New Disclosures on Benghazi

[Mumbles]

If you take disagreement on a preliminary assessment as insult (most of us don't), how do you know the President of Libya didn't insult her?

Remember, she didn't say we knew anything for certain. That the President of Libya turned out to be correct in his preliminary assessment doesn't mean he knew anything for certain on the 12th either.

I'm being a pest here, but is it correct that the Libyan President was correct? He made some pretty bold claims, which actually could be true, that the Benghazi attack was the work of non-Libyan conspirators. I'm not aware of this being established at this point, although I could be mistaken.

 

[AlBell]

Considering that Townhall is still pushing the "Ambassador Stevens was murdered and his dead body dragged through the streets of Benghazi" nonsense, that doesn't say a whole lot for "conservative thinking on the matter".

I'll ask you for a cite demonstrating the 'still'.

That does seem to be the current consensus and apparently Stevens was taken to a hospital by libyians in the crowd. I admit I can't cite that but read it in the last day or two.

ps. How about comments on what my cited Townhall piece actually contained?

 

[AlBell]

...

Taxpayers deserve better than this.

My thinking too back when the bug-eyed loon democrat (whose name I don't recall) chaired the committee.

 

[A'isha]

I'll ask you for a cite demonstrating the 'still'.

Is May 8, 2013 "still" enough for you?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/05/08/hillary-clintons-big-benghazi-lie-n1591097

In his recollection of events the night of September 11, 2012, Hicks stated that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens called him and said, "We are under attack," just before he was brutally murdered and dragged through the streets.

Stevens was never dragged through the streets, and was still alive and breathing when he was found by several Libyans in the part of the consulate where he'd collapsed from smoke inhalation, and transported to the hospital.

I admit I can't cite that but read it in the last day or two.

Last day or two? It was known less than a week after the attack that Stevens had been found and taken to the hospital by Libyan rescuers.

ps. How about comments on what my cited Townhall piece actually contained?

I don't care about anything Townhall has to say.

 

[Minoosh]

I like when you make up arguments for me and then say they are arguments from ignorance.

I think people are trying, fruitlessly, to elicit your actual argument, and are maybe making a mistake by assuming you have one.

If there was back-and-forth on certain words and phrases, so what? If the president of Libya got his feelings hurt, so what?

I'm trying to get my head around what the supposed scandal here is. If you've laid it out somewhere and I missed it, apologies. I don't think massaging the talking points and contradicting the Libyan president rise to that level.

ETA: IMO it would be plausible for militant elements to manipulate public opinion to foment a demonstration outside an embassy, serving as a sort of cover for a preplanned attack. I've never really understood why some consider the demonstration and attack elements to be mutually exclusive.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

The original statement mentioned the protests as inspiration for the attacks.

Which implies that the attack was spontaneous rather than a pre-planned attack. The original statement also describes the attack as arising from a crowd that was a "mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society". I don't see how anyone could conclude from the original statement that the CIA believed that it was a pre-planned attack.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Which implies that the attack was spontaneous rather than a pre-planned attack. The original statement also describes the attack as arising from a crowd that was a "mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society". I don't see how anyone could conclude from the original statement that the CIA believed that it was a pre-planned attack.

It reads VERY differently from a protest. That was my point.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

It reads VERY differently from a protest. That was my point.

The original statement also refers to a "crowd" and something that "evolved" into an attack, which implies a protest that grew violent even if the statement didn't explicitly say that. A "protest" doesn't necessarily have to be peaceful, but can involve an attack on something or someone.

 

[RandFan]

I think there is a bigger scandal that Hillary needs to answer for than Benghazi.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Is this a fair summary of the questions from this thread:
1) was there a DELIBERATE cover up of something?
If so,
2) what was being covered up?
3) who was doing the covering up?
4) who knew about the cover up?
5) why was there a cover up?
6) could there be any legitimate reason to not have released the information that was "covered up"?

 

[spin0]

I'm being a pest here, but is it correct that the Libyan President was correct? He made some pretty bold claims, which actually could be true, that the Benghazi attack was the work of non-Libyan conspirators. I'm not aware of this being established at this point, although I could be mistaken.

Indeed.

We still do not actually know who was responsible for the attack and no group claimed responsibility.

Apparently some of the attackers were members of Ansar al-Sharia militia group, but the attackers might have been a heterogenic group affiliated with different militia groups (Parts of Martyrs of 17 February Brigade? Omar Abdurrahman group? Individuals from Libyan Supreme Security Council police? etc).

Some of the attackers claimed their motivation was the video, but perhaps the attackers had also other motivations.

And if it was a preplanned attack we do not know who planned it and when (months before? weeks? days? hours?).


