New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

More from Politifact.

Wow! Although that does not at all respond to what I posted, it is actually substantive and on topic.

I'm not sure how not an extemporaneous statement about being able to save someone because they were already dead qualifies as false, particularly where they don't clearly indicate when they were ordered not to board. I'll give that four Captain Hindsights.

On the other hand, a complete lie in a campaign email about "doctored emails" gets only a mostly false?

Tough crowd.

 

[RandFan]

Wow! Although that does not at all respond to what I posted...

A.) I didn't quote you. B.) Who said I had to respond to you?

I'm not sure how not an extemporaneous statement about being able to save someone because they were already dead qualifies as false, particularly where they don't clearly indicate when they were ordered not to board. I'll give that four Captain Hindsights.

BECAUSE IT WAS TOO LATE. You are confusing belief with what was known again.

On the other hand, a complete lie in a campaign email about "doctored emails" gets only a mostly false?

One more time. The email summaries were edited in such a way as to make the admin look bad.

Tough crowd.

It's called skepticism. Do you have that material fact yet? http://www.mylittlepony.com

 

[A'isha]

I'm not sure how not an extemporaneous statement about being able to save someone because they were already dead qualifies as false, particularly where they don't clearly indicate when they were ordered not to board. I'll give that four Captain Hindsights.

It has nothing to do with hindsight. The plane was an evacuation plane, not a rescue plane (as even Hicks admitted), and it did not leave Tripoli until after the mortar attack had occurred (and didn't land in Benghazi until the attack had already been over for almost two hours).

 

[The Big Dog]

Given that the reported summaries were false in a way that hurt the administration, "false" is not reasonable.

A.) I didn't quote you. B.) Who said I had to respond to you?

http://www.mylittlepony.com

Didn't quote? Oh dear.

"BECAUSE IT WAS TOO LATE." Seven Captain hindsights!

By the way, the Democrat email did not say "email summaries...." tsk tsk tsk . I'll give that a "mostly false" Rand Fan.

I'll just leave this here, brony...

"they don't clearly indicate when they were ordered not to board."

"It's called skepticism. Do you have that material fact yet? " My Little Pony?

 

[RandFan]

"BECAUSE IT WAS TOO LATE." Seven Captain hindsights!

I'm talking about the statement made by Chavitz in hindsight. He said long after we knew it was too late that it wasn't too late. Live by politifact die by politifact.

By the way, the Democrat email did not say "email summaries...." tsk tsk tsk . I'll give that a "mostly false" Rand Fan.

I, me, myself, I said they were summaries. And they were summaries. Tsk tsk tsk right back at you.

More from Politifact.

On May 6, 2013, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told Fox News that more could have been done that night. "We had people that were getting killed, we had people who are willing to risk their lives to go save them and somebody told them to stand down." Chaffetz said the order was "as sickening and depressing and disgusting as anything I have seen." But the order to keep special forces in Tripoli came after the deaths in Benghazi had already occurred. The mortar attack was over at that point. We rated his statement False.

Jason Chaffetz said, in hindsight, more could have been done. His statement, even in hindsight WAS FALSE.

 

[The Big Dog]

And they were summaries.

"Republicans actually doctored emails between administration officials about Benghazi," said the message from Brad Woodhouse, communications director for the Democratic National Committee. "Then, they released them to the press, trying to pass them off as real in order to create their scandal."

Passed them off as real. Tsk tsk tsk....

In Hindsight, I'm going to give that Four Pinocchios.

/Why did your earlier quote have the url for My Little Pony?

 

[RandFan]

"Republicans actually doctored emails between administration officials about Benghazi," said the message from Brad Woodhouse, communications director for the Democratic National Committee. "Then, they released them to the press, trying to pass them off as real in order to create their scandal."

Passed them off as real. Tsk tsk tsk....

In Hindsight, I'm going to give that Four Pinocchios.

The summaries were editied in such a way as to make the administration look bad. Now, either that is true or it is not. You either need to stand with politifact or not.

Why did your earlier quote have the url for My Little Pony?

Because this is all a joke. You've not posted a single material fact to demonstrate malfeasance, an ethical breach or criminality or a cover up. You keep posting crap that we debunk again and again and again. You are the only one left pushing.... whatever it is you are pushing. There is nothing here. It was a tragedy but in context with events like Katrina and Iraq it pales in comparison. In those cases we had known falsehoods foisted on the public and thousands died. Thousands died in 9/11.

Now, no one is justifying anything Obama and/or his administration did. We are saying that given the context this does not merit turning it into a scandal in order to profit politically from the deaths.

 

[A'isha]

"BECAUSE IT WAS TOO LATE." Seven Captain hindsights!

It was too late at the time the plane was sent. And even if it wasn't, the people on the plane were not being sent to the Annex to help in the first place! They were always going to just remain at the airport with the plane to assist in the evacuation.

"Republicans actually doctored emails between administration officials about Benghazi," said the message from Brad Woodhouse, communications director for the Democratic National Committee. "Then, they released them to the press, trying to pass them off as real in order to create their scandal."

Passed them off as real. Tsk tsk tsk....

Yes. That's why Jon Karl wrote his article in the way he did, and why he got into so much trouble for it: his GOP source presented the information to him as the actual emails, not as notes or summaries, so that's how he described them.

 

[The Big Dog]

Because this is all a joke.

RandFan says that this is all a joke.

He posts repeatedly in this thread because it is a joke.

