New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

It seems to me that Hicks is accusing the Libyan president of holding up an international investigation because he acts like a petulant child. That's a far more damaging claim than ambassador Rice not agreeing high him on some Sunday gab show.

It always amazes me when someone thinks "well Joe hurt their fee fees, so they acted in a ridiculous and unprofessional manner" is an accusation against Joe.

Well it is helpful to keep in mind the context:

Libyan Ambassador: It was Quaddafi's folks
Ambassador Jones: No it was Ansar Al Sharia affiliated with Al Quaeda

....

President Magariaf: It was a planned Al Quaeda operation!
Ambassador rice: No it was spontaneous attack arising out of a protest.

.....

By the way, President Magariaf can the FBI come into your sovereign nation and conduct an investigation? No one watches Face the Nation anyway.

 

[A'isha]

Well it is helpful to keep in mind the context:

Yes, it is.

By the way, President Magariaf can the FBI come into your sovereign nation and conduct an investigation? No one watches Face the Nation anyway.

"By the way, President Magariaf can the FBI come into your sovereign nation that we just helped you overthrow the dictator of so you could actually be president and conduct an investigation into what happened to our diplomatic staff in your country?"

"No! You took the word of your own country's intelligence service that was actually in the city where the attacks occurred as the attacks happened and that did the bulk of the fighting against the attackers over my word."

 

[The Big Dog]

Just a smattering of things happening today:

Looks like people agree that the e-mails should be made public:

David Axelrod: On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Mr. Axelrod suggested that the White House should go further, saying, “I think they would benefit from getting all these emails out in public.”

In addition, I continued digging into why Rice was on the Sunday shows: there is an indication that she was already scheduled to go on the shows. In other words I answered my own question. Looks like someone just forgot to prep her.

In addition, a former member of the Obama crew said he didn't think there was anything too outrageous about the changes to the talking points (although he admitted the protest angle was BS, and Carney should not have claimed they made one change). Which makes me wonder if someone will answer ask him why they stuck to the talking points after they blew up in their faces on the 16th.

 

[elbe]

Looks like people agree that the e-mails should be made public:

I wonder how many people go around thinking government emails shouldn't be made public.

 

[Cleon]

Looks like people agree that the e-mails should be made public:

White House releases 100 pages of Benghazi emails.

 

[The Big Dog]

White House releases 100 pages of Benghazi emails.

Oh! So much information.

Look at page 95, what is the "cable to Cairo"?

It looks like the person who wrote that e-mail knew that it wasn't going to go over well.

The email to which yesterday's leak was responding to is on page 56.

"States desire to run some traps." WTF?

 

[A'isha]

The email to which yesterday's leak was responding to is on page 56.

Yes, and it definitively torpedoes the excuse Jon Karl's source was feeding him. The emails that Rhodes was replying to when he said "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation" appear to be specifically about the "DOJ equities" mentioned in the email immediately before that, and the desire to check with DOJ separately from the FBI about the federal investigation in the email immediately before that one.

And take note of a follow-up email, which says that "the White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns", and "the Bureau cleared with a few comments but asked that Justice, which would handle any criminal prosecution, be brought in".

EDIT: And pay special attention to the email on page 91 which says that "As mentioned last night, State had voiced strong concerns with the original text due to the criminal investigation".

2nd EDIT: It's also odd that 16.5 focused on a "cable to Cairo", since Cairo is not in Libya...it is, however, where there were protests about an anti-Islam video that the CIA talking points said that the Benghazi attack spontaneously arose out of.

 

[RandFan]

Oh! So much information.

Look at page 95, what is the "cable to Cairo"?

JAQ'ing off?

 

[The Big Dog]

One thing I notice on a quick read through is that the State department is concerned about a "criminal investigation" while neither the FBI nor the CIA are concerned about it.

Of course the state Department had sent an e-mail to the Libyan Ambassador that week identifying Ansar al Sharia.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, and it definitively torpedoes the excuse Jon Karl's source was feeding him. The emails that Rhodes was replying to when he said "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation" appear to be specifically about the "DOJ equities" mentioned in the email immediately before that, and the desire to check with DOJ separately from the FBI about the federal investigation in the email immediately before that one.

And take note of a follow-up email, which says that "the White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns", and "the Bureau cleared with a few comments but asked that Justice, which would handle any criminal prosecution, be brought in".

EDIT: And pay special attention to the email on page 91 which says that "As mentioned last night, State had voiced strong concerns with the original text due to the criminal investigation".

2nd EDIT: It's also odd that 16.5 focused on a "cable to Cairo", since Cairo is not in Libya...it is, however, where there were protests about an anti-Islam video that the CIA talking points said that the Benghazi attack spontaneously arose out of.

I wish there were someone who could address these points.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh! So much information.

Look at page 95, what is the "cable to Cairo"?

It looks like the person who wrote that e-mail knew that it wasn't going to go over well.

The email to which yesterday's leak was responding to is on page 56.

"States desire to run some traps." WTF?

Wait a minute, is the author of the email on page 95 David Howell Petraeus?? The director of the CIA? He wrote that he would frankly not use this, and said that it wasn't what Chairmen Ruppersberger was hoping to get? He mentioned that the cable to Cairo was not mentioned either?

I have confirmed that it was Petraeus.

 

[The Big Dog]

Wait a minute, is the author of the email on page 95 David Howell Petraeus?? The director of the CIA? He wrote that he would frankly not use this, and said that it wasn't what Chairmen Ruppersberger was hoping to get? He mentioned that the cable to Cairo was not mentioned either?

I have confirmed that it was Petraeus.

Petraeus responded at 2:27 saying he'd prefer not to even use them in that form.

But he said the decision was up to the White House's national security staff.

"NSS's call, to be sure; however, this is certainly not what Vice Chairman (Dutch) Ruppersberger was hoping to get for unclas use. Regardless, thanks for the great work."

Ruppersberger is the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

 

[A'isha]

I literally have no idea what 16.5 thinks is so noteworthy about that, much less deserving of a "wow".

Especially given Petraeus' emphasis on a cable to Cairo - the only connection Cairo has to Benghazi is (as I pointed out above) the protests over the video there that the CIA thought inspired the attacks.

 

[uke2se]

I literally have no idea what 16.5 thinks is so noteworthy about that, much less deserving of a "wow".

Especially given Petraeus' emphasis on a cable to Cairo - the only connection Cairo has to Benghazi is (as I pointed out above) the protests over the video there that the CIA thought inspired the attacks.

He appears to be having a fruitful conversation with himself, though. Perhaps we should leave him to it?

 

[RandFan]

Wait a minute, is the author of the email on page 95 David Howell Petraeus?? The director of the CIA? He wrote that he would frankly not use this, and said that it wasn't what Chairmen Ruppersberger was hoping to get? He mentioned that the cable to Cairo was not mentioned either?

I have confirmed that it was Petraeus.

OH - MY - GOD!

Well, that's it then....


BTW: Can someone let me in on what "it" is? Hell if I know.

 

[The Big Dog]

When I speculate, I say I am speculating:

I believe based on best available intelligence that the Cable to Cairo is a cable assessing the security at Benghazi sent over the summer of 2012.

/I checked for a substantive response, but came away with the distinct impression that Benghazi Bad Guy Number 1 is: 16.5.

 

[The Big Dog]

Based on Petraeus last email, my view is that the claim that talking points were based on the best intelligence available is complete BS.

Bad Guy 16.5 Signing off.

 

[A'isha]

Why would they send a cable about Benghazi to Cairo? They aren't even in the same country!

 

[RandFan]

When I speculate, I say I am speculating:

I believe based on best available intelligence that the Cable to Cairo is a cable assessing the security at Benghazi sent over the summer of 2012.

/I checked for a substantive response, but came away with the distinct impression that Benghazi Bad Guy Number 1 is: 16.5.

Based on Petraeus last email, my view is that the claim that talking points were based on the best intelligence available is complete BS.

Bad Guy 16.5 Signing off.

Playing the martyr card won't alter the fact that a number of people have posted arguments, made points and presented facts contrary to the claims you have made and they have simply been ignored.

 

[RandFan]

Why would they send a cable about Benghazi to Cairo? They aren't even in the same country!

Connect the dots. Just because dots are disparate and unrelated doesn't mean that you can't draw inferences from connecting them.