Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Profiling is not ok...Follow

#77 May 16 2013 at 4:57 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,884 posts
I found gbaji's source.
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#78 May 16 2013 at 4:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That said, the entire document dump is available online. Not all documents on Benghazi of course but rather the chain of communication during the crafting of the talking points Gbaji is having conniptions about.

Edited, May 16th 2013 5:58pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#79gbaji, Posted: May 16 2013 at 5:15 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Huh? Did you read what I quoted? She's not an assistant to a member of congress. She's the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security. In other words, she's the person who made the decisions regarding security in Libya (and other diplomatic posts). She's one level below the Secretary of State (that was Hillary Clinton at the time). Yes. She trumps the opinions of a couple of random members of congress.
#80 May 16 2013 at 5:19 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,930 posts
Well, Deputy Assistant, meaning under the Assistant.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#81 May 16 2013 at 5:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That said, the entire document dump is available online. Not all documents on Benghazi of course but rather the chain of communication during the crafting of the talking points Gbaji is having conniptions about.


That's meaningless when the "entire document dump" consists of about 100 emails selected out of an estimated 25,000. And even those are being selectively read and reported by the sources you keep relying on for information. Many of the edits made by CIA were done at the behest of the State Department. And not because they were factually incorrect, but because they were concerned that it would make it look like they hadn't listened to the intelligence agencies that warned them about security risks in Libya.

It was CYA all the way around.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 May 16 2013 at 5:24 PM Rating: Good
******
49,884 posts
gbaji wrote:
You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Says the guy that didn't even read his own article. But then again, considering how bad a writer you are it really doesn't surprise me reading is just as difficult. Either way, you're still two senior:one junior in the hole. I know you don't want to focus on facts and numbers since those have, well pretty much always, proved you wrong, so you're going to conspiracy theory the **** out of it and hope no one notices. Being a hypocrite like you must suck. Smiley: frown
TirithRR wrote:
Well, Deputy Assistant, meaning under the Assistant.
Don't bring your facts into this discussion young man.

Edited, May 16th 2013 7:25pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#83 May 16 2013 at 5:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Well, Deputy Assistant, meaning under the Assistant.


Sorry. You are correct. Deputy Assistant. **** word wrap in the original article got me. We're still talking about one level below the Secretary of State and a fairly high level position of responsibility. As stated earlier, she is the person who made the decision regarding security in Libya. She says that she did not base that decision on budget restrictions. So any claims that budget cuts had any effect on security in Libya are patently false.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#84 May 16 2013 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good
******
49,884 posts
gbaji wrote:
We're still talking about one level below the Secretary of State and a fairly high level position of responsibility.
We're actually not, but boy do you wish we were!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#85gbaji, Posted: May 16 2013 at 5:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Uh... It doesn't work that way. She made the decision in question. They did not. She says that her decision was not affected by budget concerns. End of story. Why the **** are you still trying to argue this?
#86 May 16 2013 at 5:33 PM Rating: Good
******
49,884 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why the **** are you still trying to argue this?
Argument implies you actually have a leg to stand on. I'm just pointing out the faults in your party rhetoric that you're parroting, and watching you spin in the web of hypocrisy. Like for insistence right now you're saying it's "end of story" because the assistant to an assistant to a committee head said so. Using your new logic of "you don't have to prove it for it to be true," then I'll say they were told to say more money wouldn't have helped and that less money was the correct choice. Prove me wrong.

Edited, May 16th 2013 7:34pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#87 May 16 2013 at 5:34 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,930 posts
According to lolWiki (because I'll admit I didn't know their hierarchy)
It goes:
Secretary of State
Deputy Secretary of State
Under Secretary of State for Management
Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security

So she's not really one level under Secretary of State.
But I guess they aren't really Congress Critters are they, since these are all Executive branch positions, right?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#88 May 16 2013 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It was CYA all the way around.

Well, it's nice that you think so.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#89 May 16 2013 at 5:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
We're still talking about one level below the Secretary of State and a fairly high level position of responsibility.
We're actually not, but boy do you wish we were!


Ok. Two levels. I missed the whole "Undersecretary of Management" layer in the State Department org chart. Sue me. You're still wrong though. She made the decision. She says the decision had nothing to do with budget. Ergo, it had nothing to do with budget. Literally no one else on the planet is a better expert on that particular question than she is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#90 May 16 2013 at 5:39 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,884 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ok. Two levels. I missed the whole "Undersecretary of Management" layer in the State Department org chart.
Five levels. Smiley: laugh

Edit: Please, don't let your "missed word" here and "missed layer" there stop you from explaining how you understand all this and just how important your source is. I notice graphs and charts throw you off. Don't let it get you down. Continue, continue.

Edited, May 16th 2013 7:45pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#91gbaji, Posted: May 16 2013 at 5:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Correct. She's not a part of Congress, or working for anyone in Congress. She works for the State Department. Specifically the part that made decisions regarding diplomatic security. Her testimony vastly outweighs a member of congress's speculation.
#92 May 16 2013 at 5:52 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ok. Two levels. I missed the whole "Undersecretary of Management" layer in the State Department org chart.
Five levels. Smiley: laugh


I love how you've latched onto the least relevant part of this whole conversation. Ultimately, none of this matters. She's the one who made the decision. She says it had nothing to do with budget. Thus, you are wrong. End of story.

