New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mister Earl said:
So, someone else of a differing nationality being killed at our embassies is somehow less of a security lapse? Of course not. I'd even go so far as to say it's worse, given foreign nationals were being murdered on US territory.

But it's interesting seeing the contortions you're doing to make those somehow not count, and make this one stand out somehow.
Click to expand...

The poster specifically said that the "rubes" did not know how many "Americans" were killed.

One would think that if one had accused "rubes" of not knowing how many "Americans" were killed, the question of how many Americans were killed would be relevant.

So tell the "rubes"

How many Americans were killed?

Protip: the number of Americans killed under bush was specifically identified by me in this thread.

Tell the rubes. C'mon, the rubes want to know.
 
16.5 said:
The poster specifically said that the "rubes" did not know how many "Americans" were killed.

One would think that if one had accused "rubes" of not knowing how many "Americans" were killed, the question of how many Americans were killed would be relevant.

So tell the "rubes"

How many Americans were killed?

Protip: the number of Americans killed under bush was specifically identified by me in this thread.

Tell the rubes. C'mon, the rubes want to know.
Click to expand...

I thought the number of Americans killed under Bush was 3,000? Or does this outrage only apply specifically to Americans killed at consulates in other countries, but somehow excludes foreign nationals killed there, or Americans killed here at home? If so, how can we conclude that this is nothing more than phony outrage based on partisanship?
 
G6000 said:
There were ten attacks on our diplomatic missions on George Bush's watch. The rubes cannot tell us how many Americans were killed.
Click to expand...

Unabogie said:
I thought the number of Americans killed under Bush was 3,000? Or does this outrage only apply specifically to Americans killed at consulates in other countries, but somehow excludes foreign nationals killed there, or Americans killed here at home? If so, how can we conclude that this is nothing more than phony outrage based on partisanship?
Click to expand...

Unabogie, I quoted g6000's post for you.

He mentioned "diplomatic missions." He mentioned that the rubes cannot tell us how many Americans were killed.

I understand that you are frustrated but that is the way he chose to frame the issue. I had expected that someone would have explained to our friend that the sole American killed in attacks on diplomatic missions was David Foy (who was killed in a car bomb attack at a hotel near the embassy in Pakistan, but I'm not going to quibble).

Most importantly, of course, unlike the attack in Benghazi, there is no evidence that the administration lied about it, like the Obama administration did.

Now the rubes know the answer, I guess.

Thanks for posting.
 
16.5 said:
Unabogie, I quoted g6000's post for you.

He mentioned "diplomatic missions." He mentioned that the rubes cannot tell us how many Americans were killed.

I understand that you are frustrated but that is the way he chose to frame the issue. I had expected that someone would have explained to our friend that the sole American killed in attacks on diplomatic missions was David Foy (who was killed in a car bomb attack at a hotel near the embassy in Pakistan, but I'm not going to quibble).

Most importantly, of course, unlike the attack in Benghazi, there is no evidence that the administration lied about it, like the Obama administration did.

Now the rubes know the answer, I guess.

Thanks for posting.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but what makes you think I'm frustrated about Benghazi? Aside from the fact that you're not a mind reader, what I feel about Benghazi is a sense of wonder that anyone fell for the GOP's obvious attempt to run cover for Mitt's big blunder. Once he stepped on his dick, the right had to come up with a reason why Obama was actually to blame, so they made up a bunch of BS about "stand down" orders, and "he let Americans die because derp", and began a campaign of Truther-like parsing of words where each possibly wrong answer is proof of a coverup. I don't know if this has registered with you, but even the vast majority of GOP partisans on this forum have dropped the Benghazi CT. It's a nothingburger. It's a tragic attack on one of our consulates that ought to make us rethink our security protocols and how best to effectively engage in hostile countries while still presenting a face of the US that's not all military. What it's NOT is a scandal. It happened TO us, not BY us. You got played. Even Lindsay Graham shut up after the NY Times story. It's over, man.
 
