New Disclosures on Benghazi - Part II

[sunmaster14]

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.

You're indulging in an ad hominem fallacy. The author of the article and the publisher of the article are irrelevant because the article speaks for itself. It is not relying on any disputed facts but merely explaining a successful political strategy that has been deployed time and again by the Obama administration.

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?"

The response to a random video could not reasonably be foreseen. It could have happened anywhere to anyone if in fact an inflammatory video went viral and inflamed mob passions. A targeted terrorist attack, however, is something that should have been contemplated and anticipated. Security should have been sufficient to repel such an attack, and an effective contingency plan should have been prepared. The fact that a US ambassador murdered in a country where the threat of terrorism was well understood is strong evidence that the preparation was grossly negligent.

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

Yes, I do. I thought Romney was going to lose anyway, but somehow the Benghazi debacle, rather than redounding to Obama's detriment, ended up hurting Romney instead. This was because of the successful strategy employed by the administration (with an assist from the media), and the frustration that created in the Romney campaign (which caused them to react poorly).

 

[sunmaster14]

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.

I normally think you say sensible things Meadmaker. Not this time. Diplomacy is about relations between governments. Whether or not a diplomat should bear any responsibility for the violence by mobs in response to an inflammatory video (which, in the words of Hillary, "we had absolutely nothing to do with"), the vast majority of people will not connect the two.

 

[A'isha]

The Obama administration was inept enough to fail to foresee the Benghazi attack, but clever enough to manipulate Romney into smirking during his fiasco of a press conference about Benghazi?

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

Are you just putting us on at this point? Do you know what part of State's "job" is? Security for diplomatic facilities! That is not the CIA's "job." By the way? the CIA is only part of the "Intelligence Community." You know who else is part of the "intelligence Community"? (I think you know.... oh hell, I'll tell ya: The United States Department of State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research!)

There was absolutely nothing chaotic at all about it, State knew exactly what was going on when the attacks were still going on. They knew there was no protest, they knew it was ansar al sharia, they knew it was not rooted in the video.

By the way, where in hell do you get the idea that "the CIA" came up with this intelligence. Some political mopes at the CIA might have worked with State and the Administration to craft some laughably wrong talking points, but the actual intelligence officers in the field knew it was ********:

On Sept 15 the CIA’s chief of station in Tripoli sent top CIA officials an e-mail that said the attacks were “not/not an escalation of protests” and that survivors recovering in Germany did not refer to protests in interviews.

Everything you think you know about Benghazi is probably wrong. I cannot imagine why you are repeating nonsense spin that was proven false in this thread months ago.

 

[wareyin]

The response to a random video could not reasonably be foreseen. It could have happened anywhere to anyone if in fact an inflammatory video went viral and inflamed mob passions. A targeted terrorist attack, however, is something that should have been contemplated and anticipated. Security should have been sufficient to repel such an attack, and an effective contingency plan should have been prepared. The fact that a US ambassador murdered in a country where the threat of terrorism was well understood is strong evidence that the preparation was grossly negligent.

Why should there have been sufficient security to repel a terrorist attack, but not to repel an inflamed mob? The fact that a US Ambassador was murdered in a country where the threat of inflamed mobs was well understood is strong evidence that the preparation was grossly negligent, as well. Being over-run by an inflamed mob rather than by people who are trained and prepared to attack actually looks worse.

Yes, I do. I thought Romney was going to lose anyway, but somehow the Benghazi debacle, rather than redounding to Obama's detriment, ended up hurting Romney instead. This was because of the successful strategy employed by the administration (with an assist from the media), and the frustration that created in the Romney campaign (which caused them to react poorly).

You believe that it helped determine the outcome of the election by...not changing the outcome?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

.

Yes, I do. I thought Romney was going to lose anyway, but somehow the Benghazi debacle, rather than redounding to Obama's detriment, ended up hurting Romney instead. This was because of the successful strategy employed by the administration (with an assist from the media), and the frustration that created in the Romney campaign (which caused them to react poorly).

Meh. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[sunmaster14]

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.

She sounds like a Hillary flack. She even uses all of the talking points. For example, she blames the poor security situation on lack of funding? That was debunked within the first three months. And she says that Hillary has taken full responsibility? What does that even mean? If Hillary had accepted full responsibility she would have resigned and never run for President.

Anne Stevens certainly fits the demographic of the most enthusiastic Hillary supporters. Being Ambassador Stevens' brother doesn't give her any more, or any less, credibility on the issue than any other civilian, but from reading her words, I think that she has partisan motivations.

 

[plague311]

You're indulging in an ad hominem fallacy. The author of the article and the publisher of the article are irrelevant because the article speaks for itself. It is not relying on any disputed facts but merely explaining a successful political strategy that has been deployed time and again by the Obama administration.

No, it's a conservative talking head's opinion on what the strategy has been painted in as bad of a light as they can paint it in. Whatever though, their target audience drinks it like Kool-Aid so it's working.

The response to a random video could not reasonably be foreseen.

Neither can a lot of planned terrorists attack. We've learned that the hard way with the Cole, multiple attacks on the WTC, etc. It's not tough to be a victim of a planned terrorist attack, they're actually pretty good at it.

It could have happened anywhere to anyone if in fact an inflammatory video went viral and inflamed mob passions.

And it did happen, in Egypt not too far away. So, good. You've made a solid point.

A targeted terrorist attack, however, is something that should have been contemplated and anticipated. Security should have been sufficient to repel such an attack, and an effective contingency plan should have been prepared.

I think this is where we get a bit full of ****-ish. Security should have been just as able to stop a spontaneous attack as a planned one. Unless you're saying, which I think would be dumb, that it's "ok" for our men to die in an unplanned attack, but really bad if it's pre-planned. It's fairly clear we had no knowledge the attack was coming either way. Planned or not.

The fact that a US ambassador murdered in a country where the threat of terrorism was well understood is strong evidence that the preparation was grossly negligent.

Yet it's happened under every single administration. Ok, before your eyes light up because this was a US ambassador which hasn't happened before, my point is our people, whatever position they hold, have died under any administration. Why is this one worse? Because he held a specific title? There was no preparation because no one knew it was coming. I agree, there was an obvious need for more security, but again, that will happened for years to come. Unless I'm mistaken the Republicans are responsible for shortening the budget as well.

Yes, I do. I thought Romney was going to lose anyway, but somehow the Benghazi debacle, rather than redounding to Obama's detriment, ended up hurting Romney instead. This was because of the successful strategy employed by the administration (with an assist from the media), and the frustration that created in the Romney campaign (which caused them to react poorly).

********. He got his ass whooped and the writing was on the wall long before this event happened. His 13% garbage and degrading most of the electorate already had him trash binned halfway through. You're wishful thinking is funny.

ETA: Partially ninja'd bay wareyin

 

[Meadmaker]

I normally think you say sensible things Meadmaker. Not this time. Diplomacy is about relations between governments....

Fair enough. What's the right word for those things that are about "winning hearts and minds"? Maybe a propaganda failure? A riot demonstrates that you haven't won the hearts and minds. It isn't some random event that is unpredictable. It's a sign that you don't have popular support for whatever you are doing. A lot of people would consider that a worse failure failure to see a specific terrorist attack at a particular location.

When the administration pushed the movie narrative, it was, to me, an indication that our whole involvement in Libya was, perhaps, a really, really, bad idea. When the terrorist attack scenario came to the fore, I thought that perhaps it might have been a good idea after all, but that there were still some extremists that opposed us.

 

[sunmaster14]

Why should there have been sufficient security to repel a terrorist attack, but not to repel an inflamed mob? The fact that a US Ambassador was murdered in a country where the threat of inflamed mobs was well understood is strong evidence that the preparation was grossly negligent, as well. Being over-run by an inflamed mob rather than by people who are trained and prepared to attack actually looks worse.

Inflamed mobs can happen anywhere at any time, but they are rare events. Preparing for them may not make sense from a cost-benefit perspective. Preparing for terrorist attacks in a place like Libya probably does make sense. Furthermore, preparation for a terrorist attack can actually help deter such attacks in the first place. There is a kind of virtuous feedback that is not present in the case of an inflamed mob. Preparing for an inflamed mob can actually cause it to become more inflamed, as well as cause diplomatic problems, if, for example, the security people respond in too heavy-handed a fashion.

You believe that it helped determine the outcome of the election by...not changing the outcome?

Not sure why that's so hard to grasp. The Benghazi attack should have hurt Obama. Just like the revelation about Bush's DUI hurt his chances in 2000 and the revelation of Iraqi weapons depots being looted hurt his chances in 2004. Whether or not it would have been enough is unknown. But, in the end, Benghazi didn't hurt Obama nearly as much as I would have expected because of the dishonest strategy he employed and the collaboration of the media.

 

[NoahFence]

She sounds like a Hillary flack. She even uses all of the talking points. For example, she blames the poor security situation on lack of funding? That was debunked within the first three months. And she says that Hillary has taken full responsibility? What does that even mean? If Hillary had accepted full responsibility she would have resigned and never run for President.

Anne Stevens certainly fits the demographic of the most enthusiastic Hillary supporters. Being Ambassador Stevens' brother doesn't give her any more, or any less, credibility on the issue than any other civilian, but from reading her words, I think that she has partisan motivations.

