New Disclosures on Benghazi

[marplots]

Yes, fog of war does create a lot of confusion, especially when terrorists depend on it.

That's especially true when security staff has been cut, and the ability to monitor events has been reduced.

What I simply can not understand is why the uproar here is not recognized as the transparent political misconduct that it is. We had no huge congressional outcry for the same kind of events 6, 7, 8 years ago.

Where's the beef?

In my opinion, the "beef" stems from variations of a certain mindset. I found a comment on one of the blogs that hits all the highlights:

Anonymous said...

Has any Democrat administration EVER been held accountable for its lies, its betrayals, its treason, its efforts to subvert the USA, its cowardice, its corruption, its immorality? EVER? Why do Republicans even try when they are blamed precisely for what the loathsome Democrats do on a daily basis? Anyone who kills a lying leftist is doing the Universe a favor. Soetoro, Clinton, Biden, and Pelosi are the 4 grinning lying Horsemen. There is not a single particle of good in any of them. They cannot be trusted. No parent should EVER let any of them near their children. Seriously. I hope they're assassinated before they destroy us all.

With that baggage going in, there's a pre-defined conclusion on offer and bureaucratic shenanigans rise to the level of Watergate times ten.

 

[elbe]

We're used to attacks from small groups. But I think one of the commonly held beliefs (and I hope correctly) is that 90%+ of the Islamic world does not support the terrorists. The initial message from government went against that. The fact that we had just helped the Libyans overthrow He-Of-Many-Spellings added on another layer of hopelessness.

I don't think the initial idea does go against that. There is nothing preventing violent extremists from taking part in a "protest" or even co-opting one for their own ends. Winning over the islamic people to the ways of peace (for limited definitions of peace) and democracy was never going to be easy, and everytime some prominent nutbag says something like "arrest anyone wearing a hajib" it's another blow to their impression of us.

I think being skeptical of the motives of the politicians is always a wise course to take.

It just seems that all that's happening is rehashing the same information. Flogging a dead horse is not going to reveal new information. I could be wrong, these hearings might be productive, but I have little hope for it and they remind me a bit too much of Ken Starr's waste of government time for a personal vendetta.

It's also radically different than a few in this thread who claim any desire to investigate the matter further is born from Obama Derangement Syndrome and/or a CT.

There are a few times in this thread where it tended to broach conspiracy territory, but I have no wish to revisit them.

 

[jj]

But there was no evidence of a protest at all, and there was no protest.

So the terrorists shouted some slogans while they got into position. Big deal. Terrorists do not cooperate with their victims, you know, it is part of the whole thing about them being psychopathic murderers and all.

 

[elbe]

16.5 gets surprised by old news an awful lot. This specific piece of information was in the House interim report released last month, and was even in the Weekly Standard article that was published before Wednesday's hearings.

While I haven't read the article yet, the quoted bit does sounds a bit familiar.

 

[The Big Dog]

If there has to be blame, let's put the blame where it should be, on the partisan congress that cut the security budget.

Feel free to start you own thread on that, friend.

We are addressing the fact that the talking points were scrubbed 12 times now, a fact that we learned today.

 

[The Big Dog]

While I haven't read the article yet, the quoted bit does sounds a bit familiar.

I'd urge you to read the actual article posted by ABC news today.

I mean, it is quite easy for someone to say "old news" "non-story."

ABC, on the other hand is calling it an exclusive.

 

[elbe]

I'm not sure where you got the information that there were protesters on the street. The State Department confirmed that there were none on October 9.

The new york times has an article where they interviewed fighters on the ground who claimed they were there because of the video.

 

[The Big Dog]

The new york times has an article where they interviewed fighters on the ground who claimed they were there because of the video.

I'm sure they did say that.

They were not there before the attack as part of a protest.

As noted above, the references to the pre-video surveillance/attacks were scrubbed.

 

[elbe]

I'd urge you to read the actual article posted by ABC news today.

I mean, it is quite easy for someone to say "old news" "non-story."

ABC, on the other hand is calling it an exclusive.

I do plan on it, I just wanted to quickly get caught up before going out to take care of errands.

I am grateful for the, largely, more friendly tone the thread has taken.

 

[A'isha]

I'd urge you to read the actual article posted by ABC news today.

It contains some inaccuracies.

Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “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.”

That specific reference to "Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack" in that sentence was changed to "Islamic extremists participated in the demonstrations" by the CIA before Nuland ever saw it and commented on it.

The article also notes:

A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.

In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the investigation?”

In other words, the right is making a melodramatic mountain out of a mundane molehill.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I do plan on it, I just wanted to quickly get cause up before going out to take care of errands.

I am grateful for the, largely, more friendly tone the thread has taken.

That is (mostly) thanks to you.

 

[The Big Dog]

It appears that ABC had far greater access to e-mails than did the Weekly Standard. Based on these new emails, it appears that the draft that went to the Deputies meeting did specifically mention Al Quaeda.

The ABC disclosures are incredibly significant.

Note that the ABC news article includes all 12 drafts, including the final one from Friday night that mentions Al Quada. I think the Weekly Standard only had 3?

The 8:59 pm spells it Al-Qa'ida. Huh, I'll make a note.

 

[A'isha]

It appears that ABC had far greater access to e-mails than did the Weekly Standard. Based on these new emails, it appears that the draft that went to the Deputies meeting did specifically mention Al Quaeda.

No, the Weekly Standard said the exact same thing (and actually printed the full text of drafts, which ABC did not do).

The talking points initially mentioned al-Qaeda in two places: once in reference to the attacks, and once in reference to pre-attack warnings. The mention of al-Qaeda in reference to the attacks was removed by the CIA before it was distributed for outside comment.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'm not sure where you got the information that there were protesters on the street. The State Department confirmed that there were none on October 9.

It was from the wikipedia article.

 

[The Big Dog]

It was from the wikipedia article.

Ah.

ABC did one hell of a fine job on their piece.

Somebody was asking me where the smoking gun was? It appears that it is linked in the ABC article.

 

[elbe]

That is (mostly) thanks to you.

I really just don't have a dog in this race and try to fully acknowledge my lack of knowledge on the subject. I understand that the issue appears to be contentious for some people and I'm quite grateful that things have settled down, it's allowed me to become better acquainted with the topic. Thanks everyone.

Now to catch up on the new links.


One thing I'm a bit annoyed with is that many of my google searches on the topic have frequently turned up websites I don't particularly trust, both left and right. Just a minor quibble on my part.

 

[A'isha]

Ah, okay, I see the link to the pdf of all the memo revisions. I missed it earlier.

When reading them, keep in mind that the memo wasn't distributed outside the CIA until 6:52 PM on the 14th - all the revisions and edits made before then (the first seven drafts) were all done internally by the CIA.

Only the 8th draft, 8:52 PM on the 14th, and later contain revisions based on input and feedback from State Department and other officials such as Nuland.

EDIT: The Atlantic Wire has an interactive article about all eleven drafts, with context about why made the changes and why (where that's known).

 

[Newtons Bit]

I really just don't have a dog in this race and try to fully acknowledge my lack of knowledge on the subject. I understand that the issue appears to be contentious for some people and I'm quite grateful that things have settled down, it's allowed me to become better acquainted with the topic. Thanks everyone.

Now to catch up on the new links.


One thing I'm a bit annoyed with is that many of my google searches on the topic have frequently turned up websites I don't particularly trust, both left and right. Just a minor quibble on my part.

Yea, I was looking for that email from Elizabeth Jones last night and the first thing that popped up on google was PrisonPlanet.

Had to go more than one page down to find the CBS source.

 

[elbe]

I'm sure they did say that.

They were not there before the attack as part of a protest.

As noted above, the references to the pre-video surveillance/attacks were scrubbed.

Are you accusing the Times of lying or of the interviewees? If the later (and I hope it's the later) that doesn't really change the concern, people saying they're there because of the video, even if they're lying, would still be intelligence that needs to be filtered.

 

[The Big Dog]

Are you accusing the Times of lying or of the interviewees? If the later (and I hope it's the later) that doesn't really change the concern, people saying they're there because of the video, even if they're lying, would still be intelligence that needs to be filtered.

Neither. I'm, sure they did say that.

I am even more sure that they were not part of any protest outside the consulate during the evening of September 11 before the attack began.

Of the there is absolutely no question.

I'm also sure that the other attacks mentioned by the CIA (and cut out of the talking points memo) occurred before the attackers heard of the anti-muslim video.