RandFan feels this is a joke.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan says that this is all a joke.

He posts repeatedly in this thread because it is a joke.

RandFan feels this is a joke.

Turning this event into a scandal in order to profit politically from the deaths of Americans is unseemly. You started the thread. You asked questions. You got answers. That's all fine. But there has been nothing new. There is no smoking gun, we've laid out a parsimonious explanation for the events.

There is no need to keep it going. It (the thread) has become a joke.

 

[A'isha]

RandFan says that this is all a joke.

He posts repeatedly in this thread because it is a joke.

RandFan feels this is a joke.

And he's entirely correct about that.

 

[The Big Dog]

In keeping with the spirit and purpose of the thread, the latest:

President Barack Obama's top national security adviser Tom Donilon is resigning and will be replaced by Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. who has been a lightning rod for criticism over faulty explanations for the attack that killed four Americans.

Wow, talk about rewarding incompetence. Susan Rice, the woman who went on National TV, went far beyond the talking points, and directly contradicted the President of Libya, the President of Lbya of course was relying on information that Susan Rice's own Department had told the Libyans on September 12, 2013.

 

[RandFan]

In keeping with the spirit and purpose of the thread, the latest:

President Barack Obama's top national security adviser Tom Donilon is resigning and will be replaced by Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. who has been a lightning rod for criticism over faulty explanations for the attack that killed four Americans.

Wow, talk about rewarding incompetence. Susan Rice, the woman who went on National TV, went far beyond the talking points, and directly contradicted the President of Libya, the President of Lbya of course was relying on information that Susan Rice's own Department had told the Libyans on September 12, 2013.

We did not know what the facts were which is why Rice used the word "preliminary". And, again, this is old debunked propaganda that even other folks on the right won't defend.

pre·lim·i·nar·y

Denoting an action or event preceding or done in preparation for something fuller...

 

[A'isha]

Wow, talk about rewarding incompetence. Susan Rice, the woman who went on National TV, went far beyond the talking points,

That makes your single-minded focus on the evolution and content of those talking points kind of odd, then.

and directly contradicted the President of Libya, the President of Lbya of course was relying on information that Susan Rice's own Department had told the Libyans on September 12, 2013.

No, he wasn't. He likewise went far beyond that, blaming entirely foreign perpetrators rather than Libyan militias.

 

[The Big Dog]

lets take a look at who President Obama thinks makes a good NSA:

Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance.

Directly after that statement on the same show Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest.

Right after the show, on the very same day, Magariaf says in an interview with NPR: “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.”

Unfounded and preposterous. And Obama wants to promote her.

“Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy.”

 

[The Big Dog]

FYI:

These guys don't think the lack of progress on the murders of Benghazi is a "joke."

From yesterday's Stars and Stripes.

http://www.stripes.com/it-s-imperative-we-get-full-story-on-benghazi-1.224270

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Bumped (and fixed) for great justice!

I already replied to this response and explained to you what's wrong with it.

You defended the claim of deflecting responsibility in general, but the claim I'm challenging is the claim that the Obama administration overtly lied (and you've yet to establish that part) to deflect responsibility for the deaths. We're not talking about deflecting some other kind of responsibility. You alleged that it was deflecting responsibility for the deaths.

So again, will you substantiate or retract your claim that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths in the Benghazi attacks?

Again, if anyone has a solid figure for the number of TERRORISTS killed during their attack, I'd be mildly interested in it

I've already provided you with that information. The number of terrorists killed was zero. There were 4 deaths and 10 injuries in the attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Fatalities_and_injuries

But it's not necessary for me to defend the claim that there were 4 deaths and 10 injuries to challenge your claim of 100 deaths.

So again, will you substantiate or retract your claim that there were 100 deaths in the attack?

You've admitted that you based it on one very iffy source. Since it conflicts with all the news accounts, don't you think it's irrational of you to stick to a claim based on one source that contradicts what everyone else says?

ETA: And it's also irrational to talk about 100 deaths of terrorists in the context you did. IIRC, you were trying to argue that this is attack merits more scrutiny than all the other terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities because it was like the worst one ever.

 

[The Big Dog]

Just how bad of a NSA will Rice be?

“If you need something from somebody always give that person a way to hand it to you.”

And what do we need? Libyan assistance in catching the terrorists.

And Obama promotes Rice, who unnecessarily offended the Libyans based on her lack of tact and her complete lack of the ability to think on her feet.

How does that help us catch the terrorists who killed four Americans? It doesn't.

Their names:

Ambassador Chris Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

lets take a look at who President Obama thinks makes a good NSA:

Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance.

Directly after that statement on the same show Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest.

Right after the show, on the very same day, Magariaf says in an interview with NPR: “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.”

Unfounded and preposterous. And Obama wants to promote her.

“Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy.”

So is this what the thread's about? It's a scandal that reasonable minds disagreed on the preliminary assessment of what happened before it was conclusively known what happened?

Do you find that scandalous?

It's certainly a far cry from the claim you made earlier that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths.

 

[Shalamar]

So is this what the thread's about? It's a scandal that reasonable minds disagreed on the preliminary assessment of what happened before it was conclusively known what happened?

Do you find that scandalous?

It's certainly a far cry from the claim you made earlier that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths.

The story, and the scandal will apparently keep changing until Obama is impeached. Or something.

I've been reading this thread from the beginning, and I find it hilarious over what some people will do to prove a scandal ,just because they don't agree with the politics.