New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

Another unanswered question is why in the hell the Administration sent Rice to do the dog and pony shows. The USA Today has a good analysis today that makes the point that all versions of the talking points said that the attack spontaneously arose out of anti-video protest (which turns out to be just about the only thing in the talking points that was wrong!)

So Rice takes them and runs with them.

The problem is the President of Libya just destroyed your only substantive talking point. And what does Rice do? She contradicts the President of Libya on the same show using wrong information!

That same afternoon, it predictably blows up in their faces:

Sept. 16: Magariaf says in an interview with NPR: “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.”

So why Rice? Why go on the talk shows at all? The next day Nuland is out on the shows carrying the Administration's water.

And now Nuland is bucking for a promotion? "Victoria Nuland, who is expected to be nominated to be assistant secretary of state for Europe in the near future." Fortunately, Libya ain't in Europe.

 

[RandFan]

Some questions that need addressed:

Do you hear me?
Do you care?

My lips are moving and the sound's coming out
The words are audible but I have my doubts
That you realize what has been said
You look at me as if you're in a daze
It's like the feeling at the end of the page
When you realize you don't know what you just read

What are words for?
When no one listens anymore?​

--Missing Persons

 

[elbe]

The problem is the President of Libya just destroyed your only substantive talking point. And what does Rice do? She contradicts the President of Libya on the same show using wrong information!

I know it's been asked before, but, seriously, why should she have to agree with a foreign head of state?

 

[RandFan]

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.

With the new IRS and phone record scandals I'm amazed that anyone wants to keep this alive. Then again, there's the essay by Sam Harris, The Fireplace Delusion (see video below). Perhaps some of these people are simply deluded that there really is something there and no facts will change that. Responding to questions only causes cognitive dissonance so better to avoid responding directly to critics and blindly keep spouting the same nonsense over and over.

 

[RandFan]

I know it's been asked before, but, seriously, why should she have to agree with a foreign head of state?

Exactly. That is what is known as a "diplomacy problem". Not much of a scandal in that fact alone. And equally as important, what evidence is there that anyone knew that what they were saying was factually incorrect? How does one account for inconsistencies in the CIA drafts and the interdepartmental squabble?

These are questions that are not likely to be answered because they are inconvenient.

 

[IDB87]

So why Rice? Why go on the talk shows at all?

Why have an intelligence community at all when we could just consult with foreign leaders about events happening abroad. I'm sure you will defer to the leaders of Pakistan regarding activities of the Taliban, yes?

 

[The Big Dog]

Lets talk more about Nuland. Here is what she was asked on the 17th:

"QUESTION: You would acknowledge, however, that the account of the events, the preliminary account of the events that Ambassador Rice offered, diverges starkly from the account offered by the Libyan President, correct?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve heard a number of different things from Libya. I would simply say that what – the comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our government’s initial assessment."

And yet Nuland knew that the initial talking points adhered much more closely to the Libyan's position than did Rice's.

 

[A'isha]

Here's some other excerpts from the book that 16.5 apparently doesn't want to talk about except to post irrelevant quotes from:

Did Ansar al-Sharia get inspired after seeing the Egyptians storming the US embassy in Cairo the day before? Did they get offended by an internet video? Did they choose 9/11 as the date of the attack because of the obvious symbolism? Maybe. But another contributing factor was JSOC [Joint Special Operations Command] operations in Libya, which kicked the hornets' nest and pissed of the militia.

[...]

Because [CIA director] John Brennan is running his own private war, he is not going through the normal chain of command, and operations are not deconflicted. Ambassador Stevens, for instance, was not read on to the JSOC operations in Libya. He was kept in the dark and ultimately killed in a retaliation he could never have seen coming. Likewise, the CIA never knew what hit them. They were trying to track down fissile material in Libya and had no way of knowing what was coming. In the days after the attack, even GRS [the CIA's Global Response Staff] employees thought that the consulate was hit because Ansar al-Sharia was upset over some YouTube videos.

The problem is exacerbate by the poor communication between different agencies. There has always been some bad blood between the CIA, the State Department, and the Department of Defense, but this has only gotten worse because of the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden in Abbotabad, Pakistan.

[...] [Here the authors describe the fallout for conventional and counterterrorist forces because of the animosity and lack of cooperation between those three agencies]

This is what really happened in Benghazi, and this is why the Obama administration is more than happy to have the media fixated on red herrings like poor security at the consulate or wound up in an intellectual Gordian knot about some YouTube video.

