New Disclosures on Benghazi - Part II

[Meadmaker]

Just like the revelation about Bush's DUI hurt his chances in 2000...

I always thought that pushed Bush over the top.

No one cared about a 20 or 30 or whatever year old charge against Bush, but a lot of people, such as, say, me, were disgusted that a Democratic politician would try to bring up the charge. If 0.02% of the voters were tipped toward Bush as a result of that disgust, that was enough to give Bush the margin he needed in Florida.

In that sense, the Benghazi discussions could be said to be "just like" the DUI revelations, in that people were more appalled about the attempt to score political points than they were about the event itself.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Rule of so!

Rule of Making Up Rules.

Nailed it

Rule of Attaboy.

 

[sunmaster14]

I always thought that pushed Bush over the top.

No one cared about a 20 or 30 or whatever year old charge against Bush, but a lot of people, such as, say, me, were disgusted that a Democratic politician would try to bring up the charge. If 0.02% of the voters were tipped toward Bush as a result of that disgust, that was enough to give Bush the margin he needed in Florida.

In that sense, the Benghazi discussions could be said to be "just like" the DUI revelations, in that people were more appalled about the attempt to score political points than they were about the event itself.

Bush was ahead in the polls by 3 points in the days before the DUI story (a story broke by Fox News by the way). Then the election became tied. My employer actually hired Zogby to do seven polls, nationwide and six battleground states the eve of the election, and he found it to be tied, which was a statistically significant difference from what it had been the prior week. Zogby has had a rather stinky record ever since, but he really nailed that election for us. Unfortunately, he nailed it in the sense of calling it a tie.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

Oh dear, it seems that I have to repeat myself. You should really focus on my posts, because your failure to do so is hindering communication.

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.”

There! I set it out in quotes because it is REALLY IMPORTANT.

When Hillary repeated "intelligence" that she knew was false, she was lying.

By the way, the CIA absolutely did not have the most information, in fact, as I have already demonstrated the guy writing the memo disregarded actual intelligence from boots on the ground.

The COS email was sent the morning of the 15th. Morrel testified he saw the email before the talking points were finalized. By the way, September 15th was the senior deputies meeting and the final version of the talking points was sent to Petraeus at 2:27 on the 15th, and circulated to Susan Rice afterwards for her use in preparing to lie on September 16.

 

[Fudbucker]

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:

Also, Stevens had asked for more security just months before the attack:

"Thursday, June 7, 2012

Ambassador Stevens made a personal plea for an increase in security. In a June 2012 email, he told a Department official that with national elections in July and August, the Mission “would feel much safer if we could keep two MSD teams with us through this period [to support] our staff and [personal detail] for me and the [Deputy Chief of Mission] and any VIP visitors.” The Department official replied that due to other commitments and limited resources, “unfortunately, MSD cannot support the request.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/partisan-spin-on-benghazi/

I doubt Clinton was involved in security details of embassies, except, this was Libya, which was her pet project, and it was an election year, and beefing up security in Libya might have sent mixed messages about how well the whole Libya operation was going.

In any event, Stevens didn't get the security he asked for.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Oh dear, it seems that I have to repeat myself. You should really focus on my posts, because your failure to do so is hindering communication.



There! I set it out in quotes because it is REALLY IMPORTANT.

When Hillary repeated "intelligence" that she knew was false, she was lying.

By the way, the CIA absolutely did not have the most information, in fact, as I have already demonstrated the guy writing the memo disregarded actual intelligence from boots on the ground.

The COS email was sent the morning of the 15th. Morrel testified he saw the email before the talking points were finalized. By the way, September 15th was the senior deputies meeting and the final version of the talking points was sent to Petraeus at 2:27 on the 15th, and circulated to Susan Rice afterwards for her use in preparing to lie on September 16.

Rule of Oh Dear.

 

[A'isha]

Oh dear, it seems that I have to repeat myself. You should really focus on my posts, because your failure to do so is hindering communication.

Your quoting of sources that you don't cite which turn out to contradict your claims would seem to be more of a hindrance.

