New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
And in the spirit of Bi-partisanship, I take a look at a recent link.

From a left wing blog of nitwits.

"It was Republican hero, General David Petraeus, then the head of the CIA, who sought to burnish his image with demands to change the talking points."
Click to expand...
So now the Washington Post is a left wing blog?

Bwhahahaha!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Again, childish.
 
16.5 said:
Bwhahaha!!! Can a brother get a laughing dog?

Oh man, as for the Washington Post nonsense, time to first lie? that the initial draft included classified assessments of who was responsible.

Somebody should have told Elizabeth Jones that she was giving "classified" information to the Libyans.

/shhhh: Don't tell Ansar al Sharia that we think they did it, based in part on the fact that they announced it on an affiliated Face Book page, and because they were identified in the press the next day, it is a secret!
Click to expand...
Your childish antics are not helping your cause. And your ad hominem against the Washington Post is fallacy. Could you please post in a more grown up fashion?
 
RandFan said:
Your childish antics are not helping your cause. And your ad hominem against the Washington Post is fallacy. Could you please post in a more grown up fashion?
Click to expand...

Because then he'd actually have to address the substance of the article and answer my questions about why Issa didn't call Pickering to testify on May 8th or why the CIA scrubbed the memo rather than give Nuland the details she asked for about how they knew that extremists had participated in the attacks.
 
ANTPogo said:
Because then he'd actually have to address the substance of the article and answer my questions about why Issa didn't call Pickering to testify on May 8th or why the CIA scrubbed the memo rather than give Nuland the details she asked for about how they knew that extremists had participated in the attacks.
Click to expand...
Agreed, which is why the resort to childish insults and ad hominem.
 
ANTPogo said:
Really? You think that because Jones gave the info in private to an Ambassador, that it was information suited for wide public release in talking points?

....

It torpedoes your narrative and confirms what we've been saying all along. Naturally you don't like it.
Click to expand...

It is funny, WP says it was classified, I say it was not and you dodge the issue. It wasn't classified, end of story.

It torpedoes my narrative? BWHAHAHA!!! My narrative that the talking points were wrong and useless boilerplate, changed for political reasons in the depths of a Deputies meeting, that John Brennan was running a secret war out of the White House, that the White House persisted in telling the "protest outside the consulate" lie LONG after it was debunked, that the White House acted like "idiots"?

No I don't think so.

Oh but Petreaus put too much information in the first draft of the talking points! The State department had to cover their asses! Seriously? Thanks WP, ya hacks.
 
RandFan said:
Agreed, which is why the resort to childish insults and ad hominem.
Click to expand...

His bringing Ansar al-Sharia into the discussion about the article is also a red herring, since the article never says that the "early classified intelligence assessments of who might be responsible for the attack" were about Ansar al-Sharia at all (the memo, you'll remember, only said that Ansar al-Sharia was named by the press, and that they denied involvement).

The parts of the memo that touched on classified information were where it said "we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack".

That's why, when Nuland asked the CIA to include information about how the CIA did know that because that question would be asked, the CIA declined to provided that information to her, and instead decided to water down the memo to say "there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations".
 
16.5 said:
It is funny, WP says it was classified, I say it was not and you dodge the issue. It wasn't classified, end of story.

It torpedoes my narrative? BWHAHAHA!!! My narrative that the talking points were wrong and useless boilerplate, changed for political reasons in the depths of a Deputies meeting, that John Brennan was running a secret war out of the White House, that the White House persisted in telling the "protest outside the consulate" lie LONG after it was debunked, that the White House acted like "idiots"?

No I don't think so.

Oh but Petreaus put too much information in the first draft of the talking points! The State department had to cover their asses! Seriously? Thanks WP, ya hacks.
Click to expand...
41 pages and not one material fact has changed. The first draft contained references to the riot. The final memo contained references to the riot. There was a plausible and evidence backed narrative for the riot explanation.

Throw in initial confusion and a squabble between departments and we have the same narrative we started with.
 
ANTPogo said:
His bringing Ansar al-Sharia into the discussion about the article is also a red herring, since the article never says that the "early classified intelligence assessments of who might be responsible for the attack" were about Ansar al-Sharia at all (the memo, you'll remember, only said that Ansar al-Sharia was named by the press, and that they denied involvement).