 

[elbe]

Lets talk more about Nuland. Here is what she was asked on the 17th:

"QUESTION: You would acknowledge, however, that the account of the events, the preliminary account of the events that Ambassador Rice offered, diverges starkly from the account offered by the Libyan President, correct?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve heard a number of different things from Libya. I would simply say that what – the comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our government’s initial assessment."

And yet Nuland knew that the initial talking points adhered much more closely to the Libyan's position than did Rice's.

But the initial talking point said it was spontaneous, which is what Rice said, but that's what the Libyan president said couldn't be true, right?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

I haven't seen any evidence of a different way of counting deaths (other than your unsubstantiated claim of 100 deaths at Benghazzi).

For example, in the August 1998 suicide truck bomb attacks on embassies in Dar Es Salaam and Nairobi, 224 were killed.

Even if you exclude the small number of suicide bombers, that leaves well over 200 comparable victims.

So, even if your alternate reality version of Benghazzi were true and 100 people were killed (but it's not, and they weren't), your claim that Benghazzi is the deadliest since Carter's term is overwhelmingly false.

 

[The Big Dog]

Why have an intelligence community at all when we could just consult with foreign leaders about events happening abroad. I'm sure you will defer to the leaders of Pakistan regarding activities of the Taliban, yes?

Do you have a serious question about the Diplomacy involved, or just straw men arguments?

 

[marplots]

But the initial talking point said it was spontaneous, which is what Rice said, but that's what the Libyan president said couldn't be true, right?

I think the diplomatic out on Rice's part was the, "still under investigation." But I'm not sure that's a real quote or just how I remember it.

 

[RandFan]

One more claim that lacks evidence.

And yet Nuland knew that the initial talking points adhered much more closely to the Libyan's position than did Rice's.

I know you refuse to answer questions. I don't know if we are all on ignore at this point. But would someone point out that if 16.5 can read minds then he should apply for the JREF's Million Dollar Challenge.

If he cannot read minds then he does not know what Nuland "knew". This is either an intentional lie, delusional, wishful thinking, etc. It's NOT a fact.

But then when did facts matter?

 

[The Big Dog]

That makes Benghazi the most deadly attack since the African Embassy Bombings in 1998 under Clinton.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22483768

So, even if your alternate reality version of Benghazzi were true and 100 people were killed (but it's not, and they weren't), your claim that Benghazzi is the deadliest since Carter's term is overwhelmingly false.

Now I know how Magariaf feels.

 

[elbe]

I think the diplomatic out on Rice's part was the, "still under investigation." But I'm not sure that's a real quote or just how I remember it.

Even if she didn't want to cause this imagined diplomatic incident, how much leeway would she have been given to diverge from the talking points she was given?

 

[RandFan]

I think the diplomatic out on Rice's part was the, "still under investigation." But I'm not sure that's a real quote or just how I remember it.

Another inconvenient fact for 16.5.

Rice says Benghazi comments based on preliminary intelligence

 

[RandFan]

Now I know how Magariaf feels.

For some, feelings trump facts. I know that is taken out of context and I concede that was not your meaning. I don't mean to simply take a cheap shot at you but given that you refuse to address questions I think it appropriate. I think all you and Magariaf have are feelings and nothing more against the administration.

The "scandal" is the result of an interdepartmental squabble. It might be a diplomatic bungle but it's not criminal. It's not actionable.

 

[marplots]

Even if she didn't want to cause this imagined diplomatic incident, how much leeway would she have been given to diverge from the talking points she was given?

I doubt much leeway at all. Diplomats are pretty good at sticking with the spirit, if not the letter, of what they are allowed to say. After all, the job (at least in the field) is to be the "voice of America" while staying within your remit. I'm guessing she was chosen for the news show role precisely because she would keep her own opinions out of the mix.

It doesn't seem likely she would have been able to have any substantive dialogue with the President of Libya, even if she had the opportunity. Best path would be not to directly contradict him, which I think she managed.

 

[The Big Dog]

Now I know how Magariaf feels.

BOB SCHIEFFER: And you believe that this was the work of al Qaeda and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that-- is that what you are telling us?

MOHAMED YOUSEF EL-MAGARIAF: It was planned-- definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who-- who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their-- since their arrival.

…..

BOB SCHIEFFER: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?

SUSAN RICE (Ambassador to the United Nations): Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and--

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.

SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy--

BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.

SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

.....

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

D'OH!

/this was of course the point where Greg Hicks jaw dropped open

 

[A'isha]

SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy--

This is almost verbatim from the CIA's own assessment since long before anyone at State ever saw the talking points.