New Disclosures on Benghazi

[Upchurch]

Here is an interesting article that appears well sourced and written regarding just why the Ambassador was in Benghazi that night, with a significant discussion of his meeting with the Turkish envoy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/349231/%5Btitle-raw%5D-jim-geraghty

It is an NRO (rather infamous for always declaring the current Democratic Presidential candidate as the most liberal _____ of that year) story based on the already debunked PJ Media story from before. Not a great endorsement for its credibility.

Reading through it, it never manages to prove the premise. In it's closing paragraphs, the author falls back on JAQ'ing:

Was Chris Stevens’s “mission in Benghazi” to buy back weapons?

Followed by admitting that everyone involved basically answering, "no."

This is the very hart of conspiracy theory logic. Asking leading questions and taking every negative response as proof that there is a conspiracy to deny the truth, of which there is only suggestive, consequential, or anecdotal evidence.

 

[RandFan]

But that is what is so unique about this situation! There never was any evidence at all to support the claim that the attack spontaneously arose from an anti-video protest, because there wasn't any protest that night.

Further, they were telling the Libyans one thing (Al Qua'ida affiliated Ansar al Sharia did the attack) and then told everyone, but especially Rice something else, leading to the Sunday Morning News Show Debacle.

And THEN they kept repeating the far fetched story.

And then to top it all off they lied and said it was the best intelligence available, hogwash.

If it quacks like CT it probably is CT. Either address questions and support your thesis or not. The choice is up to you. Make valid arguments with supporting evidence or don't. You don't have to do anything other than to follow the rules.

I think you missed his argument ad bolded "hogwash".

 

[The Big Dog]

You're ignoring, at the very least, that interviewed attackers said they were there because of the video. That's also been brought up several times already.

Actually I've addressed that a dozen times, what the terrorists claim was their motivation (subjective) does not at all impact the objective fact that there was no protest outside the Consulate. Ansar al Sharia did not become affiliated with Al Qua'ida because of a stupid video none of them had ever seen.

What is much more important is that there was objective facts of 1. surveillance; 2. previous attacks on other facilities in Benghazi that predated any knowledge of the video.

In other words, regardless of what the people hanging around after the attack said to the reporters, the fact is simple:

"There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere."

 

[elbe]

Actually I've addressed that a dozen times, what the terrorists claim was their motivation (subjective) does not at all impact the objective fact that there was no protest outside the Consulate. Ansar al Sharia did not become affiliated with Al Qua'ida because of a stupid video none of them had ever seen.

Yes, we all know that hindsight is 20/20. Please try to add something new to the conversation.

What is much more important is that there was objective facts of 1. surveillance; 2. previous attacks on other facilities in Benghazi that predated any knowledge of the video.

In other words, regardless of what the people hanging around after the attack said to the reporters, the fact is simple:

"There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere."

Thank you though for your serious and thoughtful question.

Do you deny that people said they were there because of the video? Do you deny that there had already been a protest over the video?

ETA: It could also be noted that there is no reason to think that anger over the video would necessarily play out the same way it did in Cairo. The CIA could have believed (and I don't presume to speak for them) that these attacks were another step up in violent reaction.

 

[A'isha]

But that is what is so unique about this situation! There never was any evidence at all to support the claim that the attack spontaneously arose from an anti-video protest, because there wasn't any protest that night.

In Benghazi, perhaps. But all across the middle east that day, there were protests about the video, and locals in Benghazi reported that the attackers were motivated by anger over the video, so it's not like the notion that the Benghazi attacks weren't any different is something surprising.

Further, they were telling the Libyans one thing (Al Qua'ida affiliated Ansar al Sharia did the attack) and then told everyone, but especially Rice something else, leading to the Sunday Morning News Show Debacle.

For one thing, it's likely that Jones got her information from the initially-uncorroroborated twitter/facebook claims of responsibility, and didn't consult with any actual intelligence agencies when she gave her information to the Libyan ambassador, especially since we (and the CIA) know that the attackers were composed of other groups as well as unaffiliated civilians in addition to Ansar al-Sharia, so to blame that group solely for the attacks is incorrect.

And THEN they kept repeating the far fetched story.

It wasn't far-fetched.

And then to top it all off they lied and said it was the best intelligence available, hogwash.

It wasn't a lie, it was the absolute truth.

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you deny that people said they were there because of the video? Do you deny that there had already been a protest over the video?

Yes I deny that there was a protest outside the consulate on the evening of the attacks. There was no protest that evening, do you deny this?

I have read claims that people said that the next day while being interviewed by the press. I have not previously seen the support for this, because I believed it to be completely immaterial.

Nevertheless, I would be happy to review it. Please provide a link to what you wish me to review.

 

[A'isha]

I have read claims that people said that the next day while being interviewed by the press. I have not seen the support for this, because it is completely immaterial.

Nevertheless, I would be happy to review it. Please provide a link to what you wish me to review.

Are you suffering from memory loss or something?

 

[elbe]

Yes I deny that there was a protest outside the consulate on the evening of the attacks. There was no protest that evening, do you deny this?

That's not what I asked, but I'll be clearer. Do you deny that there had already been protests in Cairo?

I have read claims that people said that the next day while being interviewed by the press. I have not seen the support for this, because it is completely immaterial.

It is not immaterial, it's part of the fog of war. If the IRA took credit for it, for whatever reason, they would also be part of that same fog of war. You can't just reject evidence until it's been verified as false.

