New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robrob said:
all the other times[/URL] our embassies have been attacked and people died, you were just as outraged - right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

More sneering sarcasm! I saw this typical fraud. Who was alive the last time an ambassador was murdered? Who was alive the last time that the administration lied about it?

Well the administration lied about this one.

Spontaneous attack from a demonstration outside the consulate?

LIES.
 
Robrob said:
1) Many embassies requested support. Not enough to go around. That in hindsight, DoS guessed wrong means - what?

2) Many countries had histories of "explicit attacks and published threats against the Consulate (Embassies)." That in hindsight, DoS guessed wrong means - what?

3) Other than armchair quarterbacking, do you have an actual point?


So? Is it your contention he was required to do this or that previous persons in this position regularly did this? Otherwise you are simply pointing to things - with 20/20 hindsight - and claiming conspiracy.


Yes. In the hours following the attack on the Consulate (the Embassy was safe), it was considered to risky to send forces into an unknown situation. It would not be the first time a diversion attack was launched simply to drawn a vulnerable planeload of Marines into target range. The DoS was forced to weigh the risk to Consualt staff vs. the risk to an entire CH-47 full of Marines. Remember Somalia? The corpse of a single pilot was drug before the media. Imagine a plane load? Or even worse, a few get taken prisoner - because you sent them into an unknown situation without proper planning and support?


Wrong.


Well after the fact and only after the CIA declassified it.


So there was no protest at the Consulate? Interesting claim. The mob came from...?


The mob came from...?


You seem to have overlooked the CIA asking the DoS not to reveal classified information.


Amazing powers of 20/20 hindsight.


So all the other times our embassies have been attacked and people died, you were just as outraged - right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

How do I know that you didn't watch the 60 Minutes piece?

Administration apologists....
 
Robrob said:
1) Many embassies requested support. Not enough to go around. That in hindsight, DoS guessed wrong means - what?

2) Many countries had histories of "explicit attacks and published threats against the Consulate (Embassies)." That in hindsight, DoS guessed wrong means - what?

3) Other than armchair quarterbacking, do you have an actual point?


So? Is it your contention he was required to do this or that previous persons in this position regularly did this? Otherwise you are simply pointing to things - with 20/20 hindsight - and claiming conspiracy.


Yes. In the hours following the attack on the Consulate (the Embassy was safe), it was considered to risky to send forces into an unknown situation. It would not be the first time a diversion attack was launched simply to drawn a vulnerable planeload of Marines into target range. The DoS was forced to weigh the risk to Consualt staff vs. the risk to an entire CH-47 full of Marines. Remember Somalia? The corpse of a single pilot was drug before the media. Imagine a plane load? Or even worse, a few get taken prisoner - because you sent them into an unknown situation without proper planning and support?


Wrong.


Well after the fact and only after the CIA declassified it.


So there was no protest at the Consulate? Interesting claim. The mob came from...?


The mob came from...?


You seem to have overlooked the CIA asking the DoS not to reveal classified information.


Amazing powers of 20/20 hindsight.


So all the other times our embassies have been attacked and people died, you were just as outraged - right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Went back and looked at this post. You seem to be unaware that there was no "mob" and that the government of the USA admitted that the claim that there was a protest outside the facility was false.

This has been covered a dozen times in this thread.

You know nothing.

Stop posting.
 
16.5 said:
More sneering sarcasm! I saw this typical fraud. Who was alive the last time an ambassador was murdered? Who was alive the last time that the administration lied about it?

Well the administration lied about this one.

Spontaneous attack from a demonstration outside the consulate?

LIES.
Click to expand...
So it only counts if the Ambassador dies? :confused:

"Who was alive?" How young are you anyway? Ambassador Dubs was murdered in Kabul in 1979. Ambassador Meloy was murdered in 1976. Ambassador Davies was killed in 1974. Etc...

Or did you just spout off without bothering to check?

Your claim of "lied about it" is a subjective evaluation. With the benefit of your amazing powers of 20/20 hindsight you insist DoS should have "known" what would happen. Considering the number of facilities they were responsible for protecting on that anniversary, with a finite amount of security assets, your point would be they failed?

Just like every other time citizens died in embassy attacks.

But I guess you're too young to know about all that. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Robrob said:
So it only counts if the Ambassador dies? :confused:

"Who was alive?" How young are you anyway? Ambassador Dubs was murdered in Kabul in 1979. Ambassador Meloy was murdered in 1976. Ambassador Davies was killed in 1974. Etc...

Or did you just spout off without bothering to check?

Your claim of "lied about it" is a subjective evaluation. With the benefit of your amazing powers of 20/20 hindsight you insist DoS should have "known" what would happen. Considering the number of facilities they were responsible for protecting on that anniversary, with a finite amount of security assets, your point would be they failed?

Just like every other time citizens died in embassy attacks.

But I guess you're too young to know about all that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

When was the last time the administration lied about it?

Benghazi, 2012.

Did you find out there was no mob yet?
 
Sounds like Someone in the Government is Finally reading this thread!

"Graham has been asking since last year for the FBI’s transcripts of interviews with State Department and CIA survivors who were evacuated to Germany after the Sep.11 attack on the U.S. consulate.

He and other Republicans believe the transcripts will show the survivors told the FBI it was a terrorist attack and made no mention of a video or anti-U.S. demonstration at the consulate."

Avid readers of this thread will recall that is exactly what I said months ago!

We know that the survivors were evacuated to Germany on 9/12 and were interviewed there no later than 9/14. We also know that the FBI participated in the drafting of the talking points, which were finalized on the 15th. Other than mentioning that the terrorist raid was done by Al Qua'ida, you will note that the information gleaned from the interviews was NOT included in the talking points. And in fact were not even acknowledged by the State Department until they admitted there was no protest on or about October 9.

JREF, way ahead of the curve!

As usual a link:

TRIGGER WARNING: FOX NEWS
 
Robrob said:
1) Many embassies requested support. Not enough to go around. That in hindsight, DoS guessed wrong means - what?

2) Many countries had histories of "explicit attacks and published threats against the Consulate (Embassies)." That in hindsight, DoS guessed wrong means - what?

3) Other than armchair quarterbacking, do you have an actual point?
Click to expand...

It appears you neglected to answer these questions from Rob. Your most recent post provides answers for none of the three, and just suggests that Graham wants to go on a fishing expedition without any knowledge of what he would actually find -- not to mention that you need to provide better support for your contention of "lie", specifically, in the first place.
 
remirol said:
It appears you neglected to answer these questions from Rob. Your most recent post provides answers for none of the three, and just suggests that Graham wants to go on a fishing expedition without any knowledge of what he would actually find -- not to mention that you need to provide better support for your contention of "lie", specifically, in the first place.
Click to expand...

Because they are factually baseless.

Example: the published and explicit threats against the consulate included: "we are going to attack the red cross building in Benghazi, the British embassy in Benghazi and the American Consulate in benghazi."

well they attacked the red cross building in Benghazi, the British embassy in Benghazi and THEN the American Consulate. And you are saying that the only way they knew about the attack was hindsight? That is ludicrous.

The questions show a profound lack of information regarding the facts disclosed in this thread.
 
16.5 said:
Because they are factually baseless.

Example: the published and explicit threats against the consulate included: "we are going to attack the red cross building in Benghazi, the British embassy in Benghazi and the American Consulate in benghazi."

well they attacked the red cross building in Benghazi, the British embassy in Benghazi and THEN the American Consulate. And you are saying that the only way they knew about the attack was hindsight? That is ludicrous.

The questions show a profound lack of information regarding the facts disclosed in this thread.
Click to expand...

That's an incomplete data set though. Where else did they threaten that day? That year? How often do they actually attack the things they threaten to attack?
 
16.5 said:
well they attacked the red cross building in Benghazi, the British embassy in Benghazi and THEN the American Consulate. And you are saying that the only way they knew about the attack was hindsight? That is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

If that indeed happened, it does show that the terrorists were ludicrously silly.

If any sane terrorist was going to attack something, the other attacks would be announced and across town, and carefully designed to draw off the troops, and the real target wouldn't ever be mentioned.

Or maybe that 4th target would be the safe house for the Consulate, in which case your claim that foolishness was involved again falls flat on its face.
 
jj said:
If that indeed happened, it does show that the terrorists were ludicrously silly.

If any sane terrorist was going to attack something, the other attacks would be announced and across town, and carefully designed to draw off the troops, and the real target wouldn't ever be mentioned.

Or maybe that 4th target would be the safe house for the Consulate, in which case your claim that foolishness was involved again falls flat on its face.
Click to expand...

The evidence was presented in his thread. I do not believe that your argument from incredulity is particularly effective.
 
tyr_13 said:
That's an incomplete data set though. Where else did they threaten that day? That year? How often do they actually attack the things they threaten to attack?
Click to expand...

To this, we can add:

How many threats does the Consulate receive in a given time period?
How many threats do all US foreign embassies receive in a given time period?

The answer is "lots". Of course, it really all comes down to:

If you have a list of 100* threats, which one is real?

Choose wisely. You have a fixed amount of resources and can probably only defend against five threats. The better your intelligence services are, the more threats you can discard as junk or logistically-improbable, but in reality even if you get a hand-delivered, wax-sealed missive from $TERRORIST_LEADER in the Embassy mailbox telling you the day and location of their next attack, you still haven't really learned anything; all you've learned is that $TERRORIST_LEADER wanted to tell you what he told you.

16.5 throws around "argument from incredulity", but truth be told, that's all this whole "call for a second investigation" is (just like the Twoofers over in 9/11 CT) -- it's a refusal to admit that a US embassy on foreign soil in a neutral-to-hostile country could possibly have been successfully targeted and attacked, nevermind the lists that have been provided by myself and others of all the prior attacks that have been carried out on our embassies in the past.

Of course, there's always the possibility that this is nothing more than a partisan witchhunt in a (failing) attempt to discredit a possible presidential candidate that the GOP believes will beat them handily in 2016. :D


* Arbitrary number as none of us know exactly how many "lots" is.
 
remirol said:
If you have a list of 100* threats, which one is real?

[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

If you have a list of 3* Threats. The Red cross in Benghazi, the British in Benghazi and The American Diplomatic facility in Benghazi, and the intelligence is clear that Al Qua'ida is ubiquitous in Benghazi.

And May 22, 2012: A rocket-propelled grenade hits the offices of the International Red Cross. Red Cross pulls out of Benghazi

June 11, 2012: An RPG hits a convoy carrying the British Ambassador. The Brits pull out of Benghazi

July 9, 2012: Amb. Stevens sends a cable requesting continued help from military SST and State Dept.

Early August: State Dept. removes the last of three 6-man State Dept. security teams and a 16-man military SST team from Libya.

August 2, 2012: Ambassador Stevens sends a cable to D.C. requesting "protective detail bodyguard postions." He called "the security condition in Libya ... unpredictable, volatile and violent."

The First Investigation is on-going, and the Administration is flat out refusing to cooperate.

*Actual number, not made up number.
 
60 Minutes Benghazi Report Takes A Huge Credibility Hit

The Benghazi "witness" featured in a CBS 60 Minutes report that galvanized new discussion of the administration's response to the attack previously said he never got near the diplomatic compound on the night of the attack, according to a report from The Washington Post.

The revelation comes just days after Fox News reported that they had previously been using the same man as a source, but broke contact after he asked the network for money. Two days after the CBS report aired, Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon and Schuster that "specializes in conservative non-fiction," published the supposed witness' book, The Embassy House: The Explosive Eyewitness Account of the Libyan Embassy Siege by the Soldier Who Was There. According to the Post, the book "largely comports with the 60 Minutes account."

Together, these details paint a damning picture of the credibility of the supposed eyewitness -- and that of the CBS report which promoted his story.
Click to expand...

Carry on.
 
tyr_13 said:
That's an incomplete data set though. Where else did they threaten that day? That year? How often do they actually attack the things they threaten to attack?
Click to expand...

remirol said:
To this, we can add:

How many threats does the Consulate receive in a given time period?
How many threats do all US foreign embassies receive in a given time period?
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
If you have a list of 3* Threats.
<snip>
*Actual number, not made up number.
Click to expand...

Three is a cherry-picked number; it's the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy writ bold and large, where you have carefully selected only those threats which were actually carried out and then have chosen to scream LIHOP!!!11! about those.

You need to provide numbers for the above questions, and then explain why those three should have been prioritized out of all the threats which are regularly made, given the information available at that time and the historic patterns of threats.
 
16.5 said:
If you have a list of 3* Threats. The Red cross in Benghazi, the British in Benghazi and The American Diplomatic facility in Benghazi, and the intelligence is clear that Al Qua'ida is ubiquitous in Benghazi.
Click to expand...

A list created by using hindsight and picking the attacks that actually happened off from the threats made isn't exactly compelling evidence that they should have known beforehand.


The First Investigation is on-going, and the Administration is flat out refusing to cooperate.
*Actual number, not made up number.
Click to expand...

Speaking of things made up...
 
tyr_13 said:
A list created by using hindsight and picking the attacks that actually happened off from the threats made isn't exactly compelling evidence that they should have known beforehand.




Speaking of things made up...
Click to expand...

I've shown in this thread that the state department is refusing to turn over documents and refusing to make witnesses available, forcing congress to issue subpoenas, I've also shown that Clinton refused to answer straight questions.

You might disagree, but kindly don't claim anything is made up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom