New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

A.) I'm quite sure he can defend himself. B.) If you don't like one of my posts then report me. C.) I'll respond to anything I like. D.) He responded to me long before I ever responded to him.

A. So let Elbe read the post that I went back and found for him.

By all means continue posting though.

/ahhhh, yes I am sure.....

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, I believe I found it. I even included notes and my response in the post above (I edited as I searched).

Cool.

 

[elbe]

Cool.

I wasn't quite expecting the thread to move along as much as it did while I was editing. Silly me.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

The cuts in security funding had nothing to do with Benghazi. It had just undergone a pretty major physical security overhaul (ARB report, page 5) and had just recently been reopened on August 26th in a ceremony presided over by Amb. Stevens. It probably did have an effect in one or two other low risk locations in places like Canada or Tahiti or wherever by not getting a security upgrade as soon as they might have with the funding that was requested. If one of those low risk places gets attacked and people get killed because they had insufficient security then you will have a legitimate point about cutting security funding.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Which demonstrates what? And why won't you respond to ANTPogo?

Answered before you asked.

 

[RandFan]

The cuts in security funding had nothing to do with Benghazi. It had just undergone a pretty major physical security overhaul (ARB report, page 5) and had just recently been reopened on August 26th in a ceremony presided over by Amb. Stevens. It probably did have an effect in one or two other low risk locations in places like Canada or Tahiti or wherever by not getting a security upgrade as soon as they might have with the funding that was requested. If one of those low risk places gets attacked and people get killed because they had insufficient security then you will have a legitimate point about cutting security funding.

This is just asserted. Notwithstanding the ARB report you don't know how the cuts in spending didn't affect the security overhaul. You are just speculating about what the cuts affected.

 

[Newtons Bit]

So I guess my question still stands, is there any actual evidence that the incorrect early information wasn't the result of the best possible information from the time?

The early information was the correct information: an Islamist group that carried out the attack. The CIA believed that. The people on the ground reported that. The State Department told the Libyan Ambassador that it was an Islamist group. The talking points memo later changed to something incorrect.

 

[RandFan]

A. So let Elbe read the post that I went back and found for him.

When did I say Elbe couldn't read the post?

 

[Newtons Bit]

This is just asserted. Notwithstanding the ARB report you don't know how the cuts in spending didn't affect the security overhaul. You are just speculating about what the cuts affected.

Yea, sure, there could have been MORE upgrades to the facility. Do you have any evidence of that?

 

[RandFan]

The early information was the correct information: an Islamist group that carried out the attack. The CIA believed that. The people on the ground reported that. The State Department told the Libyan Ambassador that it was an Islamist group. The talking points memo later changed to something incorrect.

This has already been addressed by ANTPogo.

 

[elbe]

The early information was the correct information: an Islamist group that carried out the attack. The CIA believed that. The people on the ground reported that. The State Department told the Libyan Ambassador that it was an Islamist group. The talking points memo later changed to something incorrect.

So, I assume, you have actual evidence that the CIA deliberately altered the data to be false?

Here's my position: I don't think the CIA are particularly trustworthy, but I also don't think they're infallible and are, like most people, capable of making mistakes. So until some actual evidence comes up that the CIA, or any government agency, is culpable in some sort of coverup, or whatever, I'm sticking with Hanlan's razor because, I think, it's the only reasonable answer for now.

 

[RandFan]

Yea, sure, there could have been MORE upgrades to the facility. Do you have any evidence of that?

I'm not the one making the claim.

Burden of proof.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Man, ODS everywhere.

 

[RandFan]

The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by a protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated. On 10 September the Agency notified Embassy Cairo of social media reports calling for a demonstration and encouraging jihadists to break into the Embassy.

The investigation is ongoing as to who is responsible for the violence, although the crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals. That being said, there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

This is the CIA's draft of the talking points memo, before anyone from the State Department or the White House saw it or commented on it, and before any of the changes that non-CIA officials suggested were made to the memo.