So you don't give a **** about the families of the deceased. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[plague311]

She sounds like a Hillary flack.

Speaking of ad hom's. laf. She's a flack, but your conservative news source is solid? Outstanding.

She even uses all of the talking points. For example, she blames the poor security situation on lack of funding? That was debunked within the first three months. And she says that Hillary has taken full responsibility? What does that even mean? If Hillary had accepted full responsibility she would have resigned and never run for President.

Why would she not run for President? Because she made a mistake? What a stupid thing to say when she has more than enough qualifications for the job. "You shouldn't run because you may have made a mistake." About as partisan as it can get right there.

Anne Stevens certainly fits the demographic of the most enthusiastic Hillary supporters. Being Ambassador Stevens' brother doesn't give her any more, or any less, credibility on the issue than any other civilian, but from reading her words, I think that she has partisan motivations.

Anyone that speaks highly of Hillary Clinton would lose all credibility with you, unless you can name one you support this critique should be handwaved away. It's obvious that you would never approve of anyone that doesn't hate Hillary, and your posting history shows that.

 

[The Big Dog]

Fair enough. What's the right word for those things that are about "winning hearts and minds"? Maybe a propaganda failure? A riot demonstrates that you haven't won the hearts and minds. It isn't some random event that is unpredictable. It's a sign that you don't have popular support for whatever you are doing. A lot of people would consider that a worse failure failure to see a specific terrorist attack at a particular location.

When the administration pushed the movie narrative, it was, to me, an indication that our whole involvement in Libya was, perhaps, a really, really, bad idea. When the terrorist attack scenario came to the fore, I thought that perhaps it might have been a good idea after all, but that there were still some extremists that opposed us.

Are you aware that there were protests in Tripoli and Cairo and other places? There was no protest in Benghazi, despite the lies we were told.

In light of that, your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[sunmaster14]

So you don't give a **** about the families of the deceased. Thanks for the confirmation.

Rule of so!

 

[The Big Dog]

Rule of so!

Nailed it

 

[plague311]

Rule of so!

Isn't a rule so invoking it is borderline retarded.

 

[wareyin]

Inflamed mobs can happen anywhere at any time, but they are rare events. Preparing for them may not make sense from a cost-benefit perspective. Preparing for terrorist attacks in a place like Libya probably does make sense. Furthermore, preparation for a terrorist attack can actually help deter such attacks in the first place. There is a kind of virtuous feedback that is not present in the case of an inflamed mob. Preparing for an inflamed mob can actually cause it to become more inflamed, as well as cause diplomatic problems, if, for example, the security people respond in too heavy-handed a fashion.

Terrorist attacks can happen anywhere at any time, but they are rare events as well. Again, being over-run by a mob, untrained with limited weaponry, looks worse from a security standpoint than being over-run by people who have prepared, trained, and are carrying the firepower necessary to win.

Not sure why that's so hard to grasp. The Benghazi attack should have hurt Obama. Just like the revelation about Bush's DUI hurt his chances in 2000 and the revelation of Iraqi weapons depots being looted hurt his chances in 2004. Whether or not it would have been enough is unknown. But, in the end, Benghazi didn't hurt Obama nearly as much as I would have expected because of the dishonest strategy he employed and the collaboration of the media.

It's hard to grasp because it is a silly way of thinking. Normally, a fake scandal failing to harm it's victim isn't described as "determining the outcome", but as "failing to change the outcome". The only dishonesty employed regarding Benghazi has been the politicization from the right, such as 16.5's continuing claims that confusion in the immediate aftermath is proof of a lie. eta: Also, your claims that Clinton shouldn't run for President because of Benghazi are an example of the dishonest politicization from the right. Tell me again how culpable Clinton has been found in the 8 different investigations?

 

[sunmaster14]

Speaking of ad hom's. laf. She's a flack, but your conservative news source is solid? Outstanding.

I'm basing that on what she has said, not who she is. That is the exact opposite of ad hominem.

Why would she not run for President? Because she made a mistake? What a stupid thing to say when she has more than enough qualifications for the job. "You should run because you may have made a mistake." About as partisan as it can get right there.

In what way did Hillary accept "full responsibility" for the mistakes made in the State Department? By blaming everything on Charlene Lamb?

Anyone that speaks highly of Hillary Clinton would lose all credibility with you, unless you can name one you support this critique should be handwaved away. It's obvious that you would never approve of anyone that doesn't hate Hillary, and your posting history shows that.

Robert Kagan and Henry Kissinger have both spoken highly of Hillary. I am a fan of the first and respect the intellect and experience of the second (if not the ethics). As I have said before, I am not a Hillary hater. Except for the fact that she's a Democrat, and therefore will be forced to do certain things expected of Democrats (like appoint liberal Supreme Court justices, and not crack down on illegal immigration), I might even vote for her. Actually, I am going to vote for her.

 

[A'isha]

Are you just putting us on at this point? Do you know what part of State's "job" is? Security for diplomatic facilities! That is not the CIA's "job." By the way? the CIA is only part of the "Intelligence Community." You know who else is part of the "intelligence Community"? (I think you know.... oh hell, I'll tell ya: The United States Department of State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research!)

And the INR helped coordinate the IC's review of what happened and let other members of the community access the information they had, but they didn't get involved in the actual post-attack assessments because they were less suited for that task than other members of the IC (they provide trends analysis and ensure that other members of the IC take State Department needs into account).

There was absolutely nothing chaotic at all about it, State knew exactly what was going on when the attacks were still going on. They knew there was no protest, they knew it was ansar al sharia, they knew it was not rooted in the video.

As the first draft of the memo pointed out, there was plenty chaotic about it (particularly regarding Ansar al-Sharia's claimed role). And even a month after the attack the guy who led it was blaming the video, still stirring the pot.

By the way, where in hell do you get the idea that "the CIA" came up with this intelligence.

The fact that they were responsible for writing the memo in the first place. Because they were the ones who knew the most about what was going on.

Some political mopes at the CIA might have worked with State and the Administration to craft some laughably wrong talking points, but the actual intelligence officers in the field knew it was ********:

September 15th was after the memo was drafted.

And you really ought to cite your quotes. Your quote appears to come from this Time article, which also says:

To draw up those talking points, the CIA relied on at least six early press reports that said the Benghazi attacks grew out of protests against an anti-Muslim film that had appeared on the Internet, according to the SSCI report. The source of the mistake looks clear in retrospect. For starters, violence targeting U.S. diplomatic facilities did take place in Egypt, Yemen and Tunisia in reaction to the video. Protests against the film occurred in over 40 countries around the world. Furthermore, reporters for western news organizations interviewed people at the scene after the attacks in Benghazi who said they were angry about the same film. And Libyan government officials repeated the reports. (A TIME story on Sept. 12 referred to “protests” in Benghazi against the film).

But the reports of spontaneous protests preceding the attacks in Benghazi turned out to be wrong. The attacks were launched by well-armed militants rather than spontaneously emerging from demonstrations. And while the CIA had multiple sources, like signals intercepts, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the Senate investigation found the agency “relied heavily on open source press reports.”

The subsequent analyses produced by the CIA and others in the U.S. intelligence community were likewise affected by the initial reporting in the media, the SSCI report finds:

[A]pproximately a dozen [intelligence] reports that included press accounts, public statements by [terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia] members, HUMINT reporting, DOD reporting, and signals intelligence all stated or strongly suggested that a protest occurred outside of the Mission facility just prior to the attacks.

The most famous of these reports formed the basis of talking points provided to members of Congress by the CIA Sept. 15, 2012. They began, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post and subsequently its annex.”

The video protest story wasn't a lie made up by Clinton, it was the result of a failure of the IC, and to blame her for the fact that the State Department relied on what later turned out to be an incorrect CIA assessment is sheer nonsense.

Everything you think you know about Benghazi is probably wrong. I cannot imagine why you are repeating nonsense spin that was proven false in this thread months ago.

Why are you?

 

[plague311]

I'm basing that on what she has said, not who she is. That is the exact opposite of ad hominem.

And I disregarded your article because it's blatantly conservative. Which you can easily see by your excerpt and can tell even more so no less than a paragraph into the article. It's written with an obvious bias, which I stated in my brief critique. Yet mine was an ad hom and yours wasn't. I based it on what the article said, but it's still an ad hom. Weird. Really weird.

In what way did Hillary accept "full responsibility" for the mistakes made in the State Department? By blaming everything on Charlene Lamb?

Dunno, never said she did accept full responsibility. She's taken responsibility. What does she have to do to take "full" responsibility? Would not running for President be the only thing you'd accept? Just curious where the goalposts are for Hillary to take responsibility.

Kagan and Henry Kissinger have both spoken highly of Hillary. I am a fan of the first and respect the intellect and experience of the second (if not the ethics). As I have said before, I am not a Hillary hater. Except for the fact that she's a Democrat, and therefore will be forced to do certain things expected of Democrats (like appoint liberal Supreme Court justices, and not crack down on illegal immigration), I might even vote for her. Actually, I am going to vote for her.

Point taken, and I retract my statement.