New Disclosures on Benghazi

[spin0]

I'll notice the lack of a cite, and thank you for your contribution.

I already provided, for your convenience here's relevant quote:

Pursuant to Title III of the Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, 22 U.S.C. § 4831 et seq., (the “Act”), Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton convened an Accountability Review Board (ARB) for Benghazi to examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the September 11-12, 2012, killings of four U.S. government personnel, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, John Christopher Stevens, in Benghazi, Libya. A series of attacks on September 11-12, 2012 involving arson, small-arms and machine-gun fire, and use of rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), grenades and mortars, focused on two U.S. facilities in Benghazi, as well as U.S. personnel en route between the two facilities. In addition, the attacks severely wounded two U.S. personnel, injured three Libyan contract guards and resulted in the destruction and abandonment of both facilities – the U.S. Special Mission compound (SMC) and Annex.

Tell me, where did those imaginary 100 dead guys of yours suddenly vanish without the numerous eyewitnesses seeing them, and without being recorded in the videos or photographs? Why didn't they end up to the morgue (which would have been overwhelmed)? And had there been 100 dead there would have been hundreds of wounded, where did they disappear as they didn't get taken to a hospital? Surely such huge numbers would get reported by eyewitnesses, doctors and reporters?

 

[The Big Dog]

Provided already, for your convenience here's relevant quote:

That doesn't cite how many terrorists died. The tu quoque fallacy that is relied upon very frequently regarding Bush attacks counts the terrorists.

Why does it do that? It is utterly baffling to me.

What you posted does not mentions that any terrorists died.

The only citation that discusses it is the book I cited.

In any event, I think that we can all agree that it is simply ridiculous to argue about the attacks during the Bush administration, and ignore, for example the 200 plus at the African Embassy bombings.

 

[RandFan]

That doesn't cite how many terrorists died. The tu quoque fallacy that is relied upon very frequently regarding Bush attacks counts the terrorists.

Why does it do that? It is utterly baffling to me.

What you posted does not mentions that any terrorists died.

The only citation that discusses it is the book I cited.

In any event, I think that we can all agree that it is simply ridiculous to argue about the attacks during the Bush administration, and ignore, for example the 200 plus at the African Embassy bombings.

I think we can all agree that given the history of scandals and particularly the lack of action taken against Bush's lying and malfeasance there's little reason to think this event has any significance in the grand scheme of things.

You already admit there will be no impeachment of Obama. Issa has admitted that Hillary isn't a target. What's left? Plausible deniability. We can easily demonstrate that Bush lied and was incompetent. You can't demonstrate that anyone knowingly lied or covered up anything. And if there was a cover up it wasn't to cover up a crime.

At the end of the day it's a non-story. Robert Gates and many other Republicans have made that crystal clear.

 

[The Big Dog]

Interesting developments. It seems pretty clear that the Administration leaked one e-mail to CNN and NBC today, where it seemingly helps them.

They have refused to release the balance of the e-mails, including the Nuland e-mail, and the remainder of the email chain.

It would be extremely helpful to understand the whole context, something ith which I am sure all can agree.

 

[RandFan]

It would be extremely helpful to understand the whole context, something ith which I am sure all can agree.

There is no mystery here.

This is the result of a pissing contest between State and the IRS. There was no crime. There was no cover up. There was disagreement and uncertainty.

But the fishing expedition will continue.

 

[spin0]

That doesn't cite how many terrorists died.

It also does not cite war elephants. That's because the report discusses events that took place. Hence it does not mention imaginary things like over 100 dead attackers.

Also following sources do not mention anything such:
- numerous eyewitnesses and crowds that entered the compounds
- videos
- photographs
- news reporters
- morgues
- doctors
- officials

There was no 100 dead attackers. Or their dead bodies sublimated in the thin air.

What you posted does not mentions that any terrorists died.

Like I said earlier: we don't know if any of the terrorists died in the attack. There's no reports of any dead or wounded attackers found in the area.

Besides, it's dubious if there even was over 100 attackers as you claim. The reports estimate their number as "dozens" - not hundreds or over a hundred.

The only citation that discusses it is the book I cited.

Well then that book makes ridiculous claims, or you may have misunderstood it. Please quote the relevant part and its evidence to back that claim up.

 

[The Big Dog]

The Weekly Standard has now weighed in and have themselves released an e-mail advising Rhodes that they were going to press, and actively asking him for comment before they went to press. He blew them off.

Of course, after they went to press, Rhodes and the rest of the administration falsely claimed that the administration had given the emails to Congress, and then selectively released ONE, while refusing to release the rest.

At the Hall of Injustice, after the IRS scandal and the AP scandal and now this, The Joker and the Penguin must be impressed.

