New Disclosures on Benghazi

[Upchurch]

Really. You ignore the meat of what I said and focused on what others said? Please point out where I moved the goalposts.

Not to speak for RandFan, but let me speak for RandFan.

I don't think he's accusing you of being internally inconsistent with your argument. I think he's pointing out that this is a new claim of culpability among a vast field culpability claims. In that sort of meta sense, you didn't so much move the goal posts, the other goal posts are still there. You just added new goal posts in a different spot.

 

[Robert Prey]

Benghazi-gate compared to Watergate

In Benghazi-gate, Hillary lied, while people died. Susan Rice lied, but people died. Obama simply went to bed, while people died. Nobody died from Water-Gate.

 

[Upchurch]

In Benghazi-gate, Hillary lied, while people died. Susan Rice lied, but people died. Obama simply went to bed, while people died. Nobody died from Water-Gate.

Iran-Contra and the Iraq War, on the other hand...

 

[A'isha]

And yet, people on the ground say it wasn't even a talking point in the area. Interesting.

People who were in Benghazi at the time and talked to the attackers during the attack say the video was specifically cited. People who weren't in Benghazi at the time and didn't talk to the attackers say the video wasn't an issue.

A perplexing conundrum, to be sure.

 

[marplots]

In Benghazi-gate, Hillary lied, while people died. Susan Rice lied, but people died. Obama simply went to bed, while people died. Nobody died from Water-Gate.

I think this captures and explains the narrative on offer. If I believe these people are nasty pieces of work, why this whole business is just more evidence they are. No specific culpability required and no smoking gun needed. Anywhere there is a judgement call to be made, I'm bound to make it with their innate evil in mind.

"I know they are guilty already, I just have to find out how guilty they are."

I wish I were immune to this all-to-human foible, but I'm not.

There's no headway to be made in arguing the nuances either. If any one point is settled, that only means another point must remain to show what I already know to be true. And, if for some reason the whole incident is put to bed, then there will be some other newsworthy event that will expose their nefarious and self-serving ways.

You'll never be able to prove the Obama administration innocent of taint. All that can be done is to show they weren't guilty this time.

 

[Newtons Bit]

In my time at JREF I don't think I've ever seen the goal posts moved as much and as much contradiction between those who are opponents of the administration. Well, I've seen it from 9/11 truth but this is the first time since then. If you and the rest of those who critisize could decide on a single narative then we might have something. As it is there are many theories and many fingers point in many directions. Newton's bit makes it clear he does not blame Clinton for responsibility but is leaning to fault the CIA, AIU. Others fault Obama. Others the state department. Etc., etc.. If I relied on critics alone I could not come up with a coherent narrative.

Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth.

There is no narrative. We don't know what transpired within the government. That's why there is an investigation!

 

[Tony]

In Benghazi-gate, Hillary lied, while people died. Susan Rice lied, but people died. Obama simply went to bed, while people died. Nobody died from Water-Gate.

I notice conservatives only care about American deaths if they are a fetus or a Democrat is president.

 

[A'isha]

I find it strikingly odd that the people who claim to be just wanting an investigation are nevertheless so determined to avoid anything that contradicts their preconceived conclusions that they put me on ignore.

The only other person to put me on ignore was a poster who thought a Wal-Mart Christmas ad was really secretly about nuclear war.

 

[spin0]

They were arrested by Egypt for crimes in Egypt,

and as suspects with possible connections to Benghazi attack. We don't know if they actually were linked to the attack, that's for investigation to find out and court to decide. Nevertheless, there has been arrests related to Benghazi attack - and in fact there has been earlier arrests too.

Two days after the attack Libyan authorities arrested at least four suspects. I assume those suspects were released later, but haven't actually looked into their fate and don't know their names. At the time one of the lines Libyan authorities were working on was that Gaddafi supporters were behind the attack and downplayed the possibility of connections to al-Qaeda:

"We don't have any proof as yet of an al-Qaeda presence as an organisation in Libya," although "some youths have been influenced by the extremist ideology of al-Qaeda," [Mustafa Abu Shagur, the Libyan prime minister] said.

Libya makes arrests over Benghazi attack

Also Tunisian authorities had a suspect detained. A Tunisian named Ali Harzi was arrested in Turkey and extradicted to Tunisia. He was held in custody as a suspect for the Benghazi attack, and eventually also FBI was allowed to question him. Ali Harzi was later released by Tunisian authorities for lack of evidence: Tunisia releases Benghazi attack suspect

has Egypt let the US talk to them yet about Benghazi? As of February, the answer was no. Have not seen anything since.

That might very well take months to organize if it is to happen at all. FBI has no jurisdiction in Egypt where they as a sovereign country have their own due process and quite understandably do not want outside interference. And as you can see in the case of Ali Harzi it can take time to accommodate US authorities' wishes in the process.

By the way, thanks for a substantive response. I would be very interested in the status of these individuals.

I do not know their current status, but I believe they are still in custody waiting for trial.

Haven't followed Benghazi things for months as nothing new has appeared. The only new development has been FBI's recent release of images: http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/images-released-in-benghazi-investigation

 

[The Big Dog]

Really. You ignore the meat of what I said and focused on what others said? Please point out where I moved the goalposts.

I agree with RandFan.

I have never seen the goalposts moved so much. The "Iraq" detour and the incessant whinging that this should be in the conspiracy forum? True low points.

That ended when I began "liberal" use of the ignore function.

LOLZ!

 

[eeyore1954]

I notice conservatives only care about American deaths if they are a fetus or a Democrat is president.

Yes you are right they didn't care about the people who died in 9/11 or in Boston. They don't donate a lot of money to hunger organizations that are supposedly helping to save people from starvation in other countries, no conservative was upset when kids were shot in Ct., etc

 

[The Big Dog]

and as suspects with possible connections to Benghazi attack. We don't know if they actually were linked to the attack, that's for investigation to find out and court to decide. Nevertheless, there has been arrests related to Benghazi attack - and in fact there has been earlier arrests too.

Two days after the attack Libyan authorities arrested at least four suspects. I assume those suspects were released later, but haven't actually looked into their fate and don't know their names. At the time one of the lines Libyan authorities were working on was that Gaddafi supporters were behind the attack and downplayed the possibility of connections to al-Qaeda:
Libya makes arrests over Benghazi attackty

Also Tunisian authorities had a suspect detained. A Tunisian named Ali Harzi was arrested in Turkey and extradicted to Tunisia. He was held in custody as a suspect for the Benghazi attack, and eventually also FBI was allowed to question him. Ali Harzi was later released by Tunisian authorities for lack of evidence: Tunisia releases Benghazi attack suspect

That might very well take months to organize if it is to happen at all. FBI has no jurisdiction in Egypt where they as a sovereign country have their own due process and quite understandably do not want outside interference. And as you can see in the case of Ali Harzi it can take time to accommodate US authorities' wishes in the process.

I do not know their current status, but I believe they are still in custody waiting for trial.

Haven't followed Benghazi things for months as nothing new has appeared. The only new development has been FBI's recent release of images: http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/images-released-in-benghazi-investigation

Thanks. I believe the early arestees were released. The fact that Egypt won't let the FBI in rankles.

 

[eeyore1954]

People who were in Benghazi at the time and talked to the attackers during the attack say the video was specifically cited. People who weren't in Benghazi at the time and didn't talk to the attackers say the video wasn't an issue.

A perplexing conundrum, to be sure.

Do you have links for this information?

The only other person to put me on ignore was a poster who thought a Wal-Mart Christmas ad was really secretly about nuclear war.

I would love the know the details of that theory.

 

[A'isha]

Do you have links for this information?

Yes.

I posted them earlier in the thread.

I would love the know the details of that theory.

I'm not sure it can be adequately explained, but you can read it for yourself here.

 

[elbe]

Ahh, frig! I had a whole post written out and accidentally hit the back button and lost it... Now I get to see if I remember what all I said.

I've read the Weekly Standard article, and the talking point revisions contained within, and it's left me somewhat confused on where the problem is.

To start with the later revisions don't appear to be incorrect (as far as the original document's text), but instead just less specific. The reasons for the lessened detail are still, it seems, speculative, but it seems the two basic reasons could be political, and this is washington, or for Intelligence reasons (such as that information may not have been as conclusive as they'd like or not wanting to give away certain details in an ongoing investigation). I would suspect it's a mixture of the two, but even if we assume the former I'm not sure what you can really draw from that as, again, the changes do not appear to contain an actual falsehood against the original talking point.

So the article then goes on about the video. The talking point doesn't directly reference the video, but instead says the "demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo", which does appear to have been instigated by the video, but that line is contained in all three versions so that's not evidence that it wasn't a part of the best available evidence at the time. There were also reports that people involved at Benghazi were motivated by the video:

Fighters involved in the assault, which was spearheaded by an Islamist brigade formed during last year’s uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, said in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon.

It is entirely reasonable for our intelligence agencies to believe, at the time, that the Benghazi started as a video protest, as we had already seen those happen, but that another agency, such as Ansar al Sharia, took advantage of the spontaneous event to attack. It is also reasonable to believe that, the attack being premeditated and not based on the video, that there were independant actors who may have believed it was and acted as such. Mixed information is not going to help our intelligence agencies come to the most accurate conclusion, and it's not like the CIA hasn't made any mistakes in the past.

So as of now I'm still unconvinced that there is evidence to suggest that it all wasn't the product of the best available intelligence at the time.

And hopefully I didn't completely forget about anything when rewriting this...

ETA: I will also reiterate my position on the hearings. I don't have a problem with them; there may be more information to learn and they may be the best way to get to it. What I do think, however, is that the politicians pushing for the hearings are not sincere and are just using them because they want Benghazi to be a political target. It's hard to take "we want the truth" seriously when you're playing political games.

 

[A'isha]

Oh, hey, you know how 16.5 posted (and kept reposting) the quote from Hicks where he says "I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate. Chris’s last report, if you want to say his final report, is, ‘Greg, we are under attack.’"?

It seems 16.5 left some details out about his hero's actions that night:

Mr. Hicks, by turns calm and emotional, told lawmakers about the night of last Sept. 11. He said he was at home in Tripoli watching television when a foreign-service officer ran in at 9:45 p.m. local time, yelling, “Greg, Greg, the consulate’s under attack.”

Checking his cellphone, Mr. Hicks said he saw two missed phone calls, one from Mr. Stevens and one from a phone number he didn’t recognize.

Mr. Hicks said he called the number he didn’t recognize and Mr. Stevens answered. “Greg, we’re under attack,” Mr. Stevens said before the call cut off. It was the first stage in a chaotic episode for State Department staffers in Libya.

Stevens apparently tried to call Hicks twice while the attacks were going on, and Hicks was too busy watching TV on the night of the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, a night when the Ambassador had left already-dangerous Tripoli to enter an even more dangerous city to even bother checking his cell phone for calls until after one of the other embassy staff (who was apparently actually paying attention to what was happening that night, unlike Hicks) told him that an attack in Benghazi was already under way.

No wonder Greg Hicks is feeling the need to try and cast blame on other people.

 

[The Big Dog]

Ahh, frig! I had a whole post written out and accidentally hit the back button and lost it... Now I get to see if I remember what all I said.

I've read the Weekly Standard article, and the talking point revisions contained within, and it's left me somewhat confused on where the problem is.

To start with the later revisions don't appear to be incorrect (as far as the original document's text), but instead just less specific. The reasons for the lessened detail are still, it seems, speculative, but it seems the two basic reasons could be political, and this is washington, or for Intelligence reasons (such as that information may not have been as conclusive as they'd like or not wanting to give away certain details in an ongoing investigation). I would suspect it's a mixture of the two, but even if we assume the former I'm not sure what you can really draw from that as, again, the changes do not appear to contain an actual falsehood against the original talking point.

So the article then goes on about the video. The talking point doesn't directly reference the video, but instead says the "demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo", which does appear to have been instigated by the video, but that line is contained in all three versions so that's not evidence that it wasn't a part of the best available evidence at the time. There were also reports that people involved at Benghazi were motivated by the video:



It is entirely reasonable for our intelligence agencies to believe, at the time, that the Benghazi started as a video protest, as we had already seen those happen, but that another agency, such as Ansar al Sharia, took advantage of the spontaneous event to attack. It is also reasonable to believe that, the attack being premeditated and not based on the video, that there were independant actors who may have believed it was and acted as such. Mixed information is not going to help our intelligence agencies come to the most accurate conclusion, and it's not like the CIA hasn't made any mistakes in the past.

So as of now I'm still unconvinced that there is evidence to suggest that it all wasn't the product of the best available intelligence at the time.

And hopefully I didn't completely forget about anything when rewriting this...

You think that intentionally deleting Ansar Al Sharia from the talking points memo reflects the best intelligence at the time?

You seem to believe also that the decision to delete that was made by the CIA, instead of the result of the Deputies conference. It also ignores the email we mentioned earlier, the fact that the CIA official time line said that Ansar al Sharia had surrounded the hospital, the fact that France 24 had detailed quotes of individuals on the ground that identified Ansar al Sharia on the 12, the fact that the New York Times had referenced them on the 14th (kinda hard to give up information on a secret investigation when it is on the front page of the New York Times) and the fact Hicks had specifically identified them on the 12th.

In any event, when do you believe that the Administration had enough information to, for example, conclude that the attack did not spontaneously arise out of an anti-video protest? I think we can all agree that was "incorrect" and the assertion of that position put the President of Libya in a very bad light.

 

[elbe]

You think that intentionally deleting Ansar Al Sharia from the talking points memo reflects the best intelligence at the time?

Did you not read my opinion on the matter? It was included in the post you just quoted. But removing them from the talking points doesn't actually say anything about what the CIA knew about them. Talking points are never about 'here's everything we know'. They are political and will get edited to be as such. The revisions are still not "wrong" to the original.

You seem to believe also that the decision to delete that was made by the CIA, instead of the result of the Deputies conference. It also ignores the email we mentioned earlier, the fact that the CIA official time line said that Ansar al Sharia had surrounded the hospital, the fact that France 24 had detailed quotes of individuals on the ground that identified Ansar al Sharia on the 12, the fact that the New York Times had referenced them on the 14th (kinda hard to give up information on a secret investigation when it is on the front page of the New York Times) and the fact Hicks had specifically identified them on the 12th.

You're still on the assumption that the removal somehow means we didn't actually think Ansar al Sharia wasn't involved. I would recommend taking a step back and looking at the situation in a more objective view.

In any event, when do you believe that the Administration had enough information to, for example, conclude that the attack did not spontaneously arise out of an anti-video protest? I think we can all agree that was "incorrect" and the assertion of that position put the President of Libya in a very bad light.

I couldn't say. I'm not an expert but it appears that as of when that CIA talking point was written that still wasn't clear cut.

ETA: Something I've noticed is that while I'm trying to be as impartial as I can be, as I'm fully aware that not an expert or even nearly as informed as some other posters here, you almost seem to be getting angry that I'm not seeing the evidence the same way you are. Hopefully you're not, but there's a certain tone to your posts when challenged. Not to say that I can't be guilty of the same thing, just bringing it to your attention.

 

[The Big Dog]

Did you not read my opinion on the matter? It was included in the post you just quoted. But removing them from the talking points doesn't actually say anything about what the CIA knew about them. Talking points are never about 'here's everything we know'. They are political and will get edited to be as such. The revisions are still not "wrong" to the original.

You're still on the assumption that the removal somehow means we didn't actually think Ansar al Sharia wasn't involved. I would recommend taking a step back and looking at the situation in a more objective view.

I couldn't say. I'm not an expert but it appears that as of when that CIA talking point was written that still wasn't clear cut.

You appear to be focusing on the CIA, and that is fine. The issue is not whether the talking points were "incorrect." The issue is whether the Administration knew that there was SUBSTANTIAL information that was not reflected in the talking points.

The problem as I've stated before is that the Administration used these "non-specific" bland talking points (knowing that the early draft specifically referenced Ansar al Sharia) and went on a blizzard of talk shows and repeated the incorrect information, even going so far as to contradict the President of Libya, despite the fact the US had told Libya in the first place that Ansar al Sahria was involved!

And then Nuland went on TV and said that Rice had done a great job.

And then Obama repeated the wrong information, again.

The wrong story was repeated for 2 weeks after the attack.

 

[The Big Dog]

ETA: Something I've noticed is that while I'm trying to be as impartial as I can be, as I'm fully aware that not an expert or even nearly as informed as some other posters here, you almost seem to be getting angry that I'm not seeing the evidence the same way you are. Hopefully you're not, but there's a certain tone to your posts when challenged. Not to say that I can't be guilty of the same thing, just bringing it to your attention.

Well sorry about that! I will admit that I did a dumb thing and peeked at a particularly vile comment continuing the demonization of Greg Hicks. That may have colored my tone.

Won't happen again.