Why do you think it was written this way? For what purpose, do you think, did the CIA right from the start and before any State Department officials saw it make references to "demonstrations" that "evolved into a direct assault" in Benghazi, as well saying that they "spontaneously" arose out of the anti-Innocence of Muslims demonstrations that took place in Cairo?

 

[RandFan]

So, I assume, you have actual evidence that the CIA deliberately altered the data to be false?

Here's my position: I don't think the CIA are particularly trustworthy, but I also don't think they're infallible and are, like most people, capable of making mistakes. So until some actual evidence comes up that the CIA, or any government agency, is culpable in some sort of coverup, or whatever, I'm sticking with Hanlan's razor because, I think, it's the only reasonable answer for now.

If you are not politically motivated then that does seem reasonable.

 

[elbe]

If you are not politically motivated then that does seem reasonable.

It just seems like all the evidence is circumstantial. Maybe it all adds up to something nefarious, or maybe people are just reading what they want into it. People are good at seeing patterns where there are none, especially if they've been primed by people with clear political biases.

I should also mention that I don't have any problem with hearings on the issue, but I honestly question the sincerity of the people calling for it. I don't see a whole lot of evidence that the congress-critters calling for the hearings actually care about the issue other than as a political target.

 

[Newtons Bit]

This has already been addressed by ANTPogo.

Unfortunately, AntPogo only exists to me in quoted form.

 

[Newtons Bit]

So, I assume, you have actual evidence that the CIA deliberately altered the data to be false?

Here's my position: I don't think the CIA are particularly trustworthy, but I also don't think they're infallible and are, like most people, capable of making mistakes. So until some actual evidence comes up that the CIA, or any government agency, is culpable in some sort of coverup, or whatever, I'm sticking with Hanlan's razor because, I think, it's the only reasonable answer for now.

Right, if you want to believe that the government had it right, then switched to the wrong information based on the flimsiest excuse, that's certainly your prerogative. But I think that is just as baseless as automatically assuming that this is a lie ordered by Obama himself. We (or rather: Congress) need to actually look into this.

 

[AlBell]

Greg Hicks: big giant idiot.

ANTPogo, 5/09/13.


“No matter who you are, do not be a fanatic. Do not be a fanatic neither religious, nor ideological, nor political, neither positive nor negative, neither any look nor lifestyle. Fanatic has an image of a goner.”
― Ilkin Santak

For several not fanatic although conservative comments:

http://finance.townhall.com/columni...is-a-lie-it-makes-all-the-difference-n1591461

What difference does it make if they drew down his security while England and other nations read the leaves of terror intelligence and withdrew their embassies from the region altogether? Or that he begged repeatedly for better security while threats and attacks escalated, and State says: “We have no idea who saw or denied his requests.”?

What difference does it make that Secretary of State Clinton ran the kind of shop where pleas from an ambassador in the hottest of global hot spots could be either denied by SOS or ignored by staff?

What difference does it make that, even after it drew down his security, the administration says the mightiest fighting force on earth had no response team available within several hours to reach the unprotected consulate in the hottest of global hot spots?

What difference does it make that after the president was briefed, he disappeared, and no ordinary American knows what he did or didn’t do for the duration of the multi-hour attack, only that he left for a Las Vegas fundraiser soon after?

But keep right on defending your hero & heroine. Nothing to see here; just move along.

 

[The Big Dog]

So, I assume, you have actual evidence that the CIA deliberately altered the data to be false?

Here's my position: I don't think the CIA are particularly trustworthy, but I also don't think they're infallible and are, like most people, capable of making mistakes. So until some actual evidence comes up that the CIA, or any government agency, is culpable in some sort of coverup, or whatever, I'm sticking with Hanlan's razor because, I think, it's the only reasonable answer for now.

You should keep in mind that the reference to Ansar al Sharia was removed from he talking points memo after the CIA received objections from state department spokesperson Victora Nuland.