New Disclosures on Benghazi

[RandFan]

So the fact that they were not released until yesterday is the GOP's fault??

Intriguing....

rolls eyes

No, it's not the GOP's fault. But why, if it was so important, didn't they say something? You are breathless over this "new" information. Why wasn't the GOP breathless over it back when they first learned about it?

 

[The Big Dog]

You're asserting that they knew the CIA deliberately put false information into the memo from the very beginning, before anyone from State or the White House ever saw a draft?

Nope I'm saying that State Department and WH knew it was false and then deleted everything that contradicted it.

The people at the CIA responsible for writing that nonsense appear totally incompetent.

And then after it was absolutely clear that it was false and that it had offended the Libyans???

They continued to lie about it.

 

[RandFan]

Nope I'm saying that State Department and WH knew it was false and then deleted everything that contradicted it.

The people at the CIA responsible for writing that nonsense appear totally incompetent.

And then after it was absolutely clear that it was false and that it had offended the Libyans???

They continued to lie about it.

What evidence do you have that the State Department and WH knew it was false?

 

[A'isha]

Plausible basis for confusion. Now, should they have deleted the references? Depends on what they believed. If they believed the video was the more likely basis for the attack then I've no problem with it. I don't know what they knew as fact.

It's confusing in more ways than one...did they want the White House to unilaterally edit references to certain things that the intelligence agencies had concluded about the attacks and had put into the memo?

But isn't that what they're accusing the White House of doing?

So the fact that they were not released until yesterday is the GOP's fault??

Intriguing....

rolls eyes

What relevance does the fact that they weren't released to the public until yesterday have? The Republicans knew about the memo drafts for two months...if the drafts were that important, why weren't they saying anything about the drafts back when they first learned about them? Why were there no calls to release these explosive memos starting two months ago?

Why, in short, were these memos a non-issue until yesterday?

 

[A'isha]

Nope I'm saying that State Department and WH knew it was false and then deleted everything that contradicted it.

The people at the CIA responsible for writing that nonsense appear totally incompetent.

You think the State Department and the White House had better intelligence information than the CIA, and were better able to correctly interpret that intelligence information than the CIA, and so unilaterally should have overridden the CIA's own intelligence assessment?

 

[elbe]

You think the State Department and the White House had better intelligence information than the CIA, and were better able to correctly interpret that intelligence information than the CIA, and so unilaterally should have overridden the CIA's own intelligence assessment?

That would certainly be a new one.

 

[The Big Dog]

What evidence do you have that the State Department and WH knew it was false?

Good question! There is a whole thread about it:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=258265&page=17

Start here, thanks!!!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What evidence do you have that the State Department and WH knew it was false?

I'm even more interested in the evidence that the reason they lied (assuming they did for sake of argument) was to deflect responsibility for the deaths.

That's a huge CT! It's tantamount to the claim the W ordered (or allowed) the 9/11 attacks. We're talking about actual treason and conspiracy to commit murder.

 

[The Big Dog]

You think the State Department and the White House had better intelligence information than the CIA, and were better able to correctly interpret that intelligence information than the CIA, and so unilaterally should have overridden the CIA's own intelligence assessment?

Well that is pretty clear when they deleted Al Qua'ida from the talking points!

protip: the CIA is not a single entity. Most of the CIA knew it was false. The political hacks win the CIA writing that menu of lies appear not to have known it was false.

 

[uke2se]

Well that is pretty clear when they deleted Al Qua'ida from the talking points!

protip: the CIA is not a single entity. Most of the CIA knew it was false. The political hacks win the CIA writing that menu of lies appear not to have known it was false.

Ah, the "rogue elements within the CIA" argument. We've all seen that before.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm even more interested in the evidence that the reason they lied (assuming they did for sake of argument) was to deflect responsibility for the deaths.

That's a huge CT! It's tantamount to the claim the W ordered (or allowed) the 9/11 attacks. We're talking about actual treason and conspiracy to commit murder.

Why do you think they lied? (assuming they did for the sake of argument)

 

[The Big Dog]

Ah, the "rogue elements within the CIA" argument. We've all seen that before.

Oh no, not that at all! Incompetent political hacks in the CIA argument.

It is kind of like your straw man, I guess.

 

[A'isha]

Well that is pretty clear when they deleted Al Qua'ida from the talking points!

No, because the references were deleted, as the emails state, specifically because that wasn't known but only suspected, and the investigation was still ongoing.

protip: the CIA is not a single entity. Most of the CIA knew it was false.

Evidence?

The political hacks win the CIA riting that menu of lies appear not to have known it was false.

So, again, you're saying that the White House and the State Department had better intelligence information than the CIA and were better able to correctly interpret that intelligence information than the CIA?

And the fact that they didn't unilaterally override what the CIA was directly telling them (by people who, as you say, did not know what was being said was false) is why the State Department and White House need to be investigated, and not the CIA?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why do you think they lied? (assuming they did for the sake of argument)

I don't know.

Assuming they lied intentionally and weren't simply unsure yet (as Susan Rice carefully said), it could have been because they didn't want the bad guys to know everything we know, something relatively common in law enforcement. It could have been the unfortunate tendency of politicians to try to cover their own asses even when they've done nothing wrong (ironically constituting doing something wrong). I don't know, and I'm making no allegation.

But you have alleged that the reason they lied was to deflect responsibility for the deaths.

What evidence do you have for this? It assumes, by the way, that they either shared in responsibility for the deaths or wanted to protect those who did (which is treason and conspiracy, by the way).

ETA: Maybe you're just arguing that there's no other possible reason for it? I hope you realize now that that's false. In fact, I think from what others here are pointing out, if you're using that same bad logic to prove that they intentionally lied, you can see there are other possible explanations for their behavior.

 

[RandFan]

Good question! There is a whole thread about it:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=258265&page=17

Start here, thanks!!!

I've read this thread and the proof simply isn't there. I'm going to have to apply Hitchen's razor here. You can't just assert there is proof. You have to demonstrate it. What is the evidence that demonstrates that the WH and/or State Department "knew"?

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

It's quite appropriate to dismiss the claim that the WH "knew" if you can't provide evidence. Particularly in light of the fact that the memo referenced the video. It's not as if the CIA gave them clear and unambiguous information. So until you provide evidence you are not going to advance this discussion.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, because the references were deleted, as the emails state, specifically because that wasn't known but only suspected, and the investigation was still ongoing.



Evidence?



So, again, you're saying that the White House and the State Department had better intelligence information than the CIA and were better able to correctly interpret that intelligence information than the CIA?

And the fact that they didn't unilaterally override what the CIA was directly telling them (by people who, as you say, did not know what was being said was false) is why the State Department and White House need to be investigated, and not the CIA?

Look at your first sentence and then your last two. They unilaterally overrode the CIA on al qua'ida, right?

By the way? Hell yes, investigate the hacks at the top, starting with clapper who lied about the changes.

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't know.

Assuming they lied intentionally and weren't simply unsure yet (as Susan Rice carefully said), it could have been because they didn't want the bad guys to know everything we know, something relatively common in law enforcement. It could have been the unfortunate tendency of politicians to try to cover their own asses even when they've done nothing wrong (ironically constituting doing something wrong). I don't know, and I'm making no allegation.

But you have alleged that the reason they lied was to deflect responsibility for the deaths.

What evidence do you have for this? It assumes, by the way, that they either shared in responsibility for the deaths or wanted to protect those who did (which is treason and conspiracy, by the way).

Well we know it wasn't to keep it from the bad guys. Not only was it on the front page of the nytimes, the Libyan government had identified them

 

[A'isha]

Look at your first sentence and then your last two. They unilaterally overrode the CIA on al qua'ida, right?

No, because that wasn't unilateral, but part of a back-and-forth wrangling between the CIA and the State Department.

That's why Nuland sent an email with her concerns to the drafters of the memo, and didn't just make the edits herself and pass them on to the White House.

EDIT: And in any case, the CIA themselves were pretty wavery on the al-Qaeda thing, having already removed one reference to them before the memo left the CIA, and filling the rest of the memo with a lot of weasel words.

 

[The Big Dog]

I've read this thread and the proof simply isn't there. I'm going to have to apply Hitchen's razor here. You can't just assert there is proof. You have to demonstrate it. What is the evidence that demonstrates that the WH and/or State Department "knew"?

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

It's quite appropriate to dismiss the claim that the WH "knew" if you can't provide evidence. Particularly in light of the fact that the memo referenced the video. It's not as if the CIA gave them clear and unambiguous information. So until you provide evidence you are not going to advance this discussion.

Rand fan? I understand that you reject the evidence. Your opinion is that he proof is not there.

 

[A'isha]

Rand fan? I understand that you reject the evidence. Your opinion is that he proof is not there.

You haven't shown any evidence.