New Disclosures on Benghazi - Part II

[The Big Dog]

I hadn't thought about that last part. I think that seems correct.

To 16.5 et al:

In the Republican accounts that accompanied the release of the report, the narrative was that the administration covered up the involvement of the terrorists because it would have been an embarrassment and a demonstration that their Libya policy was flawed. Libya was supposed to be the "crowning jewel" of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy approach, (that's a quote from some of the Republican analysis of the report) but the terrorist attack destroyed that narrative, so the administration covered it up. That's how the anti-Clinton line goes.

The problem is that it doesn't make any sense. Let's compare the implications of the two narratives.

Option 1: Terrorist attack by organized terror group.

If that is what happened, it would mean that isolated militant groups opposed to democracy, the United States, and western values were trying to take advantage of the departure of Khaddafi in order to impose their backward, tyrannical, theocracy on the people of Libya. We must redouble our efforts to support the fledgling democratic movements trying to become established in Libya.

Option 2: Violent protest by angry mob

The nation of Libya is full of crazy people who hate us. We have no business being there. Get out and let them deal with their own craziness.

.

isolated? dear lord, even today you don't understand the attack?

why do you type silly words?

 

[marplots]

But they sure wanted you to know that the attack which was caused by a failure in policy was not caused by a failure in policy.

What is the failure in policy which causes ansar al sharia to attack? I had it in my head that these guys don't operate based on our policy decisions - but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[A'isha]

no they didn't.

They did, because that's exactly what the CIA put in their initial draft of the memo before anyone else even had a chance to comment on it.

So they sent Susan Rice to lie and lie and lie.

If it was a lie, it was the CIA's lie, not Rice's or Clinton's.

 

[Meadmaker]

isolated? dear lord, even today you don't understand the attack?

why do you type silly words?

This is characteristic of partisan responses. I almost wrote "right wing" responses, but then I realized that this is hardly isolated to this one incident or to one political party or ideological leaning.

What you have done is taken a word out of context. it's a word that can have multiple meanings or senses of meaning. It's easy to see what I meant in my post. If you were interested in dialog, we could then discuss the content.

Or, we could take a word, and try to play some sort of gotcha with exactly what isolated means. Aha! Ansar Al Sharia has lots of contacts with other terrorist groups! They are not isolated! Meadmaker is silly!

If I were Hillary Clinton, you would say it was a lie, instead of just silly.


Of course, you have totally ignored the actual message of the post. The message of the post is that, in terms of their policy, the "angry mob" scenario is actually much worse than the "pre planned terrorist attack" scenario. It would make no sense to create a cover story that is worse than the truth. Therefore, I do not believe that they deliberately created a lie to cover up the truth about the nature of the attack.


As the old saying goes, "Never ascribe to evil that which can be explained by stupidity." If you want to discuss the competence of the administration in handling this incident or its aftermath, I'm there with you. If you want to talk lies and coverups, I don't think it makes any sense. At worst, what I see is "spin".

 

[The Big Dog]

They did, because that's exactly what the CIA put in their initial draft of the memo before anyone else even had a chance to comment on it.



If it was a lie, it was the CIA's lie, not Rice's or Clinton's.

Lolz! You mean the draft talking points memo that said that State had earlier warnings and mentioned ansar al sharia and that the state department excised?

Hilarious!

Oh the excuses people will fabricate to excuse their hero's fabrications.

 

[The Big Dog]

Mead; you gave two options and both were wrong

Spend some time with the report. Or just read my posts in this thread.

I did giggle when you suggested I read the word isolated in isolation.

 

[wareyin]

Of course, you have totally ignored the actual message of the post. The message of the post is that, in terms of their policy, the "angry mob" scenario is actually much worse than the "pre planned terrorist attack" scenario. It would make no sense to create a cover story that is worse than the truth. Therefore, I do not believe that they deliberately created a lie to cover up the truth about the nature of the attack.


As the old saying goes, "Never ascribe to evil that which can be explained by stupidity." If you want to discuss the competence of the administration in handling this incident or its aftermath, I'm there with you. If you want to talk lies and coverups, I don't think it makes any sense. At worst, what I see is "spin".