 

[A'isha]

And still no comment from 16.5 about why ABC's reporting on the email from Rhodes differs so dramatically from the actual text of the email.

EDIT: Better Answer, Please

As we reported a short time ago, those blockbuster White House emails which showed the White House aggressively massaging the fabled Benghazi talking points turn out to have been doctored. Doctored, edited, choose your verb. They were altered to make it look like the White House was more focused on the talking points than it actually was.

[...]

Near the top of his original piece, Karl writes “White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.” That’s pretty clear. And in the article itself he uses quotes for what were purportedly the text of the emails. At other points in the original article, Karl seems to allude to the fact that there were notes as well. Read the piece to make your own judgment on that count. (Late Update - 6:16 PM: On air he seems to have been even more clear that he’d reviewed the actual emails.)

It now seems that the ABC spokesperson jumped the gun because clearly the accounts differ substantially and Karl gets that. He says in a new piece that he asked his source to explain the discrepancy and got this response …

I asked my original source today to explain the different wording on the Ben Rhodes e-mail, and the fact that the words “State Department” were not included in the e-mail provided to CNN’s Tapper.

This was my source’s response, via e-mail: “WH reply was after a long chain of email about State Dept concerns. So when WH emailer says, take into account all equities, he is talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about.”

I guarantee you Karl had a sinking feeling in the pit of his stomach when he saw that explanation. Because that explanation by reference to earlier comments in the thread is pretty weak. Karl’s follow on piece is entitled “More Details on Benghazi Talking Points Emerge” but the substance is, ‘How the Story Changes When I Realize the Notes I Was Using Weren’t Reliable.’ The answer here is that Karl pretty clearly got burned by his source. But he at least seriously singed himself by making it really, really look like he was looking at the emails themselves when he wasn’t.

 

[The Big Dog]

It also does not cite war elephants.

....

Well then that book makes ridiculous claims, or you may have misunderstood it. Please quote the relevant part and its evidence to back that claim up.

I've given you the cite for your own use. I have spent vastly more time than anyone should have dissecting this tu quoque, and have no intention of further responding to arguments from incredulity. The authors of the book Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb run their own web site, and maintain a very robust presence on social media. I would urge you to continue your dialogue with them there.

 

[The Big Dog]

Obama's hometown newspaper has an excellent take on three fiascoes, Benghazi, AP, and IRS:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-obama-20130515,0,1109593.story

 

[elbe]

Obama's hometown newspaper has an excellent take on three fiascoes, Benghazi, AP, and IRS:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-obama-20130515,0,1109593.story

Maybe it's just me, but that's a terribly written article. It's bulleted but each "bullet" can drift without any notice that it's no longer a part a specific point. Blarg, I made it through about 4 bulletpoints before getting lost in the opinion writer's train of thought.

From what I could gather it didn't really add anything to the Benghazi issue.

 

[A'isha]

The entire quote from the book 16.5 cites says only,

Early in the morning, the jet carrying Glen Doherty and his team from Tripoli landed in Benghazi. The US team was initially held up at the airport for a few hours. It's unclear whether this was intentional or not, but the Americans eventually forced their way through. Just after 5:00am, the seven-man support team arrived to aid their countrymen at the CIA annex. Minutes after their vehicle drove through the gate, the base came under heavy fire. Glen and his fellow Americans were quick to take up defensive position and join in the fight. At this point, several of the enemy tried coming over the wall but were dispatched with lethal accuracy. All told, the handful of Americans would kill just under a hundred enemy attackers.

And that's it. No citation, no description of where that total came from or how it was calculated, nothing. Just that one offhanded mention.

I wonder if 16.5 actually read the book, or just saw the citation on the Wikipedia page about the Benghazi attacks (which actually gets the page number for the above information wrong). The book certainly contradicts quite a few of the right-wing assertions about what happened that 16.5 has been repeating in this thread, so I'm curious about whether he accepts what the book has to say about things other than the number of terrorist casualties.

 

[The Big Dog]

Just perusing the book mentioned earlier in this thread. Here is a short excerpt:

"At the State Department compound, Ty's team had set up and started to unleash everything they had on the attacking force. His guys had one MK46 machine gun, and individual H&K 416's complimented with GLM's (H&K 40mm grenade launchers). One of Ty's team members was a USMC veteran of Iraq and the blood bath of Fallujah. ... The former Marine, having a bandolier of "golden eggs" (40mm grenades), would lob grenades as Ty directed; Within minutes the small six-man team had turned the tide: dead enemy littered the compound and the rest were confused and running for cover."

 

[RandFan]

And still no comment from 16.5 about why ABC's reporting on the email from Rhodes differs so dramatically from the actual text of the email.

As we reported a short time ago, those blockbuster White House emails which showed the White House aggressively massaging the fabled Benghazi talking points turn out to have been doctored. Doctored, edited, choose your verb. They were altered to make it look like the White House was more focused on the talking points than it actually was.

[...]

Near the top of his original piece, Karl writes “White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.” That’s pretty clear. And in the article itself he uses quotes for what were purportedly the text of the emails. At other points in the original article, Karl seems to allude to the fact that there were notes as well. Read the piece to make your own judgment on that count. (Late Update - 6:16 PM: On air he seems to have been even more clear that he’d reviewed the actual emails.)

It now seems that the ABC spokesperson jumped the gun because clearly the accounts differ substantially and Karl gets that. He says in a new piece that he asked his source to explain the discrepancy and got this response …

I asked my original source today to explain the different wording on the Ben Rhodes e-mail, and the fact that the words “State Department” were not included in the e-mail provided to CNN’s Tapper.

This was my source’s response, via e-mail: “WH reply was after a long chain of email about State Dept concerns. So when WH emailer says, take into account all equities, he is talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about.”

I guarantee you Karl had a sinking feeling in the pit of his stomach when he saw that explanation. Because that explanation by reference to earlier comments in the thread is pretty weak. Karl’s follow on piece is entitled “More Details on Benghazi Talking Points Emerge” but the substance is, ‘How the Story Changes When I Realize the Notes I Was Using Weren’t Reliable.’ The answer here is that Karl pretty clearly got burned by his source. But he at least seriously singed himself by making it really, really look like he was looking at the emails themselves when he wasn’t.

EDIT: Better Answer, Please

Is there someone in this thread that is willing to address the facts? Anyone?

 

[RandFan]

Just perusing the book mentioned earlier in this thread. Here is a short excerpt:

"At the State Department compound, Ty's team had set up and started to unleash everything they had on the attacking force. His guys had one MK46 machine gun, and individual H&K 416's complimented with GLM's (H&K 40mm grenade launchers). One of Ty's team members was a USMC veteran of Iraq and the blood bath of Fallujah. ... The former Marine, having a bandolier of "golden eggs" (40mm grenades), would lob grenades as Ty directed; Within minutes the small six-man team had turned the tide: dead enemy littered the compound and the rest were confused and running for cover."

And this is supposed to advance the discussion? How exactly does it do that?

 

[A'isha]

So 16.5 is reading my posts.

He just refuses to answer my questions about the other information in the book (or, apparently, bother to post the quote I did even when he was directly asked to), I guess.

 

[RandFan]

So 16.5 is reading my posts.

He just refuses to answer my questions about the other information in the book (or, apparently, bother to post the quote I did even when he was directly asked to), I guess.

I guess. I think any pretense of objectivity in this thread from those who think the event indicative of something malign as opposed to interdepartmental squabble has evaporated.

The deaths are tragic but there is nothing here to warrant cover up. And even if there were (there is NOT) it would not be indicative of covering up a crime.

So, why are we here?

 

[The Big Dog]

What is amazing is the fact that Obama administration's stunt yesterday of selectively releasing ONE email now appears to be blowing back up in their faces. As I've already noted, both ABC and the Weekly Standard have responded to the accusations arising out of the Administrations selective (and politically motivated leak) by demanding the release of all of the e-mails.

We now know that the representations that the White House, such as the following:

The president also said "congressional committees" reviewed emails "several months ago" regarding changes to the talking points, and they "concluded that, in fact, there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used."

Were false, there was no such conclusion. Obama was referring to a February closed-door meeting in which senators viewed the emails as part of John Brennan's confirmation.

And now they leak one e-mail to tarnish ABC and the Weekly Standard (they were attacking AP elsewhere of course).

Sounds like Obama is bringing some old school Chicago politics into play. Appalling.

 

[RandFan]

It's easy to ignore everyone's question and babble on as if what you are saying is significant but what's the point in that? Oh well. That fact speaks far more loudly than what is being written by those who refuse to answer questions.

 

[marplots]

I guess. I think any pretense of objectivity in this thread from those who think the event indicative of something malign as opposed to interdepartmental squabble has evaporated.

The deaths are tragic but there is nothing here to warrant cover up. And even if there were (there is NOT) it would not be indicative of covering up a crime.

So, why are we here?

Well, I'm sure you are familiar with the mechanism whereby someone is dunned, not for any wrongdoing, but the actions they took to mislead investigators. I think Martha Stewart fell afoul of that one.

The conversation has moved past the "what happened" during the incident and over to "what was/is the reaction to the accusations." That opens up more for discussion because there's an endless round of demanding proof and uncovering various nuances about how the executive branch functions. At least some of those nuances will spawn additional slurs or outrage, and demands for even further disclosures.

Rinse, repeat.