Edited, May 16th 2013 4:53pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 May 16 2013 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,884 posts
gbaji wrote:
I love how you've latched onto the least relevant part of this whole conversation. .
You must love it, you spent half a dozen posts trying to prove just how relevant her rank was until even you couldn't spin your way out of not reading it right. It really does matter that you're using someone low on the totem to disprove two people much higher than her. It shows how tightly you're grasping at straws trying to keep from drowning. But hey, if you want to pretend that the equivalent of a Specialist is in charge of all Republican budget decisions, you keep on keeping on. That wizard is mighty.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#94 May 16 2013 at 5:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It was CYA all the way around.

Well, it's nice that you think so.


Do you honestly believe it was something else? I'm kinda curious what you think that was? I mean, it's awfully convenient that the incorrect talking points in the final briefing document just happened to tie into the narrative the Obama administration wanted. It's like getting into a car crash in your Honda and having your car happen to smash into the shape of a functioning Lamborghini. I'm sure that was just a random occurrence though!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 May 16 2013 at 6:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I love how you've latched onto the least relevant part of this whole conversation. .
You must love it, you spent half a dozen posts trying to prove just how relevant her rank was until even you couldn't spin your way out of not reading it right. It really does matter that you're using someone low on the totem to disprove two people much higher than her. It shows how tightly you're grasping at straws trying to keep from drowning. But hey, if you want to pretend that the equivalent of a Specialist is in charge of all Republican budget decisions, you keep on keeping on. That wizard is mighty.


Really? Honestly I'm just posting this stuff cause I'm bored and have some time to kill. I proved you wrong like 8 posts ago. You just don't seem to have figured it out yet. The rest of this is just for amusement factor and to see just how desperately you'll cling to the slightest thing. I'll give you a hint: You're the only person who thinks her rank/level/whatever actually matters. The rest of us got that the fact that she's the one who denied requests for more security was the end of the actual debate on this issue.

What are you arguing now? Tell you what. I'll accidentally misspell her name next and you can spend 5 posts insisting that since I can't spell her name, the GOP cuts must have been to blame for lack of security in Libya. Cause that's the level of logic I've come to expect from you.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#96 May 16 2013 at 6:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Do you honestly believe it was something else?

Yes. As mentioned in previous threads on the topic. Heck, I even quoted a column by a former Bush-era CIA analyst discussing exactly why it was not only plausible but extremely likely that the talking points reflected what was thought to be accurate at the time. You just said "Nuh UH! No one would EVER think that!"

I mean, nice work on saying "honestly" as though no one could ever think differently than you and anyone claiming to must be lying. That was pretty ninja. But, yeah, I think the whole GOP "It was a trick!" line is nothing more than politics. Certainly they haven't shown anything yet to the contrary. Did a great job of revealing CIA assets in the region though during the course of their little witch hunt. So nice work there, Issa.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 May 16 2013 at 6:07 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,884 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're the only person who thinks her rank/level/whatever actually matters
I've seen ferrets that were less cute than you are when you know you can't dig yourself out of holes like this. Smiley: inlove

You're the one that brought in your little friend. Not my fault you can't defend your argument.

Edited, May 16th 2013 8:10pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#98 May 16 2013 at 6:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do you honestly believe it was something else?

Yes. As mentioned in previous threads on the topic. Heck, I even quoted a column by a former Bush-era CIA analyst discussing exactly why it was not only plausible but extremely likely that the talking points reflected what was thought to be accurate at the time.


Sure. And in the absence of a mountain of evidence that nearly everyone in the intelligence community knew that this was a planned attack and didn't derive spontaneously from some protests over a film, you'd have a great point. Which I seem to recall was more or less my response back then.


And even if we accept that someone actually believed that this was a result of the protests, it still does not explain why days later, after it was clearly known that this wasn't the case, the false story was being repeated. It also doesn't explain why weeks later Obama himself was still repeating the same false story either when he spoke to the UN. The whole thing smacks of this being the story they wanted more than the story they got. If it had just been the story that came from the intelligence, then they would not have been so incredibly resistant to changing it as the facts became clearer. But they clearly did cling to that version of events long after it was abundantly clear that it wasn't true.


So yeah. In the face of that, it's hard to swallow the idea that they had nothing to do with that story being created in the first place. They had every reason to invent it, and no one else did.

Edited, May 16th 2013 5:26pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 May 16 2013 at 6:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The whole thing smacks of this being the story they wanted more than the story they got.

As I previously said, it's nice that you think so. I've no real interest in re-litigating the prior threads at this point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 May 16 2013 at 6:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The whole thing smacks of this being the story they wanted more than the story they got.

As I previously said, it's nice that you think so. I've no real interest in re-litigating the prior threads at this point.


Prior threads where it was established (by you of course) that there was nothing to this story. Yet here we are months later with the story. Hmmmm...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#101 May 16 2013 at 7:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
670 posts
To Gbaji:

Help me, a layman, understand the scandal in simple yes or no answers to the following questions.

1) Is this the first time a US embassy was attacked on foreign soil which resulted in the deaths of US citizens?

2) If the answer to 1 is no, is the problem that there wasn't full disclosure to the public a few hours after the incident, thereby a different response to similar situations in the past?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 43 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (43)