The response you are dealing with is typical of the conspiracy theorists, I believe. There is no evidence of the conspiracy they are alleging (lies, lies, I tell you!), and there is no reason to have done what they are claiming the ebil gubmint done (as you say, the lie would have been worse than the truth). Yet they just keep on spouting those ludicrous claims.

After the 8th investigation, and how many $millions total wasted, 16.5's claims still have no evidence, yet he is right back to claiming that confusion and inter-agency power struggles in the hours after the attack are proof of a deliberate cover-up.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I see nothing in that nitpick citation that supports the claim Obama wasn't clear.

Argue with the Washington post fact checker, who gives the statement 4 Pinocchios, not me.

If you think the Washington post fact checker is wrong, I suggest it would be hypocritical to use it in the future only when it agrees with you.

Nor do I find this supposed coverup very convincing. It would also seem that after how many committee investigations and millions of dollars, the GOP could not support their faux cover up charge either.

I don't think there was a cover-up either, nor do I think the we need another investigation.

That doesn't mean I don't think it was handled poorly, especially early on.

 

[A'isha]

Lolz! You mean the draft talking points memo that said that State had earlier warnings and mentioned ansar al sharia and that the state department excised?

The CIA's initial draft did not mention any warnings, and the mention of Ansar al-Sharia was, again, to say "Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks" (the actual emails within the CIA discussing this at the time internal-only draft flat-out stated "We do not know who was responsible for the deaths."). The CIA's initial draft also made it clear that "We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo".

The CIA's Office of Public Relations later offered a revised draft which mentioned a specific warning issued only the day before about the protest in Egypt and general warnings about the threat of extremist violence in Eastern Libya, but there was nothing about specific threats to Benghazi on a specific date (and certainly not from Ansar al-Sharia - the previous Benghazi attacks were only noted as being carried out by "unidentified assailants").

 

[The Big Dog]

The CIA's initial draft did not mention any warnings, and the mention of Ansar al-Sharia was, again, to say "Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks" (the actual emails within the CIA discussing this at the time internal-only draft flat-out stated "We do not know who was responsible for the deaths."). The CIA's initial draft also made it clear that "We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo".

The CIA's Office of Public Relations later offered a revised draft which mentioned a specific warning issued only the day before about the protest in Egypt and general warnings about the threat of extremist violence in Eastern Libya, but there was nothing about specific threats to Benghazi on a specific date (and certainly not from Ansar al-Sharia - the previous Benghazi attacks were only noted as being carried out by "unidentified assailants").

I think it is terrific that you are citing the watered down insipid talking points memo. Incorrectly, of course:

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

"The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks."

"That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack." The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because "we don't want to prejudice the investigation."

Unfortunately, we are talking about the State Department. You know, the one who said it had nothing to do with the video and that it was ansar al sharia.

Plus, lets not kid ourselves, we have all seen the smoking gun Rhodes memo that were the real talking points.

But hey, blame the CIA

 

[sunmaster14]

Suppose I accept the narrative that says Hillary and Obama were outright lying about what happened in Benghazi. What were the lies supposed to accomplish? In other words, what is thought to be the point of lying at all?

A US ambassador had been killed - the first one in almost 35 years. Clearly, the administration wanted to make it seem like it was an unforeseeable "act of God" rather than a terrorist attack that was successful because of grossly negligent planning. A riot caused by a Youtube video falls into the former category. A targeted attack by a terrorist group falls into the latter. They probably knew they couldn't keep the cat in the bag for very long. But they figured they could do it long enough to mitigate its effect on Obama's reelection chances. Media distraction was all you needed. Here is an excellent article explaining the political strategy:

When news first breaks, say what needs to be said to escape the news cycle unscathed. Next, when the truth starts to emerge, deny wrongdoing and state that any comprehensive judgment should be withheld pending a full investigation. When the investigation commences, stonewall the investigators and accuse conservatives of being “obsessed” or on a “witch hunt.” By the time wrongdoing is finally confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt, the average voter will have forgotten why the scandal was a scandal to begin with, or, if he hasn’t forgotten — and actually did withhold judgment — the waters will have become so muddied he won’t know whom to believe. To some in the media, the very act of stonewalling is heroic. Confronting congressional investigators makes you a “fighter.” Enduring inquiries and consolidating your base makes you a “survivor.” Bill Clinton used this playbook to escape political accountability for infidelity, perjury, and obstruction of justice. The Obama administration has used it to flush the IRS’s targeting of tea-party groups down the memory hole, transforming one of the most outrageous abuses of power in the modern history of the executive branch into old news in record time.

