New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
ANTPogo said:
Wait, wait, wait...are you telling me that the CIA is trying to keep the details of one of its operations secret?! When did they start doing things like this? They were always such an open and transparent organization before that Obama guy got elected!
Click to expand...

I'm not certain that arguments from feigned incredulity are intended to be taken seriously, but yes, it is very unusual for the the CIA to take extreme measures against its own personal to keep them from talking to CONGRESS.

I think we can agree that the US Congress is entitled to conduct their Constitutional powers of oversight, even though Obama is the President, don't you agree?
 
16.5 said:
Where to begin?
Click to expand...
Facts would be nice.

16.5 said:
In all of those cases, there was no "cover up."
Click to expand...
You have to prove there was one first. Repetition frequency of assertions don't alter their factual content one way or the other.

16.5 said:
Unlike the attack on the Consulate in Benghazi, where we see: 1. Non Disclosure Agreements;
Click to expand...
Do you have the wording of that agreement, and what they may and may not say? I can think of several different ones that would require no conspiracy.

16.5 said:
Abusive and totally unprecedented repeated polygraph tests on CIA personnel; 3. the Pentagon lying about the status of a witness.
Click to expand...
Oh, puh-leeeez. I was a low level intel monkey, and for the crime of getting my MOS I had federal agents show up and question my family and co-workers while I was off training. I got grilled repeatedly, my family was terrified. And that was just the welcome wagon. This is nothing abnormal.

16.5 said:
How many of those attacks involved deaths of an American? How many involved the deaths of 4 Americans? How many involved the death of an Ambassador? How many involved the complete take over of an American facility? How many involved the complete take over of two facilities?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I detailed the number of dead with that list. Is your argument now based on purely Americal deaths, and not whether or not it was a consulate or an embassy? Can you tell me where you're moving the goalposts to now so I don't have to guess again later?

16.5 said:
None, of course. "But Bush...."
Click to expand...
:eyeroll:

16.5 said:
The subject is the attack on the facility at Benghazi. Your tu quoque fallacies are totally off topic.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. I quoted what you said that made it relevant. You claimed the claims of Benghazi conspiracy weren't politically motivated. I provided multiple examples where the same situation OR WORSE had happened, and the right didn't cry conspiracy.
 
CNN has obviously turned its attention to the failures in Benghazi.

Most will recall Hillary Clinton's arrogant "testimony", during which she claimed:

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," Clinton said. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

In what appears to be a fairly non-partisan article, CNN's John King publishes a piece that answers Hillary Clinton's question entitled: "Why Benghazi Matters."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/politics/king-benghazi/index.html

While King claims that there are three critical issues that remain unresolved, avid readers of this thread know that there are at least three more:

4. Why the CIA/State Department/White House claim that the attack spontaneously arose out of a non-existent anti-video protest rally outside the Consulate, when there is no evidence that there was any such protest rally?

5. Why did the Administration persist in the spontaneous protest cover story long after it had been proven preposterous?

6. Why are three Executive agencies refusing to cooperate with the investigation, and in fact are actively trying to thwart it? State (through their non-disclosure agreements) DoD (by refusing to cooperate in making its ON DUTY personnel available for testimony) and the Director of National Intelligence (through the CIA's abusive intimidation tactics designed to prevent anyone talking to Congress.)
 
Mister Earl said:
I'm pretty sure I detailed the number of dead with that list. Is your argument now based on purely Americal deaths, and not whether or not it was a consulate or an embassy? Can you tell me where you're moving the goalposts to now so I don't have to guess again later?
Click to expand...

The questions were:

How many of those attacks involved deaths of an American? NONE

How many involved the deaths of 4 Americans? NONE

How many involved the death of an Ambassador? NONE

How many involved the complete take over of an American facility? NONE

How many involved the complete take over of two facilities? NONE

Eyeroll indeed.
 
I note that my previous post has an error:

How many of those attacks involved deaths of an American? One attack did, one American diplomat was killed during a car bomb attack at the Marriott hotel adjacent to the Consulate in Karachi.

Sorry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Obama Confirms the Indictment

16.5 said:
Ahmed Khattalah, the leader of Ansar al Sharia has been indicted for the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Facilities in Benghazi, numerous sources report.

The latest here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57597278/first-charges-filed-in-connection-with-benghazi-attack/
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, President Obama has confirmed the "sealed" criminal indictment in connection with the Benghazi Terror Attacks.

The latest news, here:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/09/in-misstep-obama-discusses-sealed-indictment-on-benghazi/
 
A Short Round Up of Developments

While claiming that they are offering "unprecedented cooperation" The State Department once again belatedly offers to respond to Congress's request for information and documents regarding the talking points. The latest article is here:

http://news.yahoo.com/state-department-yes-well-send-benghazi-documents-again-150203567.html

Keep in mind, that while proclaiming "unprecedented cooperation" the State Department has locked down its personnel with "unprecedented" Non Disclosure Agreements.

In other developments, we would be remiss to (at the very least) not include a reference to the story that has rippled across numerous news outlets over the last week, "400 US surface-to-air missiles were 'STOLEN' from Libya during the Benghazi attack and are 'now in the hands of Al Qaeda'."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2390642/400-surface-air-missiles-STOLEN-Libya-Benghazi-attack-says-whistle-blowers-attorney.html
 
He said/she screamed?

In what is shaping up to be a minor kerfuffle, a representative from Illinois claims that Hillary Clinton exploded at a member of Congress when he suggested that the terrorist attack on the facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395959/Hillary-Clinton-exploded-congressman-days-Benghazi-suggesting-attack-work-terrorists-says-GOP-Rep.html

Although there does not appear to be any corroboration of this claim at this time, after Hillary Clinton's bizarre outburst during her testimony regarding why does the Benghazi attack "matter," makes it easy to believe that she would have completely lost her cool when called on the Administration's fabrications.
 
Notice how nobody else other than extremist conservatives think Benghazi was a scandal?

What happened is nothing new in our history. There wasn't some shady coverup, there wasn't some sooper secrit agenda looking to kill off some of our own people just for laughs.

What you're seeing in the conservative right is a desperate ploy to find something, anything at all, they can use to get a legally elected president out of power. Even if that means a manufactured controversy.

The rest of us have moved on, and it bores us to hear someone behind us still crying "Wolf! Wolf!"
 
16.5 said:
CNN has obviously turned its attention to the failures in Benghazi.

Most will recall Hillary Clinton's arrogant "testimony", during which she claimed:

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," Clinton said. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

In what appears to be a fairly non-partisan article, CNN's John King publishes a piece that answers Hillary Clinton's question entitled: "Why Benghazi Matters."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/politics/king-benghazi/index.html

While King claims that there are three critical issues that remain unresolved, avid readers of this thread know that there are at least three more:

4. Why the CIA/State Department/White House claim that the attack spontaneously arose out of a non-existent anti-video protest rally outside the Consulate, when there is no evidence that there was any such protest rally?

5. Why did the Administration persist in the spontaneous protest cover story long after it had been proven preposterous?

6. Why are three Executive agencies refusing to cooperate with the investigation, and in fact are actively trying to thwart it? State (through their non-disclosure agreements) DoD (by refusing to cooperate in making its ON DUTY personnel available for testimony) and the Director of National Intelligence (through the CIA's abusive intimidation tactics designed to prevent anyone talking to Congress.)
Click to expand...

Mister Earl said:
Notice how nobody else other than extremist conservatives think Benghazi was a scandal?

What happened is nothing new in our history. There wasn't some shady coverup, there wasn't some sooper secrit agenda looking to kill off some of our own people just for laughs.

What you're seeing in the conservative right is a desperate ploy to find something, anything at all, they can use to get a legally elected president out of power. Even if that means a manufactured controversy.

The rest of us have moved on, and it bores us to hear someone behind us still crying "Wolf! Wolf!"
Click to expand...

I do not believe that John King is an "extremist conservative."

I'm certain that it is, however, not fruitful to engage in straw men arguments.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Am I the only person wondering why an embassy would have SAMs?
Click to expand...

well, of course, the diplomatic facility in Benghazi was not an embassy.

Further, it appears that the contention is that the SAMs were being gathered and stored at the CIA "annex" which came after attack on the diplomatic facility.
 
jhunter1163 said:
OK then... since when does the CIA get SAMs?
Click to expand...

I can think of no reason the CIA would NOT have SAMs. There is substantial historical precedent for doing so, in fact the CIA successfully ran SAMs (including Stingers) to Afghanistan during the time of the Soviet Invasion.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

Note the reference in that article: "The Stingers were so renowned and deadly that, in the 1990s, the U.S. conducted a "buy-back" program to keep unused missiles from falling into the hands of anti-American terrorists."

It is believed that the CIA were trying to replicate that effort, i.e. to buy up surplus SAMs in order to prevent them from falling into the hands of jihadists after the disintegration of the Libyan Government.

Were they then trying to provide them to the rebels in Syria? I am certain we can agree that would be an interesting discussion for the appropriate thread.

Thanks.
 
16.5 said:
I can think of no reason the CIA would NOT have SAMs. There is substantial historical precedent for doing so, in fact the CIA successfully ran SAMs (including Stingers) to Afghanistan during the time of the Soviet Invasion.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

Note the reference in that article: "The Stingers were so renowned and deadly that, in the 1990s, the U.S. conducted a "buy-back" program to keep unused missiles from falling into the hands of anti-American terrorists."

It is believed that the CIA were trying to replicate that effort, i.e. to buy up surplus SAMs in order to prevent them from falling into the hands of jihadists after the disintegration of the Libyan Government.

Were they then trying to provide them to the rebels in Syria? I am certain we can agree that would be an interesting discussion for the appropriate thread.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I just want to ask one more question. If the CIA had 400 SAMs sitting around someplace, wouldn't you think they'd have more than two guys guarding them?
 
jhunter1163 said:
I just want to ask one more question. If the CIA had 400 SAMs sitting around someplace, wouldn't you think they'd have more than two guys guarding them?
Click to expand...

I'm certain I do not understand the reference to "two guys." For example, a six man security team left the annex to go to the Diplomatic facility and attempt to rescue (and did rescue) many of the staff at the diplomatic facility.

So we know that there was at least one six man security team, which included several former Navy Seals. We also know that CNN has reported that there were "dozens" of CIA operatives in Benghazi. Of course, the CIA (with Hicks and others from the Embassy) deployed another seven-person security team from Tripoli during the attack itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom