New Disclosures on Benghazi

[RandFan]

More detail on Carney:

Carney, in particular, is likely to face tough questioning about the contents of the emails because he made claims to reporters that were untrue. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two – of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because the word ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” he told reporters on November 28, 2012.

That’s not true. An email sent at 9:15 PM on September 14, from an official in the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs to others at the agency, described the process this way. “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind.”

Which proves what? You are throwing out dots and expecting us to connect them ala truthers. That's not enough. You need to make a case. You have been all across the board on this moving goal posts as fast as you can and throwing all kinds of mud against the wall with little if any sticking.

Anything untoward commited due to Benghazi was an intedepartmental squable caused by people not knowing exactly what happened and CYA. Not our finest hour but:

• No crime
• No Malice
• No coordinated cover up

 

[A'isha]

On my review (and others) it does not appear that the You Tube video that was front and center on September 16 was even mentioned in the talking points, or the e-mail string.

Can anyone confirm that it was?

If not why did that become part of the Administration's erroneous story?

The memo talked about the protests at the Embassy in Cairo being the cause of the demonstrations and attacks in Benghazi.

What were the protesters in Cairo protesting about, 16.5?

 

[The Big Dog]

On Page 61, as of Friday: "Fyi FBI says AQ (not AQIM) was involved and they are pursuing that theory."

“AQ”= al-Qaeda; “AQIM” = “al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb."

Looks like someone was cherry picking facts in preparation for the Sunday Morning news programs. I would not mind that we were lied to, if there was a reason to do so. But to do so when there was no reason to do so, and to continue to do so after the President of Libya PUBLICLY fingered AQ (based in part in intelligence that WE gave him)?

That is completely beyond the pale.

 

[RandFan]

On my review (and others) it does not appear that the You Tube video that was front and center on September 16 was even mentioned in the talking points, or the e-mail string.

Can anyone confirm that it was?

If not why did that become part of the Administration's erroneous story?

JAQing. This has been answered over and over. You are question begging. They did not KNOW what was the correct story. There was contradiction and confusion from the beginning.

 

[RandFan]

On Page 61, as of Friday: "Fyi FBI says AQ (not AQIM) was involved and they are pursuing that theory."

“AQ”= al-Qaeda; “AQIM” = “al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb."

Looks like someone was cherry picking facts in preparation for the Sunday Morning news programs. I would not mind that we were lied to, if there was a reason to do so. But to do so when there was no reason to do so, and to continue to do so after the President of Libya PUBLICLY fingered AQ (based in part in intelligence that WE gave him)?

That is completely beyond the pale.

Looks like there was confusion and an interdepartmental squabble about what was right and what was wrong. For their part the CIA hedged their bets and included both scenarios. The state dept chose to exclude the coordinated attack point. Both were doing CYA.

• There was no crime.
• There was no malice.

 

[A'isha]

That is completely beyond the pale.

How?!

You keep saying this, and yet none of the things you're singling out actually seem to actually be anything noteworthy, much less scandalous.

 

[The Big Dog]

I still remain baffled by the reference to "run some traps" in Tommy Vietor's email.

I have no idea whatsoever what that means. Any help?

/I'll probably get accused of "JAQ'ing off." But it is not about me. Rolls eyes.

 

[A'isha]

I still remain baffled by the reference to "run some traps" in Tommy Vietor's email.

I have no idea whatsoever what that means. Any help?

Probably a reference to Nuland's request that the talking points not provide ammunition to the Republicans who were already seizing on what happened in Benghazi and Cairo for partisan political gain.

/I'll probably get accused of "JAQ'ing off." But it is not about me. Rolls eyes.

You're the only one left in this thread still trying to push the "scandal" nonsense.

 

[RandFan]

I still remain baffled by the reference to "run some traps" in Tommy Vietor's email.

I have no idea whatsoever what that means. Any help?

/I'll probably get accused of "JAQ'ing off." But it is not about me. Rolls eyes.

Some people are getting tired of the JAQ'ing off.

Getting tired of folks JAQ'ing off.

Rolls eyes.

 

[AlBell]

And I would point out that those questions should relate to all of these attacks on diplomatic facilities and not focus in on Bengazzi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

But that's not what's going on. This attack, for no valid reason, has been politicized in an attempt to create a scandal.

The valid questions you're asking should be asked about all the terrorist attacks on diplomatic facilities. If nothing else, the broader sample size is more likely to provide useful generalizations rather than turning up a bunch of minutia and causing defensiveness.

Now please demonstrate where and when any previous administration tried to blame it on a utube video. Bush-Cheney-Rummy would have had no problem declaring it a terrorist attack, not an act of terror per Obamaspeak.