 

[marplots]

A US ambassador had been killed - the first one in almost 35 years. Clearly, the administration wanted to make it seem like it was an unforeseeable "act of God" rather than a terrorist attack that was successful because of grossly negligent planning. A riot caused by a Youtube video falls into the former category. A targeted attack by a terrorist group falls into the latter. They probably knew they couldn't keep the cat in the bag for very long. But they figured they could do it long enough to mitigate its effect on Obama's reelection chances. Media distraction was all you needed. Here is an excellent article explaining the political strategy:

Thanks. That's at least coherent.

I disagree that a terrorist attack falls under the "could be prevented" category, but I do think I understand the counter-narrative better.

 

[A'isha]

I think it is terrific that you are citing the watered down insipid talking points memo.

No, I'm citing the actual CIA draft. You know, the one that said the attacks arose spontaneously due to protests over the video and that while Ansar al-Sharia was linked to the attack in initial media reports, the terrorist group itself disclaimed responsibility. [EDIT: The line "The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya" was NOT part of the CIA's initial draft, but was added later during the discussion with other departments].

And you quote the portion of the memo that Nuland objected to, but not what she said about that portion: "Why do we want Hill [Capital Hill, ie members of Congress] to be fingering Ansar al-Sharia, when we aren't doing that ourselves until we have investigation results".


As the Office of the Director of National Intelligence noted during the drafting of the memos, "It's very early, less than 72 hours since the attack. So there is a lot we don't know. As time progresses, we are learning more, but we still don't have a complete picture of what happened. ... At this point, we are not aware of any actionable intelligence that this attack was planned or imminent. The intelligence community is combing through reporting from before and after the attack to determine the full extent of who was involved. ... We are very cautions about drawing any firm conclusions at this point with regard to the identification and motivation of the attackers. The IC is working aggressively to this end, and the FBI will continue its investigation."

Unfortunately, we are talking about the State Department. You know, the one who said it had nothing to do with the video and that it was ansar al sharia.

Again, you're blaming State for going along with what the CIA said at the time, instead of going with the future things you know now.

But hey, blame the CIA

They wrote the part of the memo that blamed the attack on a spontaneous outburst inspired by protests over the video.

If you don't like that, you should indeed blame the CIA.

 

[plague311]

Argue with the Washington post fact checker, who gives the statement 4 Pinocchios, not me.

If you think the Washington post fact checker is wrong, I suggest it would be hypocritical to use it in the future only when it agrees with you.



I don't think there was a cover-up either, nor do I think the we need another investigation.

That doesn't mean I don't think it was handled poorly, especially early on.

I can't think of a single event in recent past that wasn't handled poorly, especially early on.

9/11
Hurricane Katrina
Benghazi

Are there huge scale, catastrophic events that are generally handled extremely well? It's obvious 16.5's wandered into conspiracy theory land, and it's kind of beyond debate at this point. He's still pushing long debunked "coverups" just to rationalize any weak position he holds.

I just don't see this as particularly convincing. I don't fault any investigative branch for being conservative on what information they release while reeling from a big hit, and still looking into the scenario. Look at A'isha go back and forth with what was released. How would you possibly manage to say solidly what happened in the moment? Seems like a weird thing to focus on if you ask me, but if it's all some people have.

 

[The Big Dog]

Again, you're blaming State for going along with what the CIA said at the time, instead of going with the future things you know now.

....

They wrote the part of the memo that blamed the attack on a spontaneous outburst inspired by protests over the video.

If you don't like that, you should indeed blame the CIA.

actually, I am going by what STATE knew then, what Hillary and State was telling Egypt and Libya and her daughter.

You do know that Hillary told Egypt's prime minister “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.”

Let me make this as simple as I can: if someone tells you something you know is wrong, repeating it and blaming the other person does not mean you are not lying.

Hillary and State knew that the CIA was wrong, yet they repeated lies and used the CIA for political cover. That is bad.

