• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Clearly Hillary Got to Them...

ArlingtonDeac said:
Inaccurate facts in that statement. Wildly, in fact.
Click to expand...

"within minutes"

Fact: The Red Cross knew a month before those minutes; pulled out in August. : http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2012/08/06/ICRC-pulls-out-of-parts-of-Libya/UPI-20041344261003/

"Given the circumstances, we are forced to announce, with considerable regret, that we will be suspending all our activities in Misurata and Benghazi and that our delegates in those cities will be temporarily relocated," he said in a statement.

Fact: Same facility attacked in April.

Fact: Same facility attacked in June. http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/06/world/africa/libya-violence/index.html

Fact: Five different attacks on Western interests in the months leading up to the 9/11/12 attacks. Quote: "A senior State Department official acknowledged that there were five serious attacks on Western targets since the spring in the lead-up to the attack on the 9/11 anniversary." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...mbed-twice-in-run-up-to-9-11-anniversary.html

Fact: CNN reported who was behind the attack within hours. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/index.html

The Libyans knew immediately, but why listen to them about, well....Libya? "The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous," Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif tells NPR on Sept. 16. "We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate."

I think a good rule of thumb is "The more unfounded and preposterous your story is, the most Sunday morning talk shows you should send your grenade diver on." There was a telling amount of enthusiasm in the investment in the counternarrative.
 
Last edited:
The minute-by-minute account of events as they happened on the ground in Benghazi was published by the official Benghazi commission -- which included Dem, Pub, military, and intelligence officials. I posted it once, on the old thread. Did you ever read the full report? I don't think you did, because what you describe in the post I quoted is not what occurred in Benghazi immediately before, during, or after the two separate attacks at the two separate locations. Then, when challenged on those claims, you shift to allegations about how the events were presented afterward in the media, which is a different topic. You're just too invested in making this tragedy the administration's "fault" to understand that it was shit-storm of miscommunication, missed warnings, poor decisions beforehand (including terrible funding calls by Congress) and, above every other factor, poor timing. No one needs to create a conspiracy to cover what happened in Benghazi, because it was a systemic foul-up touching two branches of government and both parties. But believe what you need to believe.

ETA: If I knew a way to just link to that old thread, I would, and be done with the topic altogether. In it I laid out a pretty clear summary of what happened, based on the primary source of the Benghazi commission. It makes clear that any "stand-down" claims, or claims that something more could have been done for those who died that day, but wasn't, are both laughable and offensive. Most people don't even realize that if the safe area of the Benghazi special compound had been equipped with smoke dispersal equipment, no one would have died there at all that night, including the Ambassador.
 
Last edited:
ArlingtonDeac said:
The minute-by-minute account of events as they happened on the ground in Benghazi was published by the official Benghazi commission -- which included Dem, Pub, military, and intelligence officials. I posted it once, on the old thread. Did you ever read the full report? I don't think you did, because what you describe in the post I quoted is not what occurred in Benghazi immediately before, during, or after the two separate attacks at the two separate locations. Then, when challenged on those claims, you shift to allegations about how the events were presented afterward in the media, which is a different topic. You're just too invested in making this tragedy the administration's "fault" to understand that it was shit-storm of miscommunication, missed warnings, poor decisions beforehand (including terrible funding calls by Congress) and, above every other factor, poor timing. No one needs to create a conspiracy to cover what happened in Benghazi, because it was a systemic foul-up touching two branches of government and both parties. But believe what you need to believe.

ETA: If I knew a way to just link to that old thread, I would, and be done with the topic altogether. In it I laid out a pretty clear summary of what happened, based on the primary source of the Benghazi commission. It makes clear that any "stand-down" claims, or claims that something more could have been done for those who died that day, but wasn't, are both laughable and offensive. Most people don't even realize that if the safe area of the Benghazi special compound had been equipped with smoke dispersal equipment, no one would have died there at all that night, including the Ambassador.
Click to expand...

If one wishes to invest his entire understanding of the facts in a commission convened and hand-picked by the Secretary of State that was denied access to witnesses and---to the surprise of no one---exonerated the Secretary of State and her boss, I suppose one could do that. If, as you seem to believe, there truly was genuine confusion on the part of the Administration (despite having literally received leaflets from terror groups threatening attacks. Yes, literally), but the Red Cross, British and Libyans all seeing the forest and the trees instantly (if not before), why was the Administration so enthusiastic about its wrong answer? Why run---hard---with something that proved not to be true (and indeed, in the opinion of the Libyan government, was "unfounded and preposterous")? No one would have faulted them for saying "We're reserving judgment until all the facts come in." Why did they feel the need to push the other story out there with both hands? That part has never passed the smell test. If you didn't know, say so.
 
The wood jhmd springs over this make these threads worth it.

I bet your wife is running from you at this point dude
 
jhmd2000 said:
If one wishes to invest his entire understanding of the facts in a commission convened and hand-picked by the Secretary of State that was denied access to witnesses and---to the surprise of no one---exonerated the Secretary of State and her boss, I suppose one could do that.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about some political commission's free pass. I'm talking about the official after-action report -- prepared with active military and intelligence participation, by career security men who'd very much like you to question their integrity to their faces -- that gave a minute-by-minute account of all personnel in Benghazi and Libya. It's clear you've never actually read it, because it makes your allegations logistically nonsensical. And, for the record, the report is extremely critical of state department, military, and intelligence failures leading up to the events (including decisions made by the Ambassador while in Benghazi, policies of the State Department regarding security in places like Libya, budgetary shackles Congress put on diplomat security the prior term, etc.). The report emphatically puts to rest any politically-wished-for notions of some active boogeyman was at play in the events surrounding the tragedy in Benghazi, which makes sense, because it turns out the people working in our government aren't nefariously evil caricatures after all. (Shocking, I know.) I have no idea why you are so invested in believing in a conspiracy designed to deliberately harm American citizens and interests, but it's just plain silly. And utterly transparent.

I really wish that thread was still around. We've done this once already.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
I'm not talking about some political commission's free pass. I'm talking about the official after-action report -- prepared with active military and intelligence participation, by career security men who'd very much like you to question their integrity to their faces -- that gave a minute-by-minute account of all personnel in Benghazi and Libya. It's clear you've never actually read it, because it makes your allegations logistically nonsensical. And, for the record, the report is extremely critical of state department, military, and intelligence failures leading up to the events (including decisions made by the Ambassador while in Benghazi, policies of the State Department regarding security in places like Libya, budgetary shackles Congress put on diplomat security the prior term, etc.). The report emphatically puts to rest any politically-wished-for notions of some active boogeyman was at play in the events surrounding the tragedy in Benghazi, which makes sense, because it turns out the people working in our government aren't nefariously evil caricatures after all. (Shocking, I know.) I have no idea why you are so invested in believing in a conspiracy designed to deliberately harm American citizens and interests, but it's just plain silly. And utterly transparent.

I really wish that thread was still around. We've done this once already.
Click to expand...

Are you going to ever address why they took an---at best---incomplete theory and pushed it so hard? I've asked this several times, and every time you return to arguments I've never made.
 
The right will try to use the BS like they used Whitewater against Bill. They cant' beat her without telling years of lies and they know it.

Their lemmings will believe the lies and repeat to everyone over and over and over again.
 
RJKarl said:
The right will try to use the BS like they used Whitewater against Bill. They cant' beat her without telling years of lies and they know it.

Their lemmings will believe the lies and repeat to everyone over and over and over again.
Click to expand...

An interesting take on an issue where your champions could not have been more wrong on the facts, and you, eager as ever, swallowed.

I've repeatedly asked intelligent people on this thread to explain why they felt the need to push the wrong story on six different Sunday morning shows, rather than do the responsible thing and wait for the facts to come in. Crickets. There was no cause for a misinformation campaign, unless you needed bad information out there. You lack the intellectual earnestness to even entertain that question. For all of the vitriol you've spewed in defense of the people who mangled this entire situation prior, during, and after, you'd think there would be an easy answer that you can explain without having to denigrate people asking questions. It is telling that you cannot. If everything you wish to believe is true, there is no reason to run hard with the wrong story; they could patiently just let the facts come in. You persist in avoiding my question as to why they felt compelled to lie about it to everyone that would listen. I say again, my question. You won't even tolerate questions. Awfully impressive range there, RJ.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Are you going to ever address why they took an---at best---incomplete theory and pushed it so hard? I've asked this several times, and every time you return to arguments I've never made.
Click to expand...

