I raised were: 1. After the steadily rising drum beat made it clear that the talking points that emerged out of the deputies meeting were utterly preposterous, why did the Obama administration persist in continuing to use the; 2. Then the big issue, why did they lie and say it was based on the best intelligence available.

I have my own thoughts, of course. Or perhaps one may wish to take a break and wait for the, for example, testimony of the five witnesses who conclusively stated there was no protest, and which lead to the eventual collapse of the entire house of cards, I am perfectly content to do so as well.

Presumptious. Begging the question. The CIA draft, revisions and the final talking points are data. There was contradictory data. The CIA was self serving as it was their operation, they dropped the ball so they hedged with the riot scenario.

Facts:

• What is in the draft.
• What is in the revisions.
• That this was primarily a CIA project.
• The State Department took issue with the CIA memo as it didn't fit with what they believed.

To date there has been no evidence to demonstrate what was known as opposed to what was believed by the CIA and the State Department. Further, there is a parsimonious explanation for the events and alterations of the talking points that doesn't require intentional malice and/or cover up.


You can ignore those facts until the end of time but they are not changing.

 

[Unabogie]

I am sure our intrepid friend regrets the use of the word "data." That takes him into the realm of facts.

Now that we have put that issue to rest, the next two issues I raised were: 1. After the steadily rising drum beat made it clear that the talking points that emerged out of the deputies meeting were utterly preposterous, why did the Obama administration persist in continuing to use the; 2. Then the big issue, why did they lie and say it was based on the best intelligence available.

I have my own thoughts, of course. Or perhaps one may wish to take a break and wait for the, for example, testimony of the five witnesses who conclusively stated there was no protest, and which lead to the eventual collapse of the entire house of cards, I am perfectly content to do so as well.

Please tell us these thoughts. So far you haven't made much of a case, but I'd love to hear your answer to this question. In your conspiracy theory, WHY would they pursue this conspiracy? Do you still contend that they had a hand in the deaths? Did they kill Stevens on purpose? Does Obama work for Iran? How does North Korea fit in?

 

[RandFan]

I am sure our intrepid friend...

Anytime you have the backbone to address me directly and stop dishonestly putting words in my mouth then you let me know.

 

[The Big Dog]

Anytime you have the backbone to address me directly and stop dishonestly putting words in my mouth then you let me know.

And RandFan returns with a personal attacks, attacking the arguer and calling me a liar. Again.

No "data," of course. "The CIA draft, revisions and the final talking points are data." He seems to believe that putting something that never happened into the talking points transforms that into "data" that supports the talking points.

 

[RandFan]

And RandFan returns with a personal attacks, attacking the arguer and calling me a liar. Again.

No "data," of course. "The CIA draft, revisions and the final talking points are data." He seems to believe that putting something that never happened into the talking points transforms that into "data" that supports the talking points.

A.) You did put words in my mouth. B.) You were the one who attacked me. C.) Claiming it's not "data" is silly. Anything that is believed to be true, is data. That belief is a data point and your rhetoric won't change that.

You have not provided a single material fact to demonstrate what was known.

 

[The Big Dog]

As always, we have discussed in details what we know, and of course what was known at the time. For example, the Administration admitted on October 9 that there was no protest, so that of course is a given.

We know that the state department had reviewed videos in almost real time showing no protest.
We know that Hicks and the five surviving security agents were debriefed by the FBI in Germany.
We know that ansar al sharia had been mentioned in the talking points, identified in emails on the 11' and identified by Liz jones to the Libyans on the 12th

What has the administration refused to release that has compromised the investigation?

1. Any information at all to support the claim that the attack arose out of a spontaneous protest
2. The interview reports of the meetings withe survivors the the FBI took in Germany
3. Any documents regarding the deputies meeting that took place on Saturday morning the 15th.
4. What information the administration relied on to advise a closed session of Congress that the attack was a planned attack on the 20th.

I think we can all agree that the Administration should come clean.

A.) You did put words in my mouth. B.) You were the one who attacked me. C.) Claiming it's not "data" is silly. Anything that is believed to be true, is data. That belief is a data point and your rhetoric won't change that.

You have not provided a single material fact to demonstrate what was known.

What contradictory data is there to support the talking points like you claimed rand fan?

Answer: the talking points!

I'm done with this guy.

 

[RandFan]

What contradictory data is there to support the talking points like you claimed rand fan?

The belief in those points based on other riots.

Answer: the talking points!

Straw man. Putting words in my mouth.

I'm done with this guy.

I realize how that fits your bias. I realize the facts are inconvenient. I realize why you choose to use hindsight to condemn people who didn't know what you do now.

You've been asked over and over for a single material fact that demonstrated what people know. Instead of providing it you engage in a silly semantics.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

And RandFan returns with a personal attacks, attacking the arguer and calling me a liar. Again.

No "data," of course. "The CIA draft, revisions and the final talking points are data." He seems to believe that putting something that never happened into the talking points transforms that into "data" that supports the talking points.

This is a complete mis-representation of RandFan's line of argument. RandFan is claiming that because the CIA included in ALL drafts of the talking points that the attack was an outgrowth of protests over the video, there is no basis for claiming that the CIA (or anyone else) knew that the attack was not an outgrowth over protest over the video. Furthermore, RandFan is arguing that the fact that it was known several weeks later that the attack did not grow out of a protest does not prove that it was known at the time that the attack did not grow out of a protest.

RandFan is not the only person who is still waiting for you to provide evidence that the talking points knowingly and deliberately contained false information, and included that false information for the express purpose of misleading the American public.

 

[The Big Dog]

This is a complete mis-representation of RandFan's line of argument. RandFan is claiming that because the CIA included in ALL drafts of the talking points that the attack was an outgrowth of protests over the video, there is no basis for claiming that the CIA (or anyone else) knew that the attack was not an outgrowth over protest over the video. Furthermore, RandFan is arguing that the fact that it was known several weeks later that the attack did not grow out of a protest does not prove that it was known at the time that the attack did not grow out of a protest.

RandFan is not the only person who is still waiting for you to provide evidence that the talking points knowingly and deliberately contained false information, and included that false information for the express purpose of misleading the American public.

Rolls eyes. Should I bold it for the hoard?

We know that the state department had reviewed videos in almost real time showing no protest.
We know that Hicks and the five surviving security agents were debriefed by the FBI in Germany.
We know that ansar al sharia had been mentioned in the talking points, identified in emails on the 11' and identified by Liz jones to the Libyans on the 12th

 

[A'isha]

Rolls eyes. Should I bold it for the hoard?

We know that the state department had reviewed videos in almost real time showing no protest.
We know that Hicks and the five surviving security agents were debriefed by the FBI in Germany.
We know that ansar al sharia had been mentioned in the talking points, identified in emails on the 11' and identified by Liz jones to the Libyans on the 12th

The State Department did not review any videos in real time. The FBI's interviews were separate from the CIA's intelligence. Liz Jones' email said nothing whatsoever about protests, but merely reported that she'd mentioned the name of the same group mentioned in the initial drafts of the memo that was described in the press but had denied responsibility, and which was only one of the groups involved in the attacks.

Using large text and bold font doesn't make you any less wrong.