New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

Actually they don't they knew it was Ansar al Sharia, they knew there was no protest, they knew the attack wasn't spontaneous and they knew it was led by islamic militants with ties to Al Qua'ida.

No, they didn't.

 

[RandFan]

Actually they don't they knew it was Ansar al Sharia, they knew there was no protest, they knew the attack wasn't spontaneous and they knew it was led by islamic militants with ties to Al Qua'ida. Hell all they had to do was ask Greg hicks or the other evacuees from Libya.

Proof please? And no, one human being's beliefs are not proof of anything in and of themselves. There was no way for Hicks to "know".

You are now venturing into the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge territory. Not to mention CT.

 

[elbe]

Actually they don't they knew it was Ansar al Sharia, they knew there was no protest, they knew the attack wasn't spontaneous and they knew it was led by islamic militants with ties to Al Qua'ida. Hell all they had to do was ask Greg hicks or the other evacuees from Libya.

It sure looked to me like Ansar was speculative, the attack was described as spontaneous, and they didn't actually make a direct connection between AQ and the attack. Maybe you were reading different notes than I was.

 

[A'isha]

BS. Stevens himself indicated there was no demonstration outside of the facility in the hours prior to the attack.

Local witnesses and bystanders reported that the attackers specifically cited the video. There may not have been a protest about the video that preceded the attack, but the video certainly seems to be at least one of things that motivated the attack.

 

[The Big Dog]

Except you keep ignoring who wanted the information about who actually wanted those changes.

It wasn't the White House.

you've made a very lengthy case that it was the State Department, and you know what: NO ONE CARES WHO WANTED THE CHANGES OR WHY, I've been explaining it to you for the last hour.

The White House knew it wasn't the best intelligence because they knew that the references to Ansar Al Sharia, Al Qua'ida, surveillance and previous attacks had been omitted from the talking points. The White House lied when they said it was the best intelligence available.

Talk more about the changes, it only shows more and more and more that the information was deleted.

 

[The Big Dog]

It sure looked to me like Ansar was speculative, the attack was described as spontaneous, and they didn't actually make a direct connection between AQ and the attack. Maybe you were reading different notes than I was.

That all depends who they is huh? They wasn't the people actually on the ground in Libya, they wasn't the actual operatives in the State Department.

But nobody asked them, did they?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Proof please? And no, one human being's beliefs are not proof of anything in and of themselves. There was no way for Hicks to "know".

You are now venturing into the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge territory.

I think it's worse than that. The "scandal" seems to be the claim that someone was clairvoyant and simultaneously wrong in that clairvoyant knowledge. At least an MDC claimaint isn't allowed to make a self-contradictory claim (such that any outcome at all would "prove" the claim).

 

[A'isha]

you've made a very lengthy case that it was the State Department,

And the FBI, and possibly the DOJ, and then the CIA.

Not the White House.

and you know what: NO ONE CARES WHO WANTED THE CHANGES OR WHY, I've been explaining it to you for the last hour.

The fact that you were so insistent that it was first Rhodes and then Brennan which directed that changes be made at the Deputies' meeting, and then falsely asserted that it was NSS which made the CIA change "we do know" to "there are indications" shows that you apparently care very much indeed who made the changes.

The White House knew it wasn't the best intelligence because they knew that the references to Ansar Al Sharia,

The references to Ansar al-Sharia had nothing to do with intelligence, best or otherwise.

Al Qua'ida,

Which the CIA was already starting to scrub on their own, and which the FBI/CTD wanted toned down too.

surveillance

Which covered potentially classified information [EDIT: about how the CIA knew what it knew].

and previous attacks

Which were not included because of "best intelligence", but because the CIA was playing CYA.

The White House lied when they said it was the best intelligence available.

The best intelligence available was what the CIA started with at the beginning of the drafting process and which did, indeed, make it into the final version of the memo:

"The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated."

 

[A'isha]

That all depends who they is huh? They wasn't the people actually on the ground in Libya, they wasn't the actual operatives in the State Department.

But nobody asked them, did they?

Reporters certainly asked "people actually on the ground in Libya" about what happened.

Those people said the attackers were angry about the video.

 

[elbe]

That all depends who they is huh? They wasn't the people actually on the ground in Libya, they wasn't the actual operatives in the State Department.

But nobody asked them, did they?

So you've moved on to telling the CIA how to do their job? Interesting tactic.

 

[The Big Dog]

So you've moved on to telling the CIA how to do their job? Interesting tactic.

"So" you've moved onto "the argument of so" and strawmen?

Interesting tactic.

 

[RandFan]

If someone can show me a material fact demonstrating that the White House covered up a crime or that people died as a result of a White House lie then I'll happily condemn the White House and would entertain impeachment.

As it is we have confusion and self serving motivations by State and the CIA to deal with possibilities and not facts.

• There was no crime.
• No one died as a result of deception by the White House.

Compared to events where administrations actually lied and those lies led to the deaths of soldiers and there were lies that led to the deaths of civilians during a hurricane, this is an important issue but one that doesn't rise to the level of scandal.

Let's have some context and perspective here. To the extent that mistakes were made lets learn from them. To the extent that people were incompetent lets fire them. We've had an investigation. We've had hearings. When can we move on?

 

[The Big Dog]

Reporters certainly asked "people actually on the ground in Libya" about what happened.

Those people said the attackers were angry about the video.

Yeah, they said it was Ansar al Sharia.

motivation /= actual protest/demonstration, of which we ALL know there was none.

 

[RandFan]

Yeah, they said it was Ansar al Sharia.

motivation /= actual protest/demonstration, of which we ALL know there was none.

I don't know that we know that now. We know that it was a coordinated attack. More importantly WE DIDN'T KNOW AT THE TIME.

We had possibilities and reasons to justify those possibilities including the fact that Muslims were in fact rioting over that video.

You want hindsight to be the gauge. No.

 

[A'isha]

Yeah, they said it was Ansar al Sharia.

And other groups, including non-affiliated civilians.

motivation /= actual protest/demonstration, of which we ALL know there was none.

Now we do. But at the time, the best intelligence the CIA had is what they put into the memo right from the very beginning and which remained in the memo throughout the entire editing process, that "the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex".

But nice attempt at downplaying the fact that the video was, in fact, an issue for the attackers.

 

[RandFan]

The Released Emails:

In all of those emails is there a single material fact to demonstrate that the White House knew that there was no protest and that this was only a terrorist attack and they (the White House) covered it up?

One material fact.

 

[The Big Dog]

But nice attempt at downplaying the fact that the video was, in fact, an issue for the attackers.

Nice grossly overgeneralizing the motivations of the attackers in Benghazi.

/reminds ANTPogo of the long list of attacks that had occurred in Benghazi, and the even longer list of Al Qua'ida attacks that had taken place before that silly video was released.

 

[elbe]

"So" you've moved onto "the argument of so" and strawmen?

Interesting tactic.

No, I'm just enjoying the part where you're contradicting your own earlier posts.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, I'm just enjoying the part where you're contradicting your own earlier posts.

I said that no one should talk to Greg Hicks or review the State Department videos showing no protest?

I'll be damned, that was stupid of me.

 

[A'isha]

Nice grossly overgeneralizing the motivations of the attackers in Benghazi.

The video was an issue for the Ansar al-Sharia attackers. Whether there were additional issues as well does nothing to change that.

Every person lambasting the Obama Administration for talking about the video in connection with the attacks is therefore completely wrong.