New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

My view is there is no way those insiders are not talking to CBS without the express permission of Senior Administration officials.

I am a little disturbed that Kennedy made the call to stand down FEST, it does not seem to have been his call.

This sort of thing is exactly why we keep talking about conspiracy theories in this thread, 16.5.

 

[The Big Dog]

This sort of thing is exactly why we keep talking about conspiracy theories in this thread, 16.5.

And I believe that people talk about conspiracy theories in this thread because they would prefer not to talk about the substance.

You made a substantive point in your last post, can't we focus on that?

 

[RandFan]

Still waiting for anything substantive and conclusive:

Mitch McConnell Backs Away From GOP Claims Of A Benghazi Cover Up

On Sunday, during an appearance on Meet The Press, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — the GOP leader in the senate — distanced himself from Republican efforts to portray the Obama administration’s response to the attacks on a U.S. diplomatic issue in Benghazi, Libya as a Watergate-level scandal that should result in impeachment.

During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) also admitted that he did not know if the Obama administration engaged in a “cover-up” of the Benghazi attacks.

Three hearings and an investigation and they only think we know is that the talking point memo was altered and it was wrong.

There is no conclusive evidence that the administration broke any laws or directed anyone to cover up any crime.

 

[RandFan]

And I believe that people talk about conspiracy theories in this thread because they would prefer not to talk about the substance.

I'm more than happy to talk substance.

 

[A'isha]

You made a substantive point in your last post, can't we focus on that?

What point would that be?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And I believe that people talk about conspiracy theories in this thread because they would prefer not to talk about the substance.

You made a substantive point in your last post, can't we focus on that?

Yeah right. You duck and evade the simplest direct questions--what is the point of this thread? What exactly are you alleging? --yet you accuse us of being unwilling to deal with any substantive issues.

And I continue to believe this thread belongs in the CT subforum for two reasons: 1) it's about a theory of a conspiracy of some sort and 2) it's not likely to generate any discussion on policy or politics, only endless discussion that involves loaded questions, insinuations and tedious analysis of who knew what when.

 

[The Big Dog]

What point would that be?

The point that the Administration "argued" that sending FEST would not have made a difference to saving lives, and that is a fair point, as far as it goes.

The problem is:

1. that was an unknown at the time the decision was made (i.e the Ambassador was still unaccounted for)

2. the fact that FEST was not sent hampered the subsequent investigation.

 

[A'isha]

1. that was an unknown at the time the decision was made (i.e the Ambassador was still unaccounted for)

It also wasn't the argument used at the time, so I have no idea why you think that's relevant.

2. the fact that FEST was not sent hampered the subsequent investigation.

Funny, I thought your claim was that Rice's comments angering the President of Libya hampered the subsequent investigation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Three hearings and an investigation and they only think we know is that the talking point memo was altered and it was wrong.

And I don't think we even know for sure it was wrong at this point. It could well have been as I said, that some group was planning an attack at some point though they hadn't planned on that specific date but instead struck when they saw the opportunity afforded by the protests. I've yet to see any evidence that the protests were staged, which IMO would be necessary to declare the preliminary assessment to have been wrong.

There is no conclusive evidence that the administration broke any laws or directed anyone to cover up any crime.

Nor is there even any reasonable basis for thinking they would have done any such thing. As I said, attempting to deflect responsibility for the deaths would in fact be the crime of treason, and it's pretty absurd to think that happened.

At the worst, what we have is the Obama administration being embarrassed that it has done pretty much what previous administrations have done in making the judgement that vague intel did not constitute specific credible threats that demanded specific action. Sadly, attacks on diplomatic facilities (even those that were mostly fronts for CIA operations) are relatively common, and this one really wasn't exceptional in any significant way.

 

[The Big Dog]

It also wasn't the argument used at the time, so I have no idea why you think that's relevant.



Funny, I thought your claim was that Rice's comments angering the President of Libya hampered the subsequent investigation.

1. I am referring to the justification you mentioned and is mentioned in the article.

2. That is Deputy ambassador hicks' claim, and further the whole diplomatic debacle may have been avoided entirely had the FEST had boots on he ground in Libya and determined that it was a terrorist attack and that there was in fact no protest outside the facility.

 

[A'isha]

1. I am referring to the justification you mentioned and is mentioned in the article.

I know you are. It was an after-the-fact statement, like I said, and was not the reason given for why the FEST team was not deployed at the time.

So, why do you think it's relevant?

2. That is Deputy ambassador hicks' claim,

Which you have been supporting wholeheartedly in this thread.

and further the whole diplomatic debacle may have been avoided entirely had the FEST had boots on he ground in Libya and determined that it was a terrorist attack and that there was in fact no protest outside the facility.

Since the talking points memo did not mention a protest outside the Benghazi facility at any point during their drafting, even if FEST somehow was able to transform from a crisis-response team to an after-crisis investigation team, it wouldn't have changed a single thing.

Assuming, of course, that all the locals who described the attackers as being angry about the video didn't cause FEST to determine that the attacks were all about the video after all.

 

[The Big Dog]

I know you are. It was an after-the-fact statement, like I said, and was not the reason given for why the FEST team was not deployed at the time.

So, why do you think it's relevant?

Which you have been supporting wholeheartedly in this thread.

Since the talking points memo did not mention a protest outside the Benghazi facility at any point during their drafting, even if FEST somehow was able to transform from a crisis-response team to an after-crisis investigation team, it wouldn't have changed a single thing.

Assuming, of course, that all the locals who described the attackers as being angry about the video didn't cause FEST to determine that the attacks were all about the video after all.

I agree that it is completely irrelevant! Thanks, we agree on something.

We were talking about Rice's comments contradicting the president of Libya, which of course was not limited to the talking points.

And whether they were angry or not is immaterial, the question was "was there a protest outside the consulate that precipitated into an attack"? Answer: no.

 

[A'isha]

I agree that it is completely irrelevant! Thanks, we agree on something.

So why did you bring it up, instead of talking about the actual reasons given at the time for why FEST was not deployed?

We were talking about Rice's comments contradicting the president of Libya, which of course was not limited to the talking points.

Then what do you expect any investigation made by FEST during the first five days after the attacks do have done in regards to the talking points or what Rice said?

And whether they were angry or not is immaterial, the question was "was there a protest outside the consulate that precipitated into an attack"? Answer: no.

Are you still on that false dichotomy that either the attacks arose out of a protest against the video in Benghazi, or the video had nothing at all to do with the attacks?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Are you still on that false dichotomy that either the attacks arose out of a protest against the video in Benghazi, or the video had nothing at all to do with the attacks?

Exactly. It's not an either/or, all-or-nothing proposition.

And 16.5 continues to claim certainty of something that has yet to be established. We don't know for certain that the attacks didn't somehow grow out of the protests (as I said, at least as someone taking advantage of an opportunity to enact a previously planned attack). There is certainly no evidence that the protests were staged merely to provide cover for the attacks.

ETA: Again, what we're talking about was not a definitive statement of what happened. It was a preliminary assessment, something that we might consider to be opinion as much as anything. Even if that opinion turns out to be completely wrong, it can't be said to have been a lie, because it was never offered as a definitive statement of fact. It was offered as a preliminary assessment.

 

[The Big Dog]

So why did you bring it up, instead of talking about the actual reasons given at the time for why FEST was not deployed?



Then what do you expect any investigation made by FEST during the first five days after the attacks do have done in regards to the talking points or what Rice said?



Are you still on that false dichotomy that either the attacks arose out of a protest against the video in Benghazi, or the video had nothing at all to do with the attacks?

1' I didn't bring it up. It was an argument raised by the administration in the linked article. We agreed that the argument was irrelevant. Progress!

2. What I expect is FEST could have reviewed the tapes and interviewed the survivors who would have told them that here was no protest outside the consulate.

3. That there was no protest outside the consulate before the attack is historical fact.

 

[A'isha]

1' I didn't bring it up. It was an argument raised by the administration in the linked article. We agreed that the argument was irrelevant. Progress!

You brought it up in this thread.

And you're still avoiding addressing the arguments for why FEST wasn't deployed at the time.

2. What I expect is FEST could have reviewed the tapes and interviewed the survivors who would have told them that here was no protest outside the consulate.

Why would they have done that, had they been deployed (that's what the FBI is for, not FEST), and why do you think that would have made any difference to the talking points or Rice's comments on the 16th?

3. That there was no protest outside the consulate before the attack is historical fact.

That the attackers reported to witnesses and bystanders that they were angry about the video is also a historical fact.

So what now?

 

[The Big Dog]

You brought it up in this thread.

And you're still avoiding addressing the arguments for why FEST wasn't deployed at the time.

Why would they have done that, had they been deployed (that's what the FBI is for, not FEST), and why do you think that would have made any difference to the talking points or Rice's comments on the 16th?

That the attackers reported to witnesses and bystanders that they were angry about the video is also a historical fact.

So what now?

1. What are the arguments addressing why FEST wasn't deployed. As far as I can tell, all we know about it is Hillary's aide made the decision apparently because he didn't understand FEST's functions, and the Administration officials quoted in the article think it was a mistake.

2. FBI members are part of the FEST team.

3. So what now? It appears that we don't dispute that there was no protest, so nothing, more progress!

 

[A'isha]

Actually, why do you even think the FEST team would have reached Benghazi, had it been deployed that night? Why would it be sent on to Benghazi after the evacuation there and the recovery of Stevens' body, instead of staying in Tripoli once it arrived in that city?

 

[A'isha]

1. What are the arguments addressing why FEST wasn't deployed. As far as I can tell, all we know about it is Hillary's aide made the decision apparently because he didn't understand FEST's functions, and the Administration officials quoted in the article think it was a mistake.

Some administration officials think it was a mistake. And there were more officials than just Hillary's aide who felt that FEST was not the appropriate team to respond to what was happening in Benghazi.

2. FBI members are part of the FEST team.

Yes, but FEST is not an investigative team, and the FBI does a lot more than just investigate (hostage negotiations, for example).

And again, why would FEST have been sent on to the evacuated Benghazi instead of staying in Tripoli once they arrived, had they been deployed?

3. So what now? It appears that we don't dispute that there was no protest, so nothing, more progress!

So stop dodging the issue that local witnesses and bystanders reported that the attackers were specifically angry about the video.

 

[The Big Dog]

Actually, why do you even think the FEST team would have reached Benghazi, had it been deployed that night? Why would it be sent on to Benghazi after the evacuation there and the recovery of Stevens' body, instead of staying in Tripoli once it arrived in that city?

What makes you think it would have been sent to Tripoli? They were still in Benghazi over 12 hours after the attack began.