Unabogie said:
Sorry, but what makes you think I'm frustrated about Benghazi? Aside from the fact that you're not a mind reader, what I feel about Benghazi is a sense of wonder that anyone fell for the GOP's obvious attempt to run cover for Mitt's big blunder. Once he stepped on his dick, the right had to come up with a reason why Obama was actually to blame, so they made up a bunch of BS about "stand down" orders, and "he let Americans die because derp", and began a campaign of Truther-like parsing of words where each possibly wrong answer is proof of a coverup. I don't know if this has registered with you, but even the vast majority of GOP partisans on this forum have dropped the Benghazi CT. It's a nothingburger. It's a tragic attack on one of our consulates that ought to make us rethink our security protocols and how best to effectively engage in hostile countries while still presenting a face of the US that's not all military. What it's NOT is a scandal. It happened TO us, not BY us. You got played. Even Lindsay Graham shut up after the NY Times story. It's over, man.
Click to expand...

That litany of straw men had literally had nothing at all to do with the tu quoque fallacy we were talking about.

Oh, but the New York Times has weighed in. That truly is game over! Because not only did they manage to directly contradict their own reporting, they were directly refuted by the ranking democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, a fact I pointed out earlier (and was ignored).

The New York Times also managed to avoid mentioning Elizabeth Jones and her boss Hillary Clinton. Will wonders never cease?

:rolleyes:
 
16.5 said:
Oh, but the New York Times has weighed in. That truly is game over! Because not only did they manage to directly contradict their own reporting,
Click to expand...

They did no such thing.

The New York Times also managed to avoid mentioning Elizabeth Jones and her boss Hillary Clinton. Will wonders never cease?
Click to expand...

Because that's really what this whole Benghazi non-scandal is all about, isn't it: finding some way to smear Clinton just in case she makes another run for the presidency. The truth about what happened in Benghazi is entirely secondary to that one goal.
 
16.5 said:
“I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,” Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told “Fox News Sunday.”

He also repeatedly said the story was “not accurate.”

Rogers was joined on the show by California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, who said, “intelligence indicates Al Qaeda was involved.”

Well that makes the State department, The FBI, the CIA, the Democrats and the Republicans all saying that Islamic Terrorists were involved in the attack.

Thanks for the bird cage lining, NY Times. NEXT!
Click to expand...

Although I think the consensus is that the New York Times has been a huge failure, avid readers of this thread will undoubtedly wish to review a fairly comprehensive rebuttal in the USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/02/alqaeda-libya-clinton-benghazi-times-column/4292593/

You will note that it makes the same "affiliated" analysis that avid readers first read in this thread.

Of note, and as avid readers of this thread will recall, the New York Times ALSO left out the Libyans' furious reaction to Rice's tall tales on the Sunday Morning talk shows.

MOHAMED YOUSEF EL-MAGARIAF (President, Libya's General National Congress): Oh, few scores, I think the number reached about fifty.

BOB SCHIEFFER: About fifty people have been arrested. And who are these people?

MOHAMED YOUSEF EL-MAGARIAF (voice overlapping): Yeah.

BOB SCHIEFFER: You have said that they were connected to al Qaeda. Are they all foreigners?

MOHAMED YOUSEF EL-MAGARIAF: Yes, few of them are.

BOB SCHIEFFER: And who are the others?

MOHAMED YOUSEF EL-MAGARIAF: The others are affiliates and maybe sympathizers.

After Rice contradicts him on the very same show, Magariaf's response was swift, unequivocal and brutal: Sept. 16: 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: the perfect epitaph for the New York Times white wash.
 
16.5 said:
Today the Department of State has designated the Muhammad Jamal Network (MJN) and founder, Muhammad Jamal, as Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order (E.O.) 13224, which targets terrorists and those providing support to terrorists or acts of terrorism.

As avid readers of this thread will recall, Jamal has reportedly been tied to the terrorist attack in Benghazi. Some of the terrorists who had trained in his camps took part in the assault.