The parts of the memo that touched on classified information were where it said "we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack".

That's why, when Nuland asked the CIA to include information about how the CIA did know that because that question would be asked, the CIA declined to provided that information to her, and instead decided to water down the memo to say "there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations".
Click to expand...
But to consider these facts one must not have preconceptions and hopes of a scandal.
 
16.5 said:
It torpedoes my narrative? BWHAHAHA!!! My narrative that the talking points were wrong and useless boilerplate, changed for political reasons in the depths of a Deputies meeting, that John Brennan was running a secret war out of the White House, that the White House persisted in telling the "protest outside the consulate" lie LONG after it was debunked, that the White House acted like "idiots"?
Click to expand...

Yes, and none of those things have any connection to reality: the memo was changed due to a long process of wrangling between a number of agencies long before the Deputies meeting, you are completely misconstruing what the book's authors said about Brennan, the "attacks arose out of protests against the video in Cairo" was the CIA's own assessment going all the way up to Petraeus, and the only mention of "idiots" was by some unnamed officials who were contradicted by other officials right in the same CBS article.

Oh but Petreaus put too much information in the first draft of the talking points!
Click to expand...

He did.

The State department had to cover their asses!
Click to expand...

The State Department didn't want the CIA use the memo to pin all the blame on them and take none of it on themselves.

Seriously? Thanks WP, ya hacks.
Click to expand...



To sum up, giving pinocchios to a completely true story, yay WP! Article about Petraus' role in the memo, WP are hacks!
 
ANTPogo said:
To sum up, giving pinocchios to a completely true story, yay WP! Article about Petraus' role in the memo, WP are hacks!
Click to expand...

Uh, how about this part:

"But its [ansar al sharia] likely involvement was a classified matter, senior administration officials said."

hee, hee! liars.

Petreaus, you wanted to give the American Public too much information, bad you.
 
16.5 said:
Uh, how about this part:

"But its [ansar al sharia] likely involvement was a classified matter, senior administration officials said."
Click to expand...

"and the FBI had objected to including the information in the talking points on the grounds that doing so would undermine its investigation of the attack."
 
elbe said:
"and the FBI had objected to including the information in the talking points on the grounds that doing so would undermine its investigation of the attack."
Click to expand...

Saw that too. I left it off because it was only misleading and not a lie.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Uh, how about this part:

"But its [ansar al sharia] likely involvement was a classified matter, senior administration officials said."

hee, hee! liars.
Click to expand...

Ansar al-Sharia being associated with the attacks in the press but denying it: didn't rely on classified information.

The CIA knowing that Ansar al-Sharia and other extremist groups were involved: did rely on classified information.
 
16.5 said:
Uh, how about this part:

"But its [ansar al sharia] likely involvement was a classified matter, senior administration officials said."

hee, hee! liars.

Petreaus, you wanted to give the American Public too much information, bad you.

elbe said:
"and the FBI had objected to including the information in the talking points on the grounds that doing so would undermine its investigation of the attack."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Confirmation bias and and the desire to desperately prove something wrong. How many claims have been made only to be debunked.
 
elbe said:
...misleading? It seemed, I don't know, like it might have been an important bit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it was misleading because FBI didn't object to the draft talking points, and the in-house CIA instructions in fact mentioned NSS/DOJ/FBI, which puts the ball right in the White House's lap.
 
ANTPogo said:
Ansar al-Sharia being associated with the attacks in the press but denying it: didn't rely on classified information.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? You think Elizabeth Jones got the info she sent out via the press? lolz.

C'mon ANTPogo
 
16.5 said:
Yeah, but it was misleading because FBI didn't object to the draft talking points, and the in-house CIA instructions in fact mentioned NSS/DOJ/FBI, which puts the ball right in the White House's lap.
Click to expand...

The White House didn't object either. They cleared the early version of the memo.

16.5 said:
Wait, what? You think Elizabeth Jones got the info she sent out via the press? lolz.
Click to expand...

No. Did she give the Ambassador classified information, like how the CIA got its information?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom