New Disclosures on Benghazi

[elbe]

No, there's no investigation going on at all.

Other than Issa's permanent "investigations".

 

[RandFan]

Other than Issa's permanent "investigations".

"investigation" sounds better than "witch hunt" or "fishing expedition"?

 

[banquetbear]

In keeping with the spirit and purpose of the thread, the latest:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-brussels-donkey-idUSBRE94U0PS20130531

Fans of this thread know that we have been talking about the fact that for over fifty pages there have been absolutely no new disclosures. I read the first ten pages, then jumped ahead to half way through the thread, then jumped to the end, and have learnt absolutely nothing. It would be appreciated if the OP could add some substance to this thread. Because I have learnt as much from Lola the performing donkey as I have from reading this thread, and that make the Banquet Bear sad.

 

[The Big Dog]

How, exactly, was this supposed to have helped them win the election? Why did the White House explicitly clear the version of the memo that contained the information about al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia if its removal was deliberately engineered a part of an electioneering scheme? Were the CIA, FBI, and DOJ also in on this electioneering scheme?

No, there's no investigation going on at all.

No investigation? Oh, a joke. Good one.

You missed the part about grossly incompetent?

At least you agree that the soft footprint nonsense was silly.

I've explained that ansar al Sharia was removed because of a NSS directive that the CIA not discuss the perpetrators