The Wall Street Journal first reported that "[f]ighters linked to" Jamal were among those who assaulted the US diplomatic mission. "Intelligence reports suggest that some of the attackers trained at camps [Jamal] established in the Libyan Desert, a former U.S. official said." The New York Times has cited "American officials" as saying that some of the participants came from "the Muhammad Jamal network, a militant group in Egypt."

Check back here for the latest Developments.
Click to expand...

No doubt avid readers of this thread were absolutely bewildered by the New York Times complete change of reporting in its latest whitewash. I have conveniently linked such previous reporting for your easy access.
 
WAPO Drives the Stake Home

Today, the Washington Post reports:

"U.S. officials suspect that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee played a role in the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and are planning to designate the group he leads as a foreign terrorist organization, according to officials familiar with the plans.

Militiamen under the command of Abu Sufian bin Qumu, the leader of Ansar al-Sharia in the Libyan city of Darnah, participated in the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, U.S. officials said."

As always a link: Al Qua'ida Affiliated Terrorists Sought for 9/11 attack in Benghazi

Some might recall the now thoroughly discredited New York Times white wash that claimed that there was "no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault."

The WaPo says:

According to U.S. military files disclosed by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, Qumu trained in 1993 at one of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist camps in Afghanistan and later worked for a bin Laden company in Sudan, where the al-Qaeda leader lived for three years.

Qumu fought alongside the Taliban against the United States in Afghanistan; he then fled to Pakistan and was later arrested in Peshawar. He was turned over to the United States and held at Guantanamo Bay.

He has a “long-term association with Islamic extremist jihad and members of al-Qaida and other extremist groups,” according to the military files. “Detainee’s alias is found on a list of probable al-Qaida personnel receiving monthly stipends.”

Oh but there was no evidence that it was "core" Al Qua'ida, which appears to be a "thing" now. Sure it was Al Qua'ida, but it wasn't "core Al Qua'ida" because "core." :rolleyes:
 
USA Designates Ansar Al Sharia as Perpetrators of the Benghazi terror attacks.

Today, the Department of State has announced the designations of Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi, Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah, and Ansar al-Shari’a in Tunisia as separate Foreign Terrorist Organizations. In addition to these group designations, the Department of State has also designated Ahmed Abu Khattalah, Sufian bin Qumu, and Seifallah Ben Hassine, commonly known as “Abou Iyadh,” as Specially Designated Global Terrorists.

The designation continues stating that Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah have been involved in terrorist attacks against civilian targets, frequent assassinations, and attempted assassinations of security officials and political actors in eastern Libya, and the September 11, 2012 attacks against the U.S. Special Mission and Annex in Benghazi, Libya. Members of both organizations continue to pose a threat to U.S. interests in Libya.Ahmed Abu Khattalah is a senior leader of Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi and Sufian bin Qumu is the leader of Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah.

Avid readers of this thread know that Qumu is affiliated with Al Qua'ida.

Although this is clearly a milestone, and certainly one that was expected by avid readers of this thread, there remains work to be done. But I want to take a minute and thank everyone for your patience and in making this thread what I believe to be one of the finest resources on the internet for up to date news and analysis on the Benghazi Terror Attacks.

16.5
 
As avid readers of the press will recall, the New York Times briefly caused a whirlpool of excitement with their 6000 word article on Benghazi. It was of course completely debunked in short order in places like the Washington Post and the jref forum.

It was of course buried yesterday when the state department formally identified the actual perpetrators, and outlined facts decimating the 6000 word whitewash.

Here is a pretty good summary:

http://www.examiner.com/article/state-department-torpedoes-ny-times-benghazi-story

I searched the Times yesterday and today, and see no reference to yesterday's milestone developments. I don't expect a correction, of course, notwithstanding the need for one. But you'd think they'd at least mention it.

In any event, I ask that avid readers of this thread chime in if and when the New York Times acknowledges reality.

