New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

No actually, it is not, ANTPogo. I had to get up and fire up the laptop.

You could have done it, but no.

No I ccouldn't have, because the post you quote below doesn't say anything about the NSS making the CIA change "we do know" to "there are indications".

"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."

Except that's not correct. The FBI not only did object to the draft talking points, one of their objections was to the exact same sentence that Nuland objected to, and in much stronger terms.

And I'll remind you of what we are really talking about: whether or not the White House had its hands all over this, answer? Hell yeah.

No they didn't. They were so hands-off that the CIA even reported to Petraeus that "the White House cleared early".

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Am I alone in thinking thst the public, as a whole has moved on and no longer cares about this that much?

 

[elbe]

Am I alone in thinking thst the public, as a whole has moved on and no longer cares about this that much?

I don't think the public ever really cared about it, at least as a "scandal". It's like the GOP who keeps beating this dead horse think that if they just scream it enough times the collected public will suddenly all side with them, but everyone else has more important issues to think about - like that powerball thing.

 

[The Big Dog]

Am I alone in thinking thst the public, as a whole has moved on and no longer cares about this that much?

appeal to unpopularity?

Sure there are four different **************** going on, but Hicks testimony and the subsequent release of the emails was top of the fold news.

Clearly there remain deep fundamental problems with how the intelligence community and the Executive branch communicates, diplomatic failures and the fact that we still need to catch the scum bags responsible.

But for today at least I assume everyone is going to focus on Obama's Drone program.

The developments ebb and flow.

 

[RandFan]

I don't think the public ever really cared about it, at least as a "scandal". It's like the GOP who keeps beating this dead horse think that if they just scream it enough times the collected public will suddenly all side with them, but everyone else has more important issues to think about - like that powerball thing.

Reminds me of the Clinton scandals. On one hand there was no evidence (other than some contradictory and self serving witness testimony) Clinton knew that his campaign benefited from the failed Whitewater land deal. On the other hand Clinton lied about sex. Yes, it was in a court of law but lying about sex wasn't an attempt to cover up a crime. I hated Clinton but knew the investigation was BS. Many Republicans can easily see that this is BS. After all these months and hearing there are no new material facts that damn the White House.

Benghazi was a tragedy. It was fair to hold hearings, have an investigation and seek to find out who if anyone ****** up. At the end of the day there was no malice. There was simply confusion and then CYA and failure to take full responsibility by the CIA and the State.

Learn from it and move on. There really is nothing left to do. Unless of course you want to gain political advantage from the tragic death of Americans. It would seem the GOP leadership and FOX news have no such qualms.

 

[RandFan]

Clearly there remain deep fundamental problems with how the intelligence community and the Executive branch communicates, diplomatic failures and the fact that we still need to catch the scum bags responsible.

Whatever problems there are existed long before 9/11. It's called human nature and complex social structures. It is inherent in the system. All we can do is root out evil doers and try to plug up holes in our legal system. Thankfully in this case there was no malevolent intent. There was just bureaucratic squabbling detailed so well by ANTPogo. And I would like to personally thank her for her dedication to her whack-a-mole of the silly accusations and lies.

 

[RandFan]

Americans' Attention to IRS, Benghazi Stories Below Average
Most Americans, however, say both deserve continuing investigation

Slim majorities of Americans are very or somewhat closely following the situations involving the Internal Revenue Service (54%) and the congressional hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and its aftermath (53%) -- comparatively low based on historical measures of other news stories over the last two decades.

 

[The Big Dog]

appeal to unpopularity?

Sure there are four different **************** going on, but Hicks testimony and the subsequent release of the emails was top of the fold news.

Clearly there remain deep fundamental problems with how the intelligence community and the Executive branch communicates, diplomatic failures and the fact that we still need to catch the scum bags responsible.

But for today at least I assume everyone is going to focus on Obama's Drone program.

The developments ebb and flow.

Well after a wildly entertaining detour into the complete hash that was made of the talking points by the Executive Branch (cripes, the post-9/11 changes to the way intelligence was handled was supposed to clear up intelligence miscommunications, not exacerbate them!) and how utterly useless they ended up to be, it appears that we will be an hiatus while Pickering frees up his schedule.

As announced here yesterday, Issa and Pickering have made peace, here is the latest:

“I appreciate his decision to cooperate on a voluntary basis with our Committee’s investigation of the Benghazi attack,” Issa said, according to CNN. “Our investigation includes an examination of criticisms career State Department officials have made about the [Accountability Review Board] report being ‘incomplete’ and letting senior officials ‘off the hook.’”

 

[A'isha]

No comments about the FBI wanting changes made to the exact same sentence Nuland had issues with?

 

[fess]

So far, reading this thread, I have gathered two points:

1) Some people don’t like the GOP, and never will, no matter what…

2) They like Fox News even less.

Americans died in Benghazi because someone dropped the ball. It makes no difference whether they were Democrat of Republican, and that is unacceptable.

 

[The Big Dog]

No comments about the FBI wanted changes made to the exact same sentence Nuland had issues with?

CITATION NEEDED.

It ought to be a simple matter for you to provide a link to that claim.

/I do want to personally thank you for almost singlehandedly keeping the spotlight on the *************** that was the talking points. The more we talk about about the changes, the more it becomes clear that the end product that came out of the White House Deputies Meeting was WORSE than useless.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why isn't this thread in the CT forum again?

I suppose it's all the insightful discussion on policy it has generated and the fact that there is none of the stuff you get in CT forums (leading questions, evasiveness about what is being alleged, endless poring over minutia as to who said what and who knew what when, etc).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Americans died in Benghazi because someone dropped the ball. It makes no difference whether they were Democrat of Republican, and that is unacceptable.

But why is this particular attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility that resulted in deaths still a story? Were all the others acceptable? Were all those other terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities resulting in deaths NOT caused by someone dropping a ball?

What exactly was the ball that was dropped, and who do you think dropped it? Was it the same ball dropped by the same (or different) people in all those other terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities?

In fact it's a story because there is partisan scandal mongering alleging a conspiracy theory.

In this very thread allegations have been all over the place, all the way up to and including the allegation that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths at Benghazi (something that if it were true would be treason), and all the way down to some pettiness over how cooperative Ambassador Pickering has been.

 

[A'isha]

It ought to be a simple matter for you to provide a link to that claim.

It is.

Page 38 of the emails.

From: [FBI PRESS]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 7:51 PM
To: [CIA OPA], [FBI PRESS]
Cc: [CIA OPA]
Subject: Re: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for Review


[CIA OPA] in coordination with CTD [the FBI Counterterrorism Division], we have some concerns:

1. The accuracy of the sentence of the first bullet point which states "On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy." And-- who is the "we" that is referenced?

2. We recommend editing the last sentence in the second bullet point to "That being said, there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

 

[The Big Dog]

It is.

Page 38 of the emails.

So the FBI wanted to change change this:

"We do know that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

to this:

"That being said, there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

That is what you are saying? Thanks for pointing that out.

So the FBI and CIA were on board with that, lets see what came out of the talking points Deputies Meeting:

"crickets."

Thanks, once again for drawing that to my attention.

 

[The Big Dog]

I suppose it's all the insightful discussion on policy it has generated and the fact that there is none of the stuff you get in CT forums (leading questions, evasiveness about what is being alleged, endless poring over minutia as to who said what and who knew what when, etc).

... threadjacking, personal attacks, tu quoque fallacies, and a whole lot of "stop talking about what I don't want to talk about"....

 

[A'isha]

So the FBI wanted to change change this:

"We do know that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

to this:

"That being said, there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

That is what you are saying? Thanks for pointing that out.

Why do you think the FBI, in consultation with the CTD, wanted to change that sentence from the way the CIA originally had it? Why do you think the CIA preferred to use the FBI's suggested changes rather than give Nuland the information she asked for about how the CIA knew?

So the FBI and CIA were on board with that, lets see what came out of the talking points Deputies Meeting:

"crickets."

Thanks, once again for drawing that to my attention.

No, what came out of the talking points Deputies meeting was "There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

And the White House was actually on board with the original "we do know" verbiage.

Whatever happened at the Deputies meeting wasn't because the White House wanted that information removed, because they had been fine with it being in the memo since early in the drafting process.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

... threadjacking, personal attacks, tu quoque fallacies, and a whole lot of "stop talking about what I don't want to talk about"....

None of these are true.

How can repeatedly asking you what the point of this thread is be "threadjacking"? Or repeatedly arguing that it belongs in the CT subforum rather than the U.S. Politics subforum?

Pointing out that your scandal mongering wrongly assumes there is something unique or exceptional (or scandalous) about the Benghazi attack is not a tu quoque argument. It is simply pointing out that the assumption your argument is based on is false.

And what personal attack? I've made no personal remarks about you at all. I have addressed the topic of this thread.

Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again, when you have to invent fake quotes and attribute them to your opponent, it's a pretty good sign you're probably arguing against a straw man.

 

[Reheat]

In fact it's a story because there is partisan scandal mongering alleging a conspiracy theory.

Well, it apparently doesn't bother you or most other commenters in this thread that a huge lie was told immediately prior to a highly contested election...

The ongoing investigation is simply trying to establish the TRUTH of the entire matter and hold SOMEONE accountable. Continued evasion for 8 freaking months and a failure to seriously pursue the perpetrators of this attack clearly indicate this is NOT a partisan witch hunt except to biased political hacks.

Whether you or anyone else accepts it or not the TRUTH does still matter, but obviously not to some who's priority seems to be protecting the Administration regardless of the FACTS, many of which are yet to be established.

Whether anyone likes that or not it will be pursued to determine all of the facts and then the chips can fall where they will regardless of where or who that is..

 

[A'isha]

Well, it apparently doesn't bother you or most other commenters in this thread that a huge lie was told immediately prior to a highly contested election...

What "huge lie" would that be?