When Hillary repeated "intelligence" that she knew was false, she was lying.

Clinton is not an intelligence analyst, and her comments to the prime minister of Egypt were made early on, while the CIA assessment came later. Blaming the State Department for choosing to go with the CIA assessment for their initial statement is just dumb.

Blaming Clinton for the State Department choosing to go with the CIA assessment for their initial statement is deranged.

By the way, the CIA absolutely did not have the most information, in fact, as I have already demonstrated the guy writing the memo disregarded actual intelligence from boots on the ground.

They had the most information at the time, but what they had was confused and often contradictory, reflecting the chaotic nature of the situation at the time.

And the initial drafter of the memo did not have that intelligence (since the draft and initial revisions were made on the 14th).

The COS email was sent the morning of the 15th. Morrel testified he saw the email before the talking points were finalized. By the way, September 15th was the senior deputies meeting and the final version of the talking points was sent to Petraeus at 2:27 on the 15th, and circulated to Susan Rice afterwards for her use in preparing to lie on September 16.

The email had to be analyzed in the context of all their other intelligence. As the Time article notes, it wasn't until the 18th (two days after Rice used the memo on TV) that the CIA concluded that their assessment that the attack was the result of protests had been incorrect.

 

[DavidJames]

Republicans who are accountable and had direct access to the evidence seem to know less then anonymous Internet posters.

 

[The Big Dog]

Your quoting of sources that you don't cite which turn out to contradict your claims would seem to be more of a hindrance.



Clinton is not an intelligence analyst, and her comments to the prime minister of Egypt were made early on, while the CIA assessment came later. Blaming the State Department for choosing to go with the CIA assessment for their initial statement is just dumb.

Blaming Clinton for the State Department choosing to go with the CIA assessment for their initial statement is deranged.



They had the most information, and what they had was confused and often contradictory, reflecting the chaotic nature of the situation at the time.

And the initial drafter of the memo did not have that intelligence (since the draft and initial revisions were made on the 14th).



The email had to be analyzed in the context of all their other intelligence. As the Time article notes, it wasn't until the 18th (two days after Rice used the memo on TV) that the CIA concluded that their assessment that the attack was the result of protests had been incorrect.

Now there is some goalpost moving for you! It is undisputed that the CIA had the email which contradicted the final version of the talking points BEFORE the talking points were finalized, yet you seem to believe that it is significant that it came in after the initial draft. Sure it is wrong, but we only confirmed it after we started writing it.

Hilarious!

By the way, you know who else had the actual intelligence? You guessed it: State Department! The State Department knew there was no protest outside the facility! The State department knew that was false long before the CIA did. In fact, where do you think the CIA got the intelligence that that it was "not/not an escalation"? You got it! The State Department.

Lets take a gander at what the State Department had to say:

Senior state department officials reveal there were no protests prior to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi

Question: What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?

Senior state department official two: That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened. The Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on the street at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we saw on the cameras the – a large number of armed men assaulting the compound.

However, Clinton and the State Department choosing to go with the CIA assessment That They Knew Was False is indeed deranged.

 

[plague311]

Also, Stevens had asked for more security just months before the attack:

"Thursday, June 7, 2012

Ambassador Stevens made a personal plea for an increase in security. In a June 2012 email, he told a Department official that with national elections in July and August, the Mission “would feel much safer if we could keep two MSD teams with us through this period [to support] our staff and [personal detail] for me and the [Deputy Chief of Mission] and any VIP visitors.” The Department official replied that due to other commitments and limited resources, “unfortunately, MSD cannot support the request.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/partisan-spin-on-benghazi/

I doubt Clinton was involved in security details of embassies, except, this was Libya, which was her pet project, and it was an election year, and beefing up security in Libya might have sent mixed messages about how well the whole Libya operation was going.

In any event, Stevens didn't get the security he asked for.

Because the common voter would obviously be up to date on who is in Libya or even care for that matter.