Libyan government's early assessments seemed to be conlicting. They blamed supporters of Muammar Gaddafi and then OTOH al-Qaeda. Prime minister Mustafa Abu Shagur downplayed the assumption of al-Qaeda after arresting at least four suspects and promising more arrests: "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" (Libya makes arrests over Benghazi attack)

Some days later Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf said in "Face the Nation" that they had already arrested about 50 suspects, and that it was a preplanned attack "by foreigners" - he does not specifically mention al-Qaeda, but the reporter does.

I wonder what happened to the big breakthrough the Prime Minister claimed, and to those 50 arrested suspects the President mentioned.

 

[Travis]

Although I disagree, the story we are asked to accept is that the whole thing boils down to Obama winning the election by concealing/spinning what happened. That if he hadn't, he would have lost.

That seems like a pretty big stretch to me, but that's what I've read in this thread.

Obama sure is bad at it then. Since he changed his tune after only a week.

"Darn, I was supposed to stick with the other story wasn't I? Darn teleprompter screw ups!"

What also sticks out to me as funny is that this is all so pointless. The only people that care about this are people who would vote for Castro over Hillary. So this whole thing is just a huge waste of resources to provide animus fueled masturbation material for ardent Hillary haters. Everyone else just shrugs their shoulders and carries on.

Some of us feel the government telling overt lies to deflect responsibility about the deaths of 4 Americans is bad.

But that isn't even being alleged here. I mean one version has it being pissed off Libyans doing the killing. The other version also has pissed off Libyans doing the killing. In fact in both versions it is the same people being fingered with the only real difference being their motivation.

They keep ignoring the fact that the references to the video and the description of protests and demonstrations that evolved into an attack was put in the memo by the CIA, and was there from the very beginning.

Yeah, I've noticed this.

I think? No.

Hicks and the president of Libya?

Yup!

Nope, her job was to act professionally. She did not.

When the President of Libya comes out and completely contradicts what she was about to say, she ought to take that into account. She failed.

But who are we kidding, she was just the administrations cats paw. She had no business being on that idiotic morning show tour.

Interesting.

Rice: Well the President of Libya has expressed his sentiment that it was Bigfoot. Now the CIA has no information confirming the existence of Bigfoot but as we can't embarrass him with a contradictory statement we will also say it was Bigfoot.

 

[Newtons Bit]

But that isn't even being alleged here.

Yes it is. I think you were looking for a straw man to argue against.

 

[TimCallahan]

Perhaps I'm being a bit excessive, but I seem to remember that, when 9/11 went down President G. W. Bush, looking like a deer caught in the headlights, sat there and continued to read a story about baby goats to some small children. About 3,000 people were killed in that attack, yet it doesn't seem to have rubbed off on "W". Yet an attack on a U.S. embassy in Libya that killed a few Americans is supposed to be a political disaster for the Obama administration.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Perhaps I'm being a bit excessive, but I seem to remember that, when 9/11 went down President G. W. Bush, looking like a deer caught in the headlights, sat there and continued to read a story about baby goats to some small children. About 3,000 people were killed in that attack, yet it doesn't seem to have rubbed off on "W". Yet an attack on a U.S. embassy in Libya that killed a few Americans is supposed to be a political disaster for the Obama administration.

Did I miss anything?

Did W lie about 9/11?

 

[A'isha]

Did W lie about 9/11?

No one lied here, so I'm not sure why you're asking that question.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Did W lie about 9/11?

Does claiming that Iraq was involved in the attack constitute lying?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm being a pest here, but is it correct that the Libyan President was correct? He made some pretty bold claims, which actually could be true, that the Benghazi attack was the work of non-Libyan conspirators. I'm not aware of this being established at this point, although I could be mistaken.

Good point. And this further supports my criticism of the claim that Rice insulted him. That claim relies on the assumption that having different opinions based on the early evidence (or lack thereof) constitutes an insult.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It doesn't matter what happened in the past. What matters it what we do going forward.

That's a strange way to call for oversight of actions and events that happened last year.

You are in fact demanding something be done about what happened in the past.

No.

Really?

You said that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the embassy deaths. You're alleging treason and conspiracy and you aren't demanding something be done about it?

If your allegation were true, I'd want Obama impeached and everyone involved out of office and prosecuted for their crimes. You're quite forgiving if you really believe your allegation but are willing to move on.

ETA: Or could it be that you're merely considering "responsibility about the deaths" to be the equivalent of making a judgement call deeming intel of certain threats to be not credible or at least not worthy of reallocating finite resources (what 16.5 called "ignoring threats")? If so, you're just guilty of hyperbolic rhetoric that even you don't believe is accurate.

If the Obama administration were responsible for the deaths or if they were intentionally protecting those who are, it would be a serious crime indeed.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Does claiming that Iraq was involved in the attack constitute lying?

Sure. And as I recall, Bush and Cheney caught a lot of flak over it.