Ok, lets [sic] hit your links, champ!
About damn time! And no mention of the fact that you falsely claimed repeatedly that I had not provided them?
From the first one: Most news accounts do not mention the number of attackers killed.
I never noticed that statement before. Curiously, it's not in the section I've been citing, the section titled "Fatalities and Injuries". In fact, under "Fatalities and Injuries" the totals are 4 killed and 10 injured.
However, I don't quibble with the fact that most (well--"all" would be more accurate) news account do not mention any attackers killed. Indeed, that's part of the evidence I've offered. If your claim were true, it would require a vast conspiracy of silence on the part of competing news agencies that have no rational motive for keeping mum about something like that.
Also, you have the big problem of the discussion of evidence to be gleaned from these bodies (or questions about what was done with all those bodies) that hasn't happened. It's a glaring absence where we would expect something if your claim were true.
"Benghazi: The Definitive Report" claims that just under 100 attackers were killed.
Indeed--that is the unsubstantiated claim in question. Yes, the Wikipedia article I cited mentions that this claim was made in this book.
"There have been widespread reports over the past three days that up to ten Libyans died fighting against the militants in the attack late on Tuesday evening and as many as 18 were wounded. "
Yes, and if you continued reading that article, you'd see that it points out that those early reports were wrong. In fact, it quotes the Libyan government saying in no uncertain terms that no Libyans were killed. 7 were injured, bringing the total figure to 4 dead and 10 wounded.
Fighting against the militants.... hmmm, how many "militants" then, Joe. Reads rest of article. Hmmm, Joe, it doesn't say.
It says that none were killed. It says that clearly and unequivocally. I quoted the text. Early reports that Libyans were killed (and nothing close to 100 even in those erroneous early reports) were wrong.
So your first says 100, the second doesn't say at all. Wow Joe! Awesome work.
No. Neither of those sources says 100. It says that your book only reports that figure. No source is given substantiating it. Where did Murphy and Webb get this information? Is the fact that they're bestselling authors enough to substantiate any claim they make? Do you suppose anything in print must be true?
Game over, thanks to Joe we have established that about 100 militants were killed.
Nope. We've still got your huge Conspiracy Theory on this matter.
All the news agencies are keeping mum about these 100 deaths and only your partisan source has it right.
That is not a substantiated claim.
And what about your other claim, that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for these deaths?