Is it really that *********** hard to believe that on 9/11 that we would have a lot of security tied up around the globe? Could it possibly be that they were telling the truth? They didn't have the resources to send at that time or in the near future.

Rule of "Chicken Little". After the millionth time of telling us the sky is falling and Hillary is teh ebilz!!11!!111!OMGZ1!1! that it turns out to be nothing at all.

 

[plague311]

Now there is some goalpost moving for you! It is undisputed that the CIA had the email which contradicted the final version of the talking points BEFORE the talking points were finalized, yet you seem to believe that it is significant that it came in after the initial draft. Sure it is wrong, but we only confirmed it after we started writing it.

Hilarious!

By the way, you know who else had the actual intelligence? You guessed it: State Department! The State Department knew there was no protest outside the facility! The State department knew that was false long before the CIA did. In fact, where do you think the CIA got the intelligence that that it was "not/not an escalation"? You got it! The State Department.

Lets take a gander at what the State Department had to say:

Senior state department officials reveal there were no protests prior to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi



However, Clinton and the State Department choosing to go with the CIA assessment That They Knew Was False is indeed deranged.

He says they didn't have a conclusion, which you've conveniently made for him, and he sticks to nothing certain in your post. Can you think of a reason why the STATE department might second guess or assume that the Central INTELLIGENCE Agency might have more information, or more solid information than they would?

I concur with the previous statements with regards to the thread. If the mods could now move this to the conspiracy theory department I think that would be best as that's where it fits.

 

[A'isha]

Now there is some goalpost moving for you!

It is undisputed that the CIA had the email which contradicted the final version of the talking points BEFORE the talking points were finalized, yet you seem to believe that it is significant that it came in after the initial draft. Sure it is wrong, but we only confirmed it after we started writing it.

They didn't confirm it until the 18th, when the CIA changed their assessment. Until then, the CIA's conclusion was that the attack arose out of protests over the video.

By the way, you know who else had the actual intelligence?

That wasn't "the actual intelligence", that was one item of intelligence which, as your own quote shows, did not result in a conclusion drawn by State ("I’m not saying that we had a conclusion"), and which was contradicted by other intelligence the CIA had which said otherwise.

As I said, a confused and contradictory situation. And, as that same Stat Department official in that same press briefing acknowledged, there was no actionable intelligence of any planned or imminent attack.

However, Clinton and the State Department choosing to go with the CIA assessment That They Knew Was False is indeed deranged.

The State Department (not Clinton) chose to go with the CIA assessment that included "[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 [that] all stated or strongly suggested that a protest occurred outside of the Mission facility just prior to the attacks."

Calling this a lie and a cover-up and placing it all at the feet of Clinton is indeed deranged. Especially since you aren't calling for any investigation of why the CIA came to their initial incorrect conclusion or why they didn't change it until the 18th or why they wrote the first draft of the memo the way they did, which one would think you would if you were really all that interested in what happened post-Benghazi instead of merely using it as a convenient tool to facilitate your Clinton-hate.

 

[Fudbucker]

Because the common voter would obviously be up to date on who is in Libya or even care for that matter.

The voters didn't care about interfering in the Middle East? What planet do you live on? Are you a kid?

Is it really that *********** hard to believe that on 9/11 that we would have a lot of security tied up around the globe?

9/11? Stevens asked for security in June.

Could it possibly be that they were telling the truth? They didn't have the resources to send at that time or in the near future.

I see. We have the resources to sustain a bombing campaign in Libya, but not to protect an embassy? What are you imagining, the 101st parachuting in?

Rule of "Chicken Little". After the millionth time of telling us the sky is falling and Hillary is teh ebilz!!11!!111!OMGZ1!1! that it turns out to be nothing at all.

Except for the death of an ambassador in a terrorist attack who had recently asked for more security.

I have trouble taking you seriously.

 

[plague311]

The voters didn't care about interfering in the Middle East? What planet do you live on? Are you a kid?

Nice strawman buddy. Because I totally said no one cared about interfering in the Middle East. You can obviously quote where I said that . If you think that the average voter knew specifically who was coming in and out of Lybia, you're wrong. Most of them didn't care about that granular of detail.

9/11? Stevens asked for security in June.

Awesome! Now follow me here. When did the attack take place? Do you think they would have been able to keep more security on 9/11 or would there have been other locations that require enhanced security?

I see. We have the resources to sustain a bombing campaign in Libya, but not to protect an embassy?

Apparently. One is trying to cut the snake off at the head.

What are you imagining, the 101st parachuting in?

No, what are you talking about?

Except for the death of an ambassador in a terrorist attack who had recently asked for more security.

Yeah, people ask for stuff all of the time. It happens. A lot more people are denied than are approved. Asking for something doesn't mean you get it. Even if it's justified. What happened is terrible, but no one wanted it to happen. In hindsight I'm sure they would have made different choices.

I have trouble taking you seriously.

I could give a ****.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Here's a new disclosure...

House Benghazi FINAL (honestly!) report finds no new evidence of wrongdoing.

No new evidence of wrongdoing BY CLINTON. My apologies.

4 plus pages later and almost no actual discussion of all the FACTS that were in the report that was 2 years in the making.

Just re-hashing of the same old CT nonsense.

Yep, time to move this thread to CT

 

[The Big Dog]

Calling this a lie and a cover-up and placing it all at the feet of Clinton is indeed deranged. Especially since you aren't calling for any investigation of why the CIA came to their initial incorrect conclusion or why they didn't change it until the 18th or why they wrote the first draft of the memo the way they did, which one would think you would if you were really all that interested in what happened post-Benghazi instead of merely using it as a convenient tool to facilitate your Clinton-hate.

are being deliberately obtuse? Here, I will make it yellow this time:

When Hillary repeated "intelligence" that she knew was false, she was lying. So simple.

As far as this nonsense: "Especially since you aren't calling for any investigation of why the CIA." Congress DID investigate that, where do you think I got the summary of Morrell's testimony that the COS told them it was "not/NOT" an escalation of protests???? cripes.

The real question is why the State Department and Hillary didn't correct the obvious errors in the talking points, or tell Susan Rice they were nonsense?

 

[wareyin]

4 plus pages later and almost no actual discussion of all the FACTS that were in the report that was 2 years in the making.

Just re-hashing of the same old CT nonsense.

Yep, time to move this thread to CT

When the main proponent of the "cover-up" is requiring Clinton to have had knowledge of future events, it's a looney tunes conspiracy.

 

[DavidJames]

\? Stevens asked for security in June.

What does the Republican reports say about that?

 

[The Big Dog]

On this point, the Select Committee's Report states:

The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks.

A senior watch officer at the State Department’s diplomatic security command was asked if he saw or heard a protest before the attacks and answered, “zip, nothing, nada.”

 

[A'isha]

When Hillary repeated "intelligence" that she knew was false, she was lying. So simple.

Except you not only don't know that she knew it was false, you haven't given any reason why she or the State Department should have rejected the later CIA assessment at the time which included "[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 [that] all stated or strongly suggested that a protest occurred outside of the Mission facility just prior to the attacks", other than your own hindsight and HDS.

As far as this nonsense: "Especially since you aren't calling for any investigation of why the CIA." Congress DID investigate that, where do you think I got the summary of Morrell's testimony that the COS told them it was "not/NOT" an escalation of protests???? cripes.

Congress also investigated Clinton. And then did it six more times (and want to do it yet again) with your enthusiastic support.

So why are you all for multiple investigations of Clinton, but not for the CIA? Why don't you care that the CIA fully believed that the Benghazi attack spontaneously arose out of protests over the video, and stuck with that until the 18th?

The real question is why the State Department and Hillary didn't correct the obvious errors in the talking points, or tell Susan Rice they were nonsense?

No, the real question is why should the State Department be excoriated for relying on the CIA when the CIA had "[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 [that] all stated or strongly suggested that a protest occurred outside of the Mission facility just prior to the attacks" and the State Department had one thing which even they admit didn't lead them towards any conclusions about what happened.