 

[A'isha]

Now please demonstrate where and when any previous administration tried to blame it on a utube video.

Why do you think that had anything to do with the administration?

There actually was a YouTube video that was the cause of the Cairo embassy protests, and that the CIA thought the Benghazi attack was related to those protests over a video.

Bush-Cheney-Rummy would have had no problem declaring it a terrorist attack, not an act of terror per Obamaspeak.

You do know that Bush also called 9/11 an "act of terror", right?

 

[RandFan]

Another fact that will be ignored:

Now please demonstrate where and when any previous administration tried to blame it on a utube video. Bush-Cheney-Rummy would have had no problem declaring it a terrorist attack, not an act of terror per Obamaspeak.

Now we have a semantical argument. Really Al? Really?

Bush calls Hamas attacks an 'act of terror' - World news

Per "Bush speak"?

 

[IDB87]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ent-squabbling-in-benghazi-emails.php?ref=fpb



Can we stick a fork in this "scandal" now? Because it is done.

B...bb..but impeachment....

 

[IDB87]

I still remain baffled by the reference to "run some traps" in Tommy Vietor's email.

Running the traps means testing the waters with an idea or process to see what reaction you'd get. Basically it's damage prevention and control.

 

[Upchurch]

My preferred conclusion? And what would that be?

That something scandalous happened here.

You do think something scandalous happened here, don't you? If so, what, exactly?

 

[RandFan]

B...bb..but impeachment....

It just might have to wait awhile. Don't be a cynic. Keep the hope alive. We can't start assuming that scandals like Benghazi, F&F, Obama's illegal status and the fact that he is a radical Christian Muslim distract us from our goal.

Premise: Obama or someone high in the Obama admin has done something wrong.
Plan of action: Find out who that someone was and find out what that something is.
Goal: Use this information to gain seats in the House and win back both the Senate and presidency in 2016 and take back America.

Let's go folks. Liberty and freedom are precious and we can only save them by fighting for our principles. Save marriage. Stop the illegals from coming to this country. Stop illegals from voting. Keep drugs illegal. Protect the banks from regulators. Our best hope is to win back the white house and the Senate.

Please purchase gold coins and remember that our nation can only thrive as a Christian nation. America is god's shiny city on a hill. Let your light so shine that people will see your good works and let them know that we are servants of the most high god. --Matthew 5:16

"Choose ye this day whom you will serve" --Joshua 24:15

Who will it be? God or the godless secularist and sodomites who were sent here by Satan to destroy this nation. The Bible says it. I believe it and that settles it.

satire and hyperbolic. I do not claim that anyone in this thread are making these arguments. This is how I see much of the GOP today.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I earlier mentioned the exchanged between Issa and Pickering on TV Sunday. Apparently Issa only wants Pickering and Mullen to meet behind closed doors. (Despite accusing Pickering of refusing to testify before the oversight committee--something that was blatantly false.)
Pickering and Mullen have now written a letter to Issa offering to testify publicly.

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/0...issa-to-let-them-testify-in-public/?hpt=hp_t2

It's almost as if Issa is more concerned about how their statements will make him look to the public than he is about getting at the truth.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That something scandalous happened here.

You do think something scandalous happened here, don't you? If so, what, exactly?

Again, I was so wrong in predicting this thread would fail to yield any substantive talk on U.S. politics and would only give us CT-type discussion!

16.5's questions aren't at all the kind of vague insinuations that something was wrong without ever presenting an allegation he's willing to defend.

(Seriously, how many times did he ask why Susan Rice and why not someone else? As if asking this question was somehow evidence of a scandal. As if you couldn't ask the same question no matter who the spokesperson was.)

 

[The Big Dog]

Running the traps means testing the waters with an idea or process to see what reaction you'd get. Basically it's damage prevention and control.

Thank you very much for that response. I was not familiar with that phrase.

 

[The Big Dog]

That something scandalous happened here.

You do think something scandalous happened here, don't you? If so, what, exactly?

That the talking points were grossly inadequate and incorrect? Is there any dispute about that?

That the talking points were not based on the best intelligence? Is that disputed?

I agree with the then head of the CIA:

"No mention of the cable to Cairo, either? Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this, then ... NSS's call, to be sure; however, this is certainly not what Vice Chairman Ruppersberger was hoping to get for unclas use. Regardless, thx for the great work."

That after the President of Libya called the talking points preposterous and far fetched, that there should have been a major reevaluation of the talking points. We know that didn't happen.

That the White House spokesman should have been more forthcoming about the nature of the changes? No doubt.