Let me know if you have any other issues I can clear up for you!

I hope that helps!

 

[plague311]

A US ambassador had been killed - the first one in almost 35 years. Clearly, the administration wanted to make it seem like it was an unforeseeable "act of God" rather than a terrorist attack that was successful because of grossly negligent planning. A riot caused by a Youtube video falls into the former category. A targeted attack by a terrorist group falls into the latter. They probably knew they couldn't keep the cat in the bag for very long. But they figured they could do it long enough to mitigate its effect on Obama's reelection chances. Media distraction was all you needed. Here is an excellent article explaining the political strategy:

The *********** national review? That is awesome! Can you find a more conservative news site to get your information? They don't even pretend to cover up their bias.

I don't get it. How the hell is "attacked by a pre planned attack aimed at killing our people" somehow better or worse than "spontaneous attack triggered by a video that was geared to kill our people?"

Do any of you seriously, actually believe it helped determine the outcome of the Presidential election? Give me a break.

 

[Upchurch]

The *********** national review? That is awesome! Can you find a more conservative news site to get your information? They don't even pretend to cover up their bias.

They lost all credibility in my eyes when they, for something like three elections in a row, named <the current democratic presidential candidate> as "The Most Liberal <position> Evah!".

 

[NoahFence]

Hey! Another day, another new disclosure!!

Someone who doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things said to lay the blame on Congress. However, she doesn't matter, because she's only the family of one of the victims. Not a high ranking official that speaks on the condition of anonymity.

I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta. They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world. And their staffs were doing their best to provide what they could with the resources they had. The Benghazi Mission was understaffed. We know that now. But, again, Chris knew that. It wasn’t a secret to him. He decided to take the risk to go there. It is not something they did to him. It is something he took on himself.

How would Chris have felt about this election?

I know he had a lot of respect for Secretary Clinton. He admired her ability to intensely read the issues and understand the whole picture.

 

[A'isha]

actually, I am going by what STATE knew then, what Hillary and State was telling Egypt and Libya and her daughter.

You do know that Hillary told Egypt's prime minister “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.”

Let me make this as simple as I can: if someone tells you something you know is wrong, repeating it and blaming the other person does not mean you are not lying.

Hillary and State knew that the CIA was wrong, yet they repeated lies and used the CIA for political cover. That is bad.

You point to what Clinton told the Egyptian prime minister barely 24 hours after the attacks as something definitive, when in fact it was reflective of that early uncertainty. State didn't know (and it wasn't their job). CIA didn't even know (and it was their job). There were suspicions and suggestions, but they didn't know. The situation was chaotic and confused, and what was reported by one source was contradicted by another (as the CIA's initial draft even points out regarding Ansar al-Sharia).

That the State Department chose to go with the CIA's early assessment for their official statement is not reflective of a cover-up or a lie, but the result of a careful consideration of all the intelligence known at the time the statement was issued. Even the final version of the memo stated "This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated".

Blaming the State Department for not making definitive claims three days after the attack that the intelligence community wasn't even prepared to make is stupid, and has nothing to do with Clinton's supposed lies, and everything to do with your desire to accuse her of something nefarious regardless of what the actual facts say.

 

[Meadmaker]

A US ambassador had been killed - the first one in almost 35 years. Clearly, the administration wanted to make it seem like it was an unforeseeable "act of God" rather than a terrorist attack that was successful because of grossly negligent planning. A riot caused by a Youtube video falls into the former category. A targeted attack by a terrorist group falls into the latter.

I have a different take on it. A targeted attack is a military failure. A riot is a diplomatic failure. A targeted attack means that there are elements hiding in the country that hate you. A riot means the whole country hates you and you have no business being there in the first place.

I think SG has your number on this. A lot of Republicans would think of the military failure as the worse failure, and when they project that onto the administration, all the rest of their accusations start to make sense.

On the other hand, if you put diplomacy and peaceful relations ahead of military success, then no way would you make up a diplomatic failure to cover up a military failure. Indeed, the only way you might do it is if you can somehow find something to blame, and the administration did. They could blame Islamophobic hate speech, i.e. a youtube video. If only those rotten Islamophobes hadn't posted that hateful video, inflaming the otherwise peaceful members of the Arab Street, none of this would have happened.