Thanks.
 
Avid readers of this thread will recall that the House Intelligence Committee was interviewing to DoD personnel in connection with the terror attack on Benghazi. It should come as no surprise to avid readers of thsi thread that the disclosures are absolutely devastating, and the Obama administration knew that this was a well planned and orchestrated terrorist attack while it was still going on. The transcripts also show that the military assets and other security were woefully unprepared, a sad situation that avid readers of this thread know lies with Obama's national security adviser, a man who Obama subsequently PROMOTED to the head of the CIA. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/14/benghazi-transcripts-top-defense-officials-briefed-obama-on-attack-not-video-or/

Trigger warning: FOX. I'd get New York Times link, but it seems that the organization has all but given up on reporting the latest disclosures involving this terror attack, following their wholly discredited whitewash from a couple of weeks ago.
 
Avid readers of the thread are interested to know why consistent contributors to the thread have yet to comment on this story that details John Boener's involvement or lack thereof. Could it be because his last name isn't Clinton?

On January 6, 2014, an incendiary letter was hand-delivered to House Speaker John Boehner. It called on him to stop being a hindrance to the establishment of an Independent Select Committee to investigate what happened in the attacks in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.
Click to expand...

Avid readers want to know.
 
Bi-Partisan Senate report on Benghazi released today.

The headline says it all:

Senate report: Attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi could have been prevented.

The bipartisan report lays out more than a dozen findings regarding the assaults on Sept. 11 and 12, 2012, on a diplomatic compound and a CIA annex in the Libyan city of Benghazi. It says the State Department failed to increase security at its diplomatic mission despite warnings and faults intelligence agencies for not sharing information about the existence of the CIA outpost with the U.S. military.

The committee determined that the U.S. military command in Africa didn’t know about the CIA annex and that the Pentagon didn’t have the resources in place to defend the diplomatic compound in an emergency.

Avid readers of this thread know that Obama assigned John O. Brennan to coordinate security ahead of the 9/11 anniversary. He was intimately familiar with the CIA activities in Benghazi. He failed to even talk to the Pentagon regarding making sure military assets were in place. Obama promoted him to Director of the CIA.

As always a link. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-report-attack-on-us-compound-in-benghazi-could-have-been-prevented/2014/01/15/5e197224-7de9-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html
 
NoahFence said:
Avid readers of the thread are interested to know why consistent contributors to the thread have yet to comment on this story that details John Boener's involvement or lack thereof. Could it be because his last name isn't Clinton?

Avid readers want to know.
Click to expand...

The author of the piece that was first drawn to our attention by NoahFence (and thanks for that!) has written a companion piece that was published in the same space as the piece that Noah drew our attention to.

It is titled Mrs. Clinton, the truth about Benghazi does make a difference The link is here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/16/mrs-clinton-truth-about-benghazi-does-make-difference/

here is a short, selected excerpt:

Secretary Clinton ignored the warnings and object lessons that were present from the 2012 terrorist attacks on the Red Cross, the assassination attempt on the British Ambassador to Libya and the attacks that occurred at the American Diplomatic Outpost in Benghazi, all before September 11, 2012.

Most importantly, she refused the Ambassador’s repeated requests for additional security at the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya.

When coupled with her inability to answer the proverbial "3 a.m. phone call" during the terrorist attack on the diplomatic outpost, Secretary Clinton’s lack of competency was brought to light. It is amazing how wrong one person can be.

Hat tip to Noah, because I might not have found this without his previous links. Avid readers no doubt look forward to everyone's comment.
 
This proves both Clinton and Obama failed at the 2 am phone call. And if they can't handle this manufactured "scandal," then how are they gonna deal with America's real enemies?
 
Cain said:
This proves both Clinton and Obama failed at the 2 am phone call. And if they can't handle this manufactured "scandal," then how are they gonna deal with America's real enemies?
Click to expand...

If Bin Laden is any evidence, by getting them shot in the face.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom