New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, I'm finally starting to understand the conspiracy. In order get the Libyan Prime Minister kidnapped for a few hours, it was necessary to allow terrorists to kill Americans in Libya so that Libya would be willing to allow the US to apprehend terrorists living in Libya so that terrorists living in Libya would get angry and kidnap the Libyan Prime Minister for a few hours. Clever, and it actually worked!
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
OK, I'm finally starting to understand the conspiracy. In order get the Libyan Prime Minister kidnapped for a few hours, it was necessary to allow terrorists to kill Americans in Libya so that Libya would be willing to allow the US to apprehend terrorists living in Libya so that terrorists living in Libya would get angry and kidnap the Libyan Prime Minister for a few hours. Clever, and it actually worked!
Click to expand...

They don't much like Swedes, either.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/1...dly-damages-swedish-consulate-in-benghazi-no/

Wonder what the connection is.
 
It has been noted by the moderating team that some in this thread have a habit of replying with a generally nasty and uncivil tone. Name calling, taunts regarding not doing research, claims that others' posts are off-topic, and claims that posters are trying to mislead people have all been observed within just the last page. This thread is not going back on moderated status. Instead, the mod team may infract and suspend individuals who cannot abide by Rule 0. We thank you for keeping the forum a friendly place.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader
 
elbe said:
The state department released a report (I believe that's it, it's been a while since I looked at it) on their findings on failures and lapses involved in the incident. There are likely valid complaints about consequences and whatnot, but there was an investigation.
Click to expand...

Yes, we have discussed that report at length and its methodology was very suspect.

Basically it was an in house review by people chosen by Hillary who reported to Hillary who gave Hillary a draft and accepted and changed the report at Hillary's suggestion. Basically an intramural whitewash.

Lets get this shutdown thing over and get back to work on the investigation!
 
I believe the "investigation" has run it's course. Considering Republicans are willing to lie falsify information and generally make **** up to tarnish this administration, it's clear there is no smoke here, much less fire.

I think the investigation has all the merits of the ones demanding by some to investigate the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster.
 
16.5 said:
Basically it was an in house review by people chosen by Hillary who reported to Hillary who gave Hillary a draft and accepted and changed the report at Hillary's suggestion.
Click to expand...

Thank you for acknowledging that the whole call for additional investigations is nothing more than a partisan attack on Hillary, much like many Truthers' calls for additional investigations were nothing more than partisan attacks on Bush.

There were countless valid reasons to criticize Bush over the eight years he held office, but attempting to assign responsibility to him for the 9/11 attacks is ludicrous. In the same vein, attempting to assign responsibility for the Benghazi attacks to Hillary is similarly ludicrous.

It's good that we got the motivation part out in the open, though! This thread has finally shown some progress.
 
remirol said:
Thank you for acknowledging that the whole call for additional investigations is nothing more than a partisan attack on Hillary, much like many Truthers' calls for additional investigations were nothing more than partisan attacks on Bush.

There were countless valid reasons to criticize Bush over the eight years he held office, but attempting to assign responsibility to him for the 9/11 attacks is ludicrous. In the same vein, attempting to assign responsibility for the Benghazi attacks to Hillary is similarly ludicrous.

It's good that we got the motivation part out in the open, though! This thread has finally shown some progress.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, this is an absurd argument. The facts stated in my posts are just that, facts. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Lets break this down:

Basically it was an in house review by people chosen by Hillary ("Four Board members were selected by the Secretary of State and one member from the intelligence community (IC) was selected by the Director for National Intelligence": ARB Report, page 1) who reported to Hillary (Cheryl Mills, the chief of staff and senior counselor to Secretary Clinton, was intimately involved with the ARB panel from the beginning. She called the leaders at Clinton’s behest to ask them to serve, she was briefed regularly on the investigation as it unfolded and she received a draft copy of the report before it was finalized. Weekly Standard) who gave Hillary a draft (See previous) and accepted and changed the report at Hillary's suggestion (The chairman of the panel acknowledged at least one instance in which language in the report was softened after an early draft was sent to Clinton and her top aides. Id.; see also: "Although the ARB did not interview Secretary Clinton as part of its investigation, they provided her with a two-hour briefing about the details of the report before it was finalized and released to the public.')
 
Last edited:
Twitter User Fired From State Department

Insider Washington is abuzz with gossip regarding the firing of prolific twitter user @NatSecWonk. Sure he could be crude and abrasive, but he also offered the US Public an insider's view of the dysfunctional government, and occasionally spoke truth to power. Sure, he is no hero, but sometimes whistleblowers are not flawless.

In grist for EVERYONE's mill, lets take a look at a particularly thread relevant Tweet:

This month, Joseph tweeted that Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, "had few policy goals and no wins" in the Middle East. He agreed with Republican Representative Darrell Issa, who has relentlessly pursued Clinton for administration actions after last year's attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya.

"Look, Issa is an ass, but he's on to something here with the @HillaryClinton whitewash of accountability for Benghazi," he tweeted.

As always, a pertinent link:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/23/usa-obama-twitter-idUSL1N0ID04S20131023
 
16.5 said:
Sure he could be crude and abrasive, but he also offered the US Public an insider's view of the dysfunctional government, and occasionally spoke truth to power.
Click to expand...

Yes, such "truth to power" as saying Huma Abedin must have been "wearing beer goggles the night she met Anthony Wiener," that Sarah Palin and her "white trash family" are "useless garbage," ranting about how former Bush press spokesman Ari Fleischer married "a woman a decade younger than him — and she's as ugly as he is! #jackass," and saying of Jennifer Rubin "I feel sorry for the husband of @jrubinblogger He has to have sex with her every five years."

He's not a "whistleblower" of any kind. He's just a dick.

In grist for EVERYONE's mill, lets take a look at a particularly thread relevant Tweet:

This month, Joseph tweeted that Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, "had few policy goals and no wins" in the Middle East. He agreed with Republican Representative Darrell Issa, who has relentlessly pursued Clinton for administration actions after last year's attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya.

"Look, Issa is an ass, but he's on to something here with the @HillaryClinton whitewash of accountability for Benghazi," he tweeted.
Click to expand...

So, the latest "new disclosure on Benghazi" is that, among the many rude, abrasive tweets made by this rude, abrasive jackass who got fired, two can be cherrypicked to sorta maybe kinda, if you squint really hard, imply that the Republican nonsense narrative is correct?

I see.
 
16.5 said:
Respectfully, this is an absurd argument. The facts stated in my posts are just that, facts. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Lets break this down:

Basically it was an in house review by people chosen by Hillary ("Four Board members were selected by the Secretary of State and one member from the intelligence community (IC) was selected by the Director for National Intelligence": ARB Report, page 1) who reported to Hillary (Cheryl Mills, the chief of staff and senior counselor to Secretary Clinton, was intimately involved with the ARB panel from the beginning. She called the leaders at Clinton’s behest to ask them to serve, she was briefed regularly on the investigation as it unfolded and she received a draft copy of the report before it was finalized. Weekly Standard) who gave Hillary a draft (See previous) and accepted and changed the report at Hillary's suggestion (The chairman of the panel acknowledged at least one instance in which language in the report was softened after an early draft was sent to Clinton and her top aides. Id.; see also: "Although the ARB did not interview Secretary Clinton as part of its investigation, they provided her with a two-hour briefing about the details of the report before it was finalized and released to the public.')
Click to expand...

I think you're making this a bit bigger than it is, aren't you? The red doesn't really match the second hilite all that well. You're implying the report was changed whenever she deemed she didn't like it. That says, at least once, they used prettier language. Not even that the facts were changed, just that she used different language. Which happens all the time.

Also, a two hour briefing? Isn't that rather short considering all the information contained in a report related to an event like this?

Is anything in regards to the first hilited part out of standard practice? That seems totally reasonable to me, and how a process would go. Can you explain what about that is considered "wrong"?
 
Last edited:
ANTPogo said:
So, the latest "new disclosure on Benghazi" is that, among the many rude, abrasive tweets made by this rude, abrasive jackass who got fired, two can be cherrypicked to sorta maybe kinda, if you squint really hard, imply that the Republican nonsense narrative is correct?

I see.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't a tweet from someone who isn't really involved in this just be an appeal to authority anyway?
 
plague311 said:
I think you're making this a bit bigger than it is, aren't you? The red doesn't really match the second hilite all that well. You're implying the report was changed whenever she deemed she didn't like it. That says, at least once, they used prettier language. Not even that the facts were changed, just that she used different language. Which happens all the time.

Also, a two hour briefing? Isn't that rather short considering all the information contained in a report related to an event like this?

Is anything in regards to the first hilited part out of standard practice? That seems totally reasonable to me, and how a process would go. Can you explain what about that is considered "wrong"?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I find you question very confusing.
 
Random Twitter user runs mouth on Twitter and is crude and abrasive, gets fired as a result. Not news.
 
DavidJames said:
You've already assumed he did otherwise why bother posting? Why would you assume that?

Avid readers know the answer.
Click to expand...

Well certainly avid readers of the thread and my posts will: he was by every definition an insider.

Great point David James! Thanks.
 
16.5 said:
That of course assumes that he was not involved nor otherwise did he have material non-public information.
Click to expand...

Why would one of the NSC's non-proliferation negotiators with Iran be involved with or have information about the State Department's response to what happened at Benghazi (and subsequent internal report about the same)?

And why did you describe him, erroneously, as being fired "from the State Department"?
 
16.5 said:
Sorry, I find you question very confusing.
Click to expand...

I apologize, let me break it down again.

You stated that (without the stuff inbetween):

Basically it was an in house review by people chosen by Hillary, who reported to Hillary, who gave Hillary a draft, and accepted and changed the report at Hillary's suggestion.
Click to expand...

That's what you said in your last post. You then backed up the hilited part with:

The chairman of the panel acknowledged at least one instance in which language in the report was softened after an early draft was sent to Clinton and her top aides.
Click to expand...

That doesn't match up. You're implying that she changed the report to mean something else. They really didn't, the chairman said that there was at least one instance where the language was changed. There was no factual change, there was no distortion. They churched it up, and that happens in everything. From the private sector to government.

You also implied that two hours was a MASSIVE amount of time for a briefing on the report of Bengahzi. I didn't see that as really being that long. I have 2 hour meetings at work about high school schedule changes that are about 3 pages long. 2 hours is a warmup.

Does that help?
 
ANTPogo said:
And why did you describe him, erroneously, as being fired "from the State Department"?
Click to expand...

GREAT POINT! I am terribly sorry, I had thought I had deleted that reference. That was my mistake. Please allow me to atone.

A senior White House official was fired
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom