New Disclosures on Benghazi

[elbe]

Position on what, exactly?

Ah, sorry if I wasn't clearer. Basically I was looking for personal analyses on the memo revisions and related. What do you think happened and why, that sort of thing. It's ok if you don't want to, I was just hoping for a clearer picture of what people are seeing in their own words.

 

[A'isha]

What those edited Benghazi talking points tell us

1) The talking points confirm that the intelligence community had determined at the time that the “the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate.” The key words there are “spontaneously” and “evolved.” That assessment does not change in any of the subsequent revisions.

This confirms that the version of events the administration initially offered was, in fact, grounded in the intelligence community’s assessment at the moment (which turned out to be wrong). However, Susan Rice falsely extrapolated from the talking points during her now infamous TV appearances that the anti-Islam video was the cause of the attacks. That isn’t what the talking points say. They only say the protests were the genesis of them. The talking points don’t mention the video.

2) The talking points clarify exactly how the reference to al-Qa’ida was edited out. In the initial versions, the talking points say that “we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was subsequently cut down to “Islamic extremists,” and then to just “extremists.”

So it’s true that the reference to al-Qa’ida was in fact deleted. And at one point, the talking points specifically name the group Ansar al-Sharia, which was also deleted.

But ABC reports that a State Department official objected to inclusion of the specific names because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.” There’s no clear evidence of any other motive at this point.

[...]

At the same time, the talking points also show that the intelligence community had not concluded at that point that the attacks were pre-meditated terror, believed that they had “evolved” from “spontaneous” protests, and that al Qa’ida extremists had merely “participated” in them. In assessing the situation, the administration (with the exception of Rice’s false implication of the video) was, in fact, largely repeating what the intelligence community believed at the time. It may well be true that the administration was too slow in subsequent days to acknowledge that the attacks were terrorism, but there’s still no clear evidence of any nefarious motive in doing so or that it wasn’t largely taking its cues from the intelligence community’s own evolving assessment.

I think Sargent is way off base in accusing Rice; yes, the memo talked about protests and not the video, but since the protests in question were about the video, that's a pretty meaningless, hair-splitting distinction.

That said, the last paragraph is the reason the right is focusing on Nuland's changes and ignoring what the CIA said about the protests over the video long before the memo reached her: because that contradicts one of their longstanding assertions about the talking points.

 

[jj]

Seriously? Check Google news, right now.

Top Stories
New York Daily News

Benghazi memo edits show State, White House involvement
USA TODAY
33 minutes ago



Written by
Oren Dorell





A top State Department official pressed the CIA and the White House to delete any mention of terrorism in public statements on the Benghazi terror attack to prevent critics from blaming lax security at the consulate, according to documents obtained by ABC ...
Benghazi Documents Scrubbed of Terror Reference: ABC News Digital ReportABC News
WH holds off-the-record Benghazi briefingPolitico (blog)
Highly Cited:After Benghazi revelations, heads will rollBBC News
Opinion:The real Benghazi priceNew York Post
In Depth:Benghazi memos reportedly revised 12 times, official 'concerned' they would hurt ...Fox News
Related: United States Department of State » Susan Rice » White House »

ABC News


BBC News

The Weekly Standard (blog)

Politico

Independent Online



Check ABC, **** check anywhere.

"Exploding" means more than "has news coverage" it means "exposes things likely to bring down a government" or the like. At least to me, it does.

All news coverage means is that it's something that somebody thinks might be more interesting than our second-world problems here in the USA.

 

[A'isha]

Republicans are salivating about impeachment.

 

[elbe]

What those edited Benghazi talking points tell us



I think Sargent is way off base in accusing Rice; yes, the memo talked about protests and not the video, but since the protests in question were about the video, that's a pretty meaningless, hair-splitting distinction.

That said, the last paragraph is the reason the right is focusing on Nuland's changes and ignoring what the CIA said about the protests over the video long before the memo reached her: because that contradicts one of their longstanding assertions about the talking points.

I actually tend to agree with the WaPo's assessment of Rice's sunday show visits. I watched "This Week" this morning and she started fine but seemed to talk more about the video than the memo suggested. Of course we don't know what other briefing she may have had in addition to the memo.

 

[dudalb]

It has reached the point where I have lost all faith in congressional investigations. No matter which party is in charge,they become just an excuse for more partisan politics.
We need some kind of permanent indepedent commision to investigate National Security problems..I have lost all faith in the ability of congress..no matter if Dems or the GOP is in charge...to investigate in a non partisan,objective manner.
This "Partisan Politics Trumps Everything" attitude that BOTH parties have will eventually mean disaster for the US.