Nevertheless, I would be happy to review it. Please provide a link to what you wish me to review.

I'll have to try and find it, unless someone else has it readily available. ETA: Which, I believe, ANT just provided.

 

[The Big Dog]

That's not what I asked, but I'll be clearer. Do you deny that there had already been protests in Cairo?

No, of course not. Hell, I'll go a step further and say that I recall that there were protests in Tunisia.

I asked you whether believe that there were protest outside the Consulate in Benghazi on the evening of 9/11/12.

 

[elbe]

No, of course not. Hell, I'll go a step further and say that I recall that there were protests in Tunisia.

I asked you whether believe that there were protest outside the Consulate in Benghazi on the evening of 9/11/12.

Why would I? But I can think abstractly and understand why the CIA may have thought there were based on limited and conflicting information.

 

[A'isha]

I asked you whether believe that there were protest outside the Consulate in Benghazi on the evening of 9/11/12.

Why is it far-fetched to think there might have been protests outside the consulate in Benghazi? Even Nordstrom acknowledged that those "previous attacks" you keep harping on were often done in response to perceived slights against Muhammad, and in at least one case were done in response to a film (a different one than Innocence of Muslims).

So, we have here a film that most definitely did inspire protests and demonstrations throughout the middle east and northern Africa, a group with a history of carrying out attacks based on insulting films, and witnesses that report the attackers were composed of this group and civilians angry about this particular film.

And you want us to believe it was some kind of far-fetched travesty for the CIA to report what they did and for Hillary to say what she said?

 

[The Big Dog]

Why would I? But I can think abstractly and understand why the CIA may have thought there were based on limited and conflicting information.

And then that leads to the real issue: assuming that the Executive Branch was correct in initially claiming that it spontaneously arose out of a protest (and I do not believe they were) when should they have known that they were wrong?

Keep in mind they were telling the Libyans one thing (Al Qua'ida affiliated Ansar al Sharia did the attack) and then told everyone, but especially Rice something else, leading to the Sunday Morning News Show Debacle.

And THEN they kept repeating the "far fetched" story, in fact they did so AFTER John Clapper told Congress that it was a preplanned attack.

And then to top it all off they later lied and said it was the best intelligence available.

 

[Reheat]

Why is it far-fetched to think there might have been protests outside the consulate in Benghazi?

I have highlighted the important word in the above SPECULATION... The BEST intelligence indicated there was NONE from Stevens himself...

If Obama had not been hooting his own horn about how AQ had been defeated and how his foreign policy had been so effective this might not have been an issue at all. In view of all of that it smells to high heaven...

Another issue that I have not seen discussed is WHY did Stevens go to Benghazi likely knowing that it was not safe there? I wonder who ordered him to do that? Don't you?

 

[elbe]

And then that leads to the real issue: assuming that the Executive Branch was correct in initially claiming that it spontaneously arose out of a protest (and I do not believe they were) when should they have known that they were wrong?

Keep in mind they were telling the Libyans one thing (Al Qua'ida affiliated Ansar al Sharia did the attack) and then told everyone, but especially Rice something else, leading to the Sunday Morning News Show Debacle.

And THEN they kept repeating the "far fetched" story, in fact they did so AFTER John Clapper told Congress that it was a preplanned attack.

And then to top it all off they later lied and said it was the best intelligence available.

I'm going to need some citations on all the evidence that the CIA and FBI had at what times. Remember, person A says X doesn't mean they don't have something else that says Y.

 

[elbe]

I have highlighted the important word in the above SPECULATION... The BEST intelligence indicated there was NONE from Stevens himself...

The CIA appears to have disagreed.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm going to need some citations on all the evidence that the CIA and FBI had at what times. Remember, person A says X doesn't mean they don't have something else that says Y.

The CIA hasn't released it.

The FBI had interviewed evacuees from Libya no later than 9/13, including Hicks.

The State Department had reviewed the videos on September 11 and thereafter and all of that was available in DC.

Jones had told the Libyans that it was Ansar al Sharia on the 12th.

 

[elbe]

The CIA hasn't released it.

But you seem so certain about what they knew to be the truth?

 

[Reheat]

The CIA appears to have disagreed.

Don't you wonder why the CIA said that or on what intelligence they based the information.. Do you have the phone records from the CIA regarding who said what to whom?

 

[elbe]

Don't you wonder why the CIA said that or on what intelligence they based the information.. Do you have the phone records from the CIA regarding who said what to whom?

I don't know. I don't begin to assume what the CIA knew or what all their sources of evidence were - that seems to be the job of another poster here.

I can only go off of what we know about their conclusions. I don't think they're infallible and they can make some royal screwups sometimes, but that's hardly evidence of some sort of malicious intent by the White House. Hanlan's razor.

They said the best available evidence at the time suggested it arose spontaneously in response to the protests in Cairo*. I'm going to need something concrete before I start accusing them of intentionally lying, and politically motivated speculation doesn't win me over.

* and Ansar al Sharia was only mentioned in speculation as they had denied official involvement at the time (members acting independently mean nothing), and the Al-Qaeda mention was unconnected to the attack, just CYA by the CIA by attempting to pin the blame on State. Bureaucracy isn't useful, but it's not criminal.

 

[Reheat]

Maybe someone in Congress can persuade DOJ to obtain all of the phone records of the conversations on the evening of the 11th and a few days afterward between the relevant parties. They seem to be pretty good at that!