New Disclosures on Benghazi

[TellyKNeasuss]

There appears to be some misinformation here. Congress has issued a "deposition" subpoena, which is pre-hearing interview, on the record and under oath.

Pickering will then testify in an open hearing before the entire Committee.

There does appear to be some unnecessary acrimony between Issa and Pickering. As noted in this thread, Pickering was asked to testify in March, and did not.

He then pulled what I have called a "stunt" by claiming that he was prepared to voluntarily appear and testify on the same day the whistleblowers were already scheduled to testify.

Hmmm. I seem to recall Pickering saying that he wanted to testify several days before Issa went on Meet the Press to say that Pickering refused to testify.

 

[RandFan]

Benghazi Backfires on Republicans as Democrats Eviscerate Issa and the GOP

The GOP’s Benghazi house of cards has collapsed, and now Democrats are eviscerating Darrell Issa and his fellow Republicans for overreaching and politicizing a tragedy.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform blasted Rep. Darrell Issa for going back on his word to hold a public hearing with the Accountability Review Board that examined the security situation in Benghazi.

Today’s subpoena is a stark example of extreme Republican overreach and the shameful politicization of this tragedy. Chairman Issa’s accusations keep getting shot down one by one, but he simply resorts to even more extreme measures. After falsely accusing former Secretary Clinton of lying to Congress, falsely accusing the White House of deliberately misleading the American people, and falsely accusing the military of withholding critical assistance on the night of the attacks, the Chairman is now accusing Admiral Mullen, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Ambassador Pickering, a seven-time U.S. ambassador, of being complicit in a cover-up.

Both Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering have made clear that they stand ready and willing to testify at a public hearing to respond directly to these reckless accusations, but Chairman Issa is now imposing new conditions to keep them behind closed doors. The Chairman should reverse his decision, conduct a responsible and bipartisan investigation, and allow the American people to hear directly from these officials.

 

[RandFan]

CBS Calls Out Republicans For Debunked Benghazi Emails

Just more than a day after the White House released 100 pages of emails relating to September's terrorist attack in Benghazi, it's clear that Republican-leaked emails portraying bombshell revelations about the White House's involvement are misleading.

CBS' Major Garrett called out Republicans for those emails in a report Thursday, saying the GOP-leaked versions of the emails clearly try to downplay the CIA's role in shaping the talking points and place more emphasis on the State Department.

In particular, the GOP-leaked emails centered on correspondences from National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

Here is what multiple outlets, including CBS, reported last week that Rhodes had written:

"We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

The actual email released by the White House differs significantly and places no emphasis on the State Department:

"We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

 

[The Big Dog]

Hmmm. I seem to recall Pickering saying that he wanted to testify several days before Issa went on Meet the Press to say that Pickering refused to testify.

Yes, my subsequent post addresses that Pickering announced the morning that Hicks and the other whistle blowers were already scheduled that he wanted to testify.

Basically a political stunt. Kind of sad.

 

[The Big Dog]

I expected some substantive discussion on the Administration's "we were incompetent, not malicious" admission. I see some old quotes to partisan left wing blogs attacking the press and Issa but nothing about the admissions from last night?

Huh.

 

[A'isha]

CBS is a left wing blog?

And what about what the administration said? Is it something that still requires repeated Congressional hearings and testimony behind closed doors? Can you use it to tell is what the actual scandal[/I ] is regarding Benghazi now?

 

[The Big Dog]

There appears to be some misinformation here. Congress has issued a "deposition" subpoena, which is pre-hearing interview, on the record and under oath.

Pickering will then testify in an open hearing before the entire Committee.

There does appear to be some unnecessary acrimony between Issa and Pickering. As noted in this thread, Pickering was asked to testify in March, and did not.

He then pulled what I have called a "stunt" by claiming that he was prepared to voluntarily appear and testify on the same day the whistleblowers were already scheduled to testify.

In a major breakthrough, CBS is reporting tonight that the Administration Officials have acknowledged that errors were made:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584921/officials-on-benghazi-we-made-mistakes-but-without-malice/?tag=socsh

"We're portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots," said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. "It's actually closer to us being idiots."

The list of mea culpas by Obama administration officials involved in the Benghazi response and aftermath include: standing down the counterterrorism Foreign Emergency Support Team, failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, failing to release the disputed Benghazi "talking points" when Congress asked for them, and using the word "spontaneous" while avoiding the word "terrorism."

/sounds like issues that have been raised in this thread.

CBS is a left wing blog?

And what about what the administration said? Is it something that still requires repeated Congressional hearings and testimony behind closed doors? Can you use it to tell is what the actual scandal[/I ] is regarding Benghazi now?

No, CBS is not a left wing blog. Lolz

Pickering will testify in open session before Congress.

Say, while I have your attention, who attended the deputies conference?

 

[A'isha]

No, CBS is not a left wing blog. Lolz

Is Business Insider a left wing blog?

Because you seem to be spending all your attention on the fact that RandFan posted a Media Matters link, and ignoring the fact that CBS called out Republicans for giving Jon Karl demonstrably false information about what the emails said.

Pickering will testify in open session before Congress.

And I will be quite interested to see what you have to say about his testimony, when that happens.

Say, while I have your attention, who attended the deputies conference?

Probably all the participants in the email discussion about the memo.

Why do you think that's relevant?

 

[The Big Dog]

Is Business Insider a left wing blog?

Because you seem to be spending all your attention on the fact that RandFan posted a Media Matters link, and ignoring the fact that CBS called out Jon Karl for reporting demonstrably false information about what the emails said.

And I will be quite interested to see what you have to say about his testimony, when that happens.

Probably all the participants in the email discussion about the memo.

Why do you think that's relevant?

All my attention? You seem to have missed the fact that the main thrust of my question was the lack of substantive discussion regarding the CBS article. I see the witch hunt regarding John Karl is active. Do you think he should be fired or just politically humiliated because that seems to be your key take away here

You think the deputies conference included the participants in the email chain? Huh. I think it was the NSC led by the president's national security advisor. In fact, your suggestion doesn't make any sense. Think we'll ever find out?

I am pleasantly surprised that you are looking forward to the open testimony, as am I (even though Pickering is acting like a partisan politician). I expect that the White House will tamp down his excitability. They are finally wishing up that their stonewalling really wasn't working.

 

[A'isha]

All my attention? You seem to have missed the fact that the main thrust of my question was the lack of substantive discussion regarding the CBS article.

What, specifically, would you like to discuss about the CBS article?

I see the witch hunt regarding John Karl is active. Do you think he should be fired or just politically humiliated because that seems to be your key take away here

He's certainly a rather poor journalist, if he doesn't bother to check his sources, consider his sources obvious biases, and make false representations that he's directly quoting from emails he saw himself rather than making it clear that he's merely passing on what someone else claimed to him that the emails said.

You think the deputies conference included the participants in the email chain? Huh. I think it was the NSC led by the president's national security advisor. In fact, your suggestion doesn't make any sense. Think we'll ever find out?

I was assuming you were referring to the meeting on the morning of the 15th to discuss the talking points memo. If not, which deputies conference do you mean?

I am pleasantly surprised that you are looking forward to the open testimony, as am I (even though Pickering is acting like a partisan politician).

Why are you surprised? He wrote the ARB Report, after all.

I expect that the White House will tamp down his excitability. They are finally wishing up that their stonewalling really wasn't working.

The White House just let the Republicans hang themselves with their own rope over the whole email thing. I think maybe it's all this "ZOMG investigate Benghazi!" nonsense from the Republicans that really isn't working.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, my subsequent post addresses that Pickering announced the morning that Hicks and the other whistle blowers were already scheduled that he wanted to testify.

Basically a political stunt. Kind of sad.

No, it's NOT a stunt. He declined to testify and then offered to testify. Offering to testify is not refusing to testify. When Issa said Pickering had refused to testify, he, Issa, was flat out lying. Pickering is ready and willing to testify if Issa won't pull the stunt of "behind closed doors" BS. After that Issa can put off any open hearings with Pickering forever.

Let's have some honesty and transparency. To date we've had lies and manipulation from this hearing.

 

[RandFan]

Benghazi Backfires on Republicans as Democrats Eviscerate Issa and the GOP

The GOP’s Benghazi house of cards has collapsed, and now Democrats are eviscerating Darrell Issa and his fellow Republicans for overreaching and politicizing a tragedy.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform blasted Rep. Darrell Issa for going back on his word to hold a public hearing with the Accountability Review Board that examined the security situation in Benghazi.

Today’s subpoena is a stark example of extreme Republican overreach and the shameful politicization of this tragedy. Chairman Issa’s accusations keep getting shot down one by one, but he simply resorts to even more extreme measures. After falsely accusing former Secretary Clinton of lying to Congress, falsely accusing the White House of deliberately misleading the American people, and falsely accusing the military of withholding critical assistance on the night of the attacks, the Chairman is now accusing Admiral Mullen, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Ambassador Pickering, a seven-time U.S. ambassador, of being complicit in a cover-up.

Both Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering have made clear that they stand ready and willing to testify at a public hearing to respond directly to these reckless accusations, but Chairman Issa is now imposing new conditions to keep them behind closed doors. The Chairman should reverse his decision, conduct a responsible and bipartisan investigation, and allow the American people to hear directly from these officials.

What is a reasonable argument for Issa's behavior?

CBS Calls Out Republicans For Debunked Benghazi Emails

Just more than a day after the White House released 100 pages of emails relating to September's terrorist attack in Benghazi, it's clear that Republican-leaked emails portraying bombshell revelations about the White House's involvement are misleading.

CBS' Major Garrett called out Republicans for those emails in a report Thursday, saying the GOP-leaked versions of the emails clearly try to downplay the CIA's role in shaping the talking points and place more emphasis on the State Department.

In particular, the GOP-leaked emails centered on correspondences from National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

Here is what multiple outlets, including CBS, reported last week that Rhodes had written:

"We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

The actual email released by the White House differs significantly and places no emphasis on the State Department:

"We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

Why did the GOP doctor the emails?

 

[A'isha]

Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised?

Next we come to the claim that the president and his team removed the references to al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations as well as references to prior warnings about terrorist activity. If this were the case, you would expect to see some effort by the White House voices in the email traffic toward this goal. It's not there. The opposite is the case. In the initial round of emails, one CIA official reports that the White House signed off right away on the full initial CIA assessment. "The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns," reads an email that a CIA official sent to CIA director David Petraeus. So rather than being the authors of the bowdlerizing effort, the White House was just fine with the fully caffeinated version that mentions Ansar al-Sharia, al-Qaida, and that the CIA had produced numerous warnings about extremists in Benghazi. White House aides reviewed the talking points, made no substantive changes, and moved them along.

[...]

The original talking points authored by the CIA were wrong about the spontaneity of the uprising, but they substantiated the idea that there was a broader terrorist threat on the ground. The final product that informed Susan Rice's talk show appearances was both wrong and bland. What's clear from the email exchanges is that the State Department insisted on the changes for a mix of ass-covering and self-defense reasons. Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokesperson, didn't want to give Congressional critics talking points that could be used against the State Department. That would no doubt please her former boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, who had a very stingy view about what Congress had a right to hear when it came to national security matters.

Cheney was among those this week pushing the idea that the president concocted the story of a spontaneous riot to protect his election chances. That the CIA analysts fed the president intelligence that turned out to be imprecise would no doubt be insufficient for the former vice president, though Cheney had a similar experience. He cites the CIA as the source of his long-held incorrect view that Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attacks. (If he weren't on the other side of the ideological divide, perhaps he and the president could commiserate over how hard it is to get a story straight.)

 

[The Big Dog]

Quote: "I was assuming you were referring to the meeting on the morning of the 15th to discuss the talking points memo. If not, which deputies conference do you mean?"

I was referring to that meeting, as I pointed out the CBS article noted that we don't know who attended the meeting. We do know that Petreaus said it was NSS's call. It wasn't the people on the email chain, other than the guy from the CIA and Obama' speechwriter.

/PoliticusUSA. Sounds legit. lolz. By the way, if anyone claims that "the GOP" doctored the e-mails THAT HAD NOT BEEN RELEASED AND WERE NOT RELEASED UNTIL THIS WEEK, you know they are lying.

 

[The Big Dog]

Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised?

May 16th was Thursday. CBS published something PRETTY important Friday.

 

[A'isha]

I was referring to that meeting, as I pointed out the CBS article noted that we don't know who attended the meeting.

And, again, why do you think that's relevant?

We do know that Petreaus said it was NSS's call. It wasn't the people on the email chain, other than the guy from the CIA and Obama' speechwriter.

Determining when the discussion was over and that the version of the talking points that State/CIA had worked out would be the version released to the public was the NSS' call. The White House, as the email chain clearly states, had already given their own approvals to the early pre-edited draft.

On what basis are you claiming that the people involved in the email discussion about the memo were not at the meeting about the memo? The White House did not share State's concerns (else they wouldn't have signed off on the earlier draft), but they were interested in making sure that all the other agencies signed off on it. So why wouldn't the meeting involve the people that still had issues with the memo (which didn't include the White House)?

/PoliticusUSA. Sounds legit. lolz. By the way, if anyone claims that "the GOP" doctored the e-mails THAT HAD NOT BEEN RELEASED AND WERE NOT RELEASED UNTIL THIS WEEK, you know they are lying.

They doctored the emails that they released, not that the White House released...that's what Jon Karl was reporting on and quoting, what he was told were the actual emails. The White House had shown the emails to Republicans in Congress back during the Brennan confirmation hearings, and Republicans in Congress then made false claims to the press about what those emails said.

 

[A'isha]

May 16th was Thursday. CBS published something PRETTY important Friday.

What did CBS publish on Friday that contradicts anything in that article?

Quote it.

 

[RandFan]

May 16th was Thursday. CBS published something PRETTY important Friday.

Oh, well, PRETTY important. Now that you've made that claim it settles it. That's that. You folks can stop posting in this thread. Something PRETTY important was revealed. Put a fork in it, it's done. Scandal city.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what it, the "pretty important" something, is? Why has this thread consisted of so many vague claims and disparate data? It's been whack a mole after whack a mole.

Whatever happened to "they could have sent planes"? Whatever happened to "they could have sent more men"?

How many times has something been announced breathlessly only to be ignored later?

Does anyone have compelling evidence that this is more than an interdepartmental squabble based in part on preliminary and contradictory data?

 

[RandFan]

This thread started 11 days ago. We are now 33 pages and 1300+ posts. Surely by now someone can post a coherent answer to the question, where's the beef? Add to that 3 hearings and 8 months have passed. There has been an investigation and a report. At some point the fishing expedition needs to stop and the case needs to be made.

Please someone, make the case. If you honestly believe that there is a case to be made then make it. DON'T FORGET YOUR CITATIONS.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh, well, PRETTY important. Now that you've made that claim it settles it. That's that. You folks can stop posting in this thread. Something PRETTY important was revealed. Put a fork in it, it's done. Scandal city.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what it, the "pretty important" something, is? Why has this thread consisted of so many vague claims and disparate data? It's been whack a mole after whack a mole.

Whatever happened to "they could have sent planes"? Whatever happened to "they could have sent more men"?

How many times has something been announced breathlessly only to be ignored later?

Does anyone have compelling evidence that this is more than an interdepartmental squabble based in part on preliminary and contradictory data?

JAQ'ing off? Lolz.