 

[A'isha]

Meanwhile, it looks as if the Obama Administration is (unfortunately) going to get a chance to show whether or not it's learned any lessons from Benghazi.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Ah, sorry if I wasn't clearer. Basically I was look for personal analysises on the memo revisions and related. What do you think happened and why, that sort of thing. Its ok if you don't want to, I was just hoping for a clearer picture of what people are seeing in their own words.

The new information is illuminating, but I think its still too early to draw any real conclusions.

At the moment, however, I see two obvious scenarios:
1) The order to remove all mention of terrorism or pre-planned attacks came from a career bureaucrat. The scandal will more or less stop and that person will get fired.
2) The order to remove all mention of terrorism or pre-planned attacks originated from a political appointee. That could cause a range of embarassment and loss of trust for the administration that ranges from "very little" to "lots" based on how far up the food chain it goes. Mrs. Clinton's involvement could cause different repercussions for her.

 

[RandFan]

Gallup: Hillary Clinton more popular than Obama, Biden - The Hill

Sixty-four percent of those surveyed had a favorable impression of the former first lady. By contrast, 55 percent said they had a favorable impression of President Obama, and 45 percent said the same for Vice President Biden — Clinton's potential foe in a 2016 Democratic primary. Former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who assumed Clinton's job at the State Department, was seen favorably by 44 percent of those surveyed.

 

[Tony]

Republicans are salivating about impeachment.

A coup-d'etat by another name.

 

[A'isha]

Oh, look:

After Fox News pushed a claim that a Benghazi witness had been "subjected to threats and intimidation" by State Department employees, the witness' lawyer admitted on the network that his client never said he had been threatened by anyone.

In a May 6 article for FoxNews.com previewing the then-upcoming House hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Fox News reporters James Rosen and Chad Pergram wrote that Mark Thompson, one of the scheduled witnesses, "has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress." The claim was sourced to Joseph diGenova, the Republican attorney representing Thompson.

But in a May 9 appearance on Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, when diGenova was asked by guest host Stuart Varney about Thompson's claims that "he was the target of threats and intimidation," diGenova responded that Thompson "actually hasn't said that."

 

[elbe]

The new information is illuminating, but I think its still too early to draw any real conclusions.

At the moment, however, I see two obvious scenarios:
1) The order to remove all mention of terrorism or pre-planned attacks came from a career bureaucrat. The scandal will more or less stop and that person will get fired.
2) The order to remove all mention of terrorism or pre-planned attacks originated from a political appointee. That could cause a range of embarassment and loss of trust for the administration that ranges from "very little" to "lots" based on how far up the food chain it goes. Mrs. Clinton's involvement could cause different repercussions for her.

Thank you for your position.

I think right now I feel that, without clearer motivation, the likeliest reprimand could be a reassignment. You know, 'we've got to appear to be doing something, but you're not really in trouble'. I'm not really sure there is much incentive for anyone at foggy bottom to really give much more information than we currently know, but I guess we'll see what else the press may uncover.

And, is it just me or is the press doing a far better job than the hearings?

 

[A'isha]

And, is it just me or is the press doing a far better job than the hearings?

That's because the press, unlike the people conducting the hearings, are actually interested in the truth about what happened.

 

[eeyore1954]

After Fox News pushed a claim that a Benghazi witness had been "subjected to threats and intimidation" by State Department employees, the witness' lawyer admitted on the network that his client never said he had been threatened by anyone.

In a May 6 article for FoxNews.com previewing the then-upcoming House hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Fox News reporters James Rosen and Chad Pergram wrote that Mark Thompson, one of the scheduled witnesses, "has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress." The claim was sourced to Joseph diGenova, the Republican attorney representing Thompson.

But in a May 9 appearance on Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, when diGenova was asked by guest host Stuart Varney about Thompson's claims that "he was the target of threats and intimidation," diGenova responded that Thompson "actually hasn't said that."Oh, look:

Maybe her talking points memo had been scrubbed a few times before the interview.

In all seriousness doesn't she claim (of course she is his lawyer) he suffered retribution for his views. Maybe not threats.

 

[eeyore1954]

That's because the press, unlike the people conducting the hearings, are actually interested in the truth about what happened.

Do you really think so?

 

[elbe]

Republicans are salivating about impeachment.

That's a perfectly good example of why I don't trust the politicians pushing this issue.

 

[elbe]

Do you really think so?

I do, sincerely. The press has a far better track record of going after the truth than politicians do.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

and the released Talking Points simply show that they underwent the usual revision process. A bunch of agencies with different viewpoints and different agendas cooperated to find a set of statements that they could collectively agree upon during a fluid situation. in other words, business-as-usual in DC.

 

[A'isha]

Do you really think so?

An argument can certainly be made that this is not true in general, but in this specific case I absolutely believe it to be so.

 

[RandFan]

Do you really think so?

Yes and no. There are many objective journalists that are sincerely interested in the truth. They may be biased but most don't get into the business to advance political goals.