Because it was plausible, sourced, and politically useful (and ultimately wrong). I addressed this fully in the other thread, which I miss badly as a reference. Anyone who read the after-action report would understand why this was initially thought to be merely a mob action, and why that belief persisted. Mainly because nothing other than "mob action" occurred in the first attack at the special compound where the Ambassador died. A mostly unarmed crowd stormed the gates and set a bunch of fires, then left, completely unaware that anyone had been killed. The only casualties were caused by smoke leaking into the sealed safe zone. This looked and felt like a mob action, and, combined with the events in Egypt, formed a reasonable but ultimately incorrect theory of spontaneous 9/11 reprisals. They didn't reverse that explanation until definitely proved otherwise. And when they did reverse it, they forthrightly explained what actually happened, all months before the elections. So you're grand conspiracy makes no sense in literally any dimension.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
Because it was plausible, sourced, and politically useful (and ultimately wrong). I addressed this fully in the other thread, which I miss badly as a reference. Anyone who read the after-action report would understand why this was initially thought to be merely a mob action, and why that belief persisted. Mainly because nothing other than "mob action" occurred in the first attack at the special compound where the Ambassador died. A mostly unarmed crowd stormed the gates and set a bunch of fires, then left, completely unaware that anyone had been killed. The only casualties were caused by smoke leaking into the sealed safe zone. This looked and felt like a mob action, and, combined with the events in Egypt, formed a reasonable but ultimately incorrect theory of spontaneous 9/11 reprisals. They didn't reverse that explanation until definitely proved otherwise. And when they did reverse it, they forthrightly explained what actually happened, all months before the elections. So you're grand conspiracy makes no sense in literally any dimension.
Click to expand...

I am certain that your hyperbole has you feeling your oats, but your enthusiasm carries you off the facts. The attacks were less than two (2) months before the election, so "months" isn't even possible. Again, I admire your enthusiasm but your defense has changed its relationship status with the facts to "It's complicated." Let's work on accurately counting to two before we dispense any more lectures, k?
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
There's a "She's faster than yours" joke lying around here somewhere. Where did I put it....
Click to expand...

take your head out of your ass every now and then and I bet you'd find it.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I am certain that your hyperbole has you feeling your oats, but your enthusiasm carries you off the facts. The attacks were less than two (2) months before the election, so "months" isn't even possible. Again, I admire your enthusiasm but your defense has changed its relationship status with the facts to "It's complicated." Let's work on accurately counting to two before we dispense any more lectures, k?
Click to expand...

Pretty weak.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I am certain that your hyperbole has you feeling your oats, but your enthusiasm carries you off the facts. The attacks were less than two (2) months before the election, so "months" isn't even possible. Again, I admire your enthusiasm but your defense has changed its relationship status with the facts to "It's complicated." Let's work on accurately counting to two before we dispense any more lectures, k?
Click to expand...

That Romney fireworks show would have been awesome. Does anyone know what happened to them?
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
Pretty weak.
Click to expand...

Since the calendar is proving a challenge, perhaps you can clarify the following vexing mysteries:

1) When the British were attacked on June 11 and pulled out June 17, was that in response to a protest over a video that would not occur almost three more months?

2) When the Red Cross pulled out after it was attacked a second time, was that in response to a protest over a video that hadn't happened yet?

3) When, upon noticing that both the British and Red Cross had in fact pulled out of Benghazi, the head of military security remarked "...it was apparent to me that we were the last flag flying in Benghazi; we were the last thing on their target list to remove," was the Administration not paying attention to their experts on the ground? Why didn't the Secretary of State know what the Brits, Red Cross and Americans on the ground knew?

4) Was she not listening when AMBASSADOR CHRIS STEVENS (!) cabled both in June and August that the security situation was deteriorating (e.g., using the words "security vacuum", to describe the city)? Could he possibly have been referring to the attack that didn't begin in another city for another month?

Having then seen direct attacks on the facility earlier that year, seen their allies and prominent NGO pull out because of the manifest deterioration in security and having IN HAND security cables FROM THE SLAIN AMBASSADOR, do you believe Susan Rice when she said "...our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated."?

I agree with you that it was "politically useful", but when the Libyans(!) counterparts described her assessment as "unfounded and preposterous", do you really (really?) think it was their "best" assessment (when "best" is taken to mean "most accurate"; as opposed to "best...politically")?

If that's her "best", I'd hate to see her worst. With apologies to the Aceman, "Susan, don't do your best. Your best isn't very good. Do my best."
 
Last edited:
WFFaithful said:
Nice effort. Why was Chris even there, much less jogging, if there was such a problem
Click to expand...

I think the whole point is that he shouldn't have been, but the leadership was trying to put down a light footprint and a show of diplomacy to try to gain and build trust.

It was a calculated risk that...didn't work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top