New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

1. FBI and State participated in drafting the talking points.

And the FBI explicitly wanted the CIA to tone down the verbiage about knowing that extremists participated in the attacks and say "there are indications" instead.

2. Hicks and State Department

Neither Hicks nor the State Department knew what the FBI did with the interview information.

3. "almost real time" is different than later?

When the "later" is three weeks later, yes, they're pretty different.

4. The dates of the release, which was the 12-13th. The fact that the team didn't go to the hospital because it was surrounded by Ansar Al ASharia was of course known immediately.

No, it wasn't. There's no indication whatsoever that the CIA team knew that it was Ansar al-Sharia surrounding the hospital, especially since the militia there was not a hostile force attacking the hospital, but acting as hired guards for it.

Virtually all of this has already been explored at length in this thread.

And you've been wrong about pretty much all of it.

 

[The Big Dog]

1. And the FBI explicitly wanted the CIA to tone down the verbiage about knowing that extremists participated in the attacks and say "there are indications" instead.

2. Neither Hicks nor the State Department knew what the FBI did with the interview information.



3. When the "later" is three weeks later, yes, they're pretty different.



4. No, it wasn't. There's no indication whatsoever that the CIA team knew that it was Ansar al-Sharia surrounding the hospital, especially since the militia there was not a hostile force attacking the hospital, but acting as hired guards for it.



And you've been wrong about pretty much all of it.

It is always helpful to take a peek into what the Abject Administration Apologists are saying!

1. Wow... that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of whether there was a protest. (plus it was NSS, not the FBI who told the CIA not to state even internally who was responsible).

2. The people that were being interviewed WERE STATE DEPARTMENT PEOPLE!

3. Not according to the State Department.

About 7:30 in the evening, he has his last meeting. It is with a Turkish diplomat. And at – when the meeting is over, at 8:30 – he has all these meetings, by the way, in what I call Building C – when the meeting is over, he escorts the Turkish diplomat to the main gate. There is an agent there with them. They say goodbye. They’re out in a street in front of the compound. Everything is calm at 8:30 p.m. There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.....

A few minutes later – we’re talking about 9 o’clock at night – the Ambassador retires to his room, the others are still at Building C, and the one agent in the TOC. At 9:40 p.m., the agent in the TOC and the agents in Building C hear loud noises coming from the front gate. They also hear gunfire and an explosion. The agent in the TOC looks at his cameras – these are cameras that have pictures of the perimeter – and the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound. One special agent immediately goes to get the Ambassador in his bedroom and gets Sean, and the three of them enter the safe haven inside the building.

4. Well no indication, except for the fact that they said it was Ansar Al Sharia: "But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militia that mounted the consulate attack."

 

[RandFan]

Virtually all of this has already been explored at length in this thread.

Still no smoking gun. Still not one thing that demonstrates what the State Department and what the CIA knew as opposed to what they believed.

 

[DavidJames]

This now reminds me of WMD's in Iraq. Long after the government stopped trying to say they existed, rapid Republican posters were still flogging the dead horse.

 

[A'isha]

It is always helpful to take a peek into what the Abject Administration Apologists are saying!

Still so afraid of what I have to say that you put me back on ignore?

1. Wow... that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of whether there was a protest. (plus it was NSS, not the FBI who told the CIA not to state even internally who was responsible).

It was indeed the FBI - the emails specifically state that it was a collective NSS/FBI/DOJ request. And it was an email from the FBI that wanted to change "That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations" to "That being said, there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

Your attempts to blame the changes solely on the NSS (and by extension the White House) is nothing but pure fiction.

2. The people that were being interviewed WERE STATE DEPARTMENT PEOPLE!

Yes, and they people doing the interviewing were FBI people, and the interviewees have no idea what the FBI did with the information.

3. Not according to the State Department.

Yes, according to the State Department. Someone in the consulate looked at his video monitors after the attack started, and reported what he saw after the attack started by phone to Charlene Lamb, before abandoning the cameras and the footage.

NO ONE else saw that footage until three weeks later. There was no "near real time monitoring" by State Department officials, and they ABSOLUTELY DID NOT review the footage on September 12.

4. Well no indication, except for the fact that they said it was Ansar Al Sharia: "But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militia that mounted the consulate attack."

What is it, exactly, are you have so much trouble understanding about the sentence "the above information comes from a time released on November 1, and so says nothing whatsoever about what was known during the attack and during the first week after the attack"?

I'm serious...why do you think the CIA's November 1 timeline contains only information that they knew at the time?

 

[The Big Dog]

This now reminds me of WMD's in Iraq. Long after the government stopped trying to say they existed, rapid Republican posters were still flogging the dead horse.

EXACTLY! Long after the Administration admitted that the story they gave was utterly wrong, rabid Democratic posters are still flogging that dead horse.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm serious...why do you think the CIA's November 1 timeline contains only information that they knew at the time?

So you are saying that there is additional information then? Lets hear it.

What part of this:

"The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is already dead. (Also killed was a State Department communication specialist.) But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militia that mounted the consulate attack"

do you claim that the CIA did not know during the morning of 9/12?

Hicks testimony:

"I also spoke to the annex chief about organizing a Tripoli response team and we agreed to charter a flight to send a response team from Tripoli to bring reinforcements," Hicks said.

Before long, embassy workers learned that "the ambassador was in a hospital controlled by Ansar al-Sharia, the group whose Twitter feed said it was leading the attack on the consulate," Hicks said.

 

[A'isha]

So you are saying that there is additional information then? Lets hear it.

Are you seriously asking for a citation that the CIA learned additional information about the attacks between September 11th and November 1st? Okay, suit yourself.

For one thing, investigators were able to actually go to Benghazi in October. That generated a ton of new information that was not available to the drafters of the memo or the compilers of the CIA timeline during that first week after the attacks.

What part of this:

"The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is already dead. (Also killed was a State Department communication specialist.) But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militia that mounted the consulate attack"

do you claim that the CIA did not know during the morning of 9/12?

That the CIA knew that the militia which was at the hospital peacefully was the same militia that "mounted" the consulate attack, and that the CIA team decided not to go to the hospital at the time because of that specific knowledge about who mounted the attack. Ansar al-Sharia's later denials and witness information that other groups and non-aligned civilians participated in the attacks further muddied the waters during that first week.

EDIT:

Hicks testimony:

"I also spoke to the annex chief about organizing a Tripoli response team and we agreed to charter a flight to send a response team from Tripoli to bring reinforcements," Hicks said.

Before long, embassy workers learned that "the ambassador was in a hospital controlled by Ansar al-Sharia, the group whose Twitter feed said it was leading the attack on the consulate," Hicks said.

And the State Department was wrong: Ansar al-Sharia's twitter feed didn't actually say that.

What the State Department knew or thought they knew was irrelevant, because they aren't an intelligence agency. What matters is what the CIA knew, from all their various intelligence source. And considering Hicks couldn't even be bothered to check his phone regularly on the night of the anniversary of the September 11 attacks while Stevens was in a dangerous city, his ass-covering testimony is hardly the definitive last word you keep trying to present it as.

 

[The Big Dog]

Are you seriously asking for a citation that the CIA learned additional information about the attacks between September 11th and November 1st? Okay, suit yourself.

....

That the CIA knew that the militia which was at the hospital peacefully was the same militia that "mounted" the consulate attack, and that the CIA team decided not to go to the hospital at the time because of that specific knowledge about who mounted the attack. Ansar al-Sharia's later denials and witness information that other groups and non-aligned civilians participated in the attacks further muddied the waters during that first week.

Lolz: "why do you think the CIA's November 1 timeline contains only information that they knew at the time?" Yes I am contending that the CIA timeline published on November 1 contained only information they learned by November 1, time machines not having been invented.

"That the CIA knew that the militia which was at the hospital peacefully was the same militia that "mounted" the consulate attack, and that the CIA team decided not to go to the hospital at the time because of that specific knowledge about who mounted the attack. Ansar al-Sharia's later denials and witness information that other groups and non-aligned civilians participated in the attacks further muddied the waters during that first week."

Mmmmm, tasty word salad! I assume that first sentence should be rewritten to say: "On the morning of 9/12, the CIA knew that Ansar al Sharia mounted the attacks."

Ansar al-Sharia's later denials admission that the militia had participated with other groups and witness information that Ansar Al Sharia and other groups and non-aligned civilians participated in the attacks further muddied the waters during that first week removed any doubt that they participated. Hell it was in the freaking New York Times!

 

[A'isha]

Lolz: "why do you think the CIA's November 1 timeline contains only information that they knew at the time?" Yes I am contending that the CIA timeline published on November 1 contained only information they learned by November 1, time machines not having been invented.

Meaning it includes information they did not know on September 12, contrary to your repeated assertions.

Mmmmm, tasty word salad! I assume that first sentence should be rewritten to say: "On the morning of 9/12, the CIA knew that Ansar al Sharia mounted the attacks."

No, on the morning of 9/12, the CIA knew that a number of attackers, some Ansar al-Sharia, some from other militias, and some just regular Benghazi citizens, participated in the attacks which happened on a day when there were protests and riots all over the middle east.

Ansar al-Sharia's later denials admission that the militia had participated with other groups and witness information that Ansar Al Sharia and other groups and non-aligned civilians participated in the attacks further muddied the waters during that first week removed any doubt that they participated. Hell it was in the freaking New York Times!

No, they enhanced the doubt that it was a preplanned Ansar al-Sharia operation, and acted to confirm the idea that it was a spontaneous attack that was inspired by the Cairo protests about the video and that involved a cross-section of Benghazi society.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

1. FBI and State participated in drafting the talking points.

And this addresses my point how?

2. Hicks and State Department

What did Hicks and the DoS say about how the FBI used the information and when they passed it along? Can you post a link?

3. "almost real time" is different than later?

4. The dates of the release, which was the 12-13th. The fact that the team didn't go to the hospital because it was surrounded by Ansar Al ASharia was of course known immediately.

Again, could you post a link?

[quote[Virtually all of this has already been explored at length in this thread. This has GOT to be the first time in History that this much time has been spent on proving something that we all agree never happened never happened![/quote]

I take it that you've never participated in a 9/11 conspiracy thread.

You still have not posted any evidence that the people who drafted the talking points knew that they were not true. I now know how to add an extension on to the software package that I use at work. This does not prove that I knew how to before I contacted the lead developer for assistance.

 

[The Big Dog]

1. And this addresses my point how?



2. What did Hicks and the DoS say about how the FBI used the information and when they passed it along? Can you post a link?







4.Again, could you post a link?

take it that you've never participated in a 9/11 conspiracy thread.

5. You still have not posted any evidence that the people who drafted the talking points knew that they were not true. I now know how to add an extension on to the software package that I use at work. This does not prove that I knew how to before I contacted the lead developer for assistance.

[quote[Virtually all of this has already been explored at length in this thread. This has GOT to be the first time in History that this much time has been spent on proving something that we all agree never happened never happened!

1. your point assumes that the CIA alone provided/possessed the intel
2. Sure, Hicks said "no ever asked me about the events" in connection with the preparation of the talking points, and it seems that the other State Department personnel were too busy with their political infighting to notice that the talking points were directly inconsistent with their own institutional knowledge.
4. quoted above

5. So your boss has been telling a story about how the software works, and then your bosses' boss ask for some detail to share with the shareholders. The engineering department writes something up that contradicts the bosses story. You know that you can and should talk to the guy who really knows the facts, but you are afraid you aren't going to like the answer. So you don't ask them. The bosses all go into a meeting and what comes out is worthless pablum. Well, you kicked that can down the road.

 

[RandFan]

Still so afraid of what I have to say that you put me back on ignore?



It was indeed the FBI - the emails specifically state that it was a collective NSS/FBI/DOJ request. And it was an email from the FBI that wanted to change "That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations" to "That being said, there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

Your attempts to blame the changes solely on the NSS (and by extension the White House) is nothing but pure fiction.



Yes, and they people doing the interviewing were FBI people, and the interviewees have no idea what the FBI did with the information.



Yes, according to the State Department. Someone in the consulate looked at his video monitors after the attack started, and reported what he saw after the attack started by phone to Charlene Lamb, before abandoning the cameras and the footage.

NO ONE else saw that footage until three weeks later. There was no "near real time monitoring" by State Department officials, and they ABSOLUTELY DID NOT review the footage on September 12.



What is it, exactly, are you have so much trouble understanding about the sentence "the above information comes from a time released on November 1, and so says nothing whatsoever about what was known during the attack and during the first week after the attack"?
I'm serious...why do you think the CIA's November 1 timeline contains only information that they knew at the time?

If we could just get him to concede this one obvious and critical fact.

 

[RandFan]

The Fatal Flaw to theory

Still no smoking gun. Still not one thing that demonstrates what the State Department and what the CIA knew as opposed to what they believed.

It can't be demonstrated who knew what and when. Any theory would have to account for the fact that the CIA included the riot scenario.

 

[A'isha]

It can't be demonstrated who knew what and when. Any theory would have to account for the fact that the CIA included the riot scenario.

And let's not forget that Petraeus was really keen on making sure the memo included the reference to the CIA's warning to Embassy Cairo about protests over the video, to the point where he didn't even want to use the version of the memo that didn't include that.

 

[RandFan]

And let's not forget that Petraeus was really keen on making sure the memo included the reference to the CIA's warning to Embassy Cairo about protests over the video, to the point where he didn't even want to use the version of the memo that didn't include that.

If you look at what happened through the use of hindsight it all seems clear as to what was the truth and what people believed. Hindsight is nice but there is a concept in the law called intent. Malice. Though we've asked time and time and again for a smoking gun not one person has provided one. However with the benefit of hindsight and a little parsimony it's easy to understand the scenario that doesn't call for making assumptions like malice and cover up. Just some disagreement and a bit of CYA.

 

[Mooseman]

Wow 50 pages of nonsense, is there a record kept of thread length as opposed to substance?

 

[A'isha]

Finally, an actual new disclosure about Benghazi, and the "Unskewed Polls" guy wrote an article about it, breaking the scandal wide open

Sadly, Obama's jackbooted thugs apparently forced him to take it down, but there's a screenshot and quotes at the link.

 

[RandFan]

Finally, an actual new disclosure about Benghazi, and the "Unskewed Polls" guy wrote an article about it, breaking the scandal wide open

Wouldn't it be great if Obama were thrown out of office in disgrace? This could really get exciting. It's amazing how wishful thinking is so much more powerful than reality.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[2]

Power, it's truly an amazing thing. Suddenly your **** doesn't stink and reality is whatever you make up. Oh, and the govt of the people, by the people, for the people? **** them.

Sheep are meant to accept the new reality and not try and figure out the truth. I challenge you to watch any youtube video of Rove. Put your hands up to your monitor and tell me you don't feel the warmth of his sincerity.

He's also dynamite when it comes to poll numbers.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

1. your point assumes that the CIA alone provided/possessed the intel

This one had me rolling on the floor laughing. You've been claiming that the only intel available was the interview with 5 survivors and then you have the audacity to claim that my suggestion that there might have been other information available was actually a claim that only the CIA had any information on what happened.

2. Sure, Hicks said "no ever asked me about the events" in connection with the preparation of the talking points, and it seems that the other State Department personnel were too busy with their political infighting to notice that the talking points were directly inconsistent with their own institutional knowledge.

And just what "institutional knowledge" was what?

5. So your boss has been telling a story about how the software works, and then your bosses' boss ask for some detail to share with the shareholders. The engineering department writes something up that contradicts the bosses story. You know that you can and should talk to the guy who really knows the facts, but you are afraid you aren't going to like the answer. So you don't ask them. The bosses all go into a meeting and what comes out is worthless pablum. Well, you kicked that can down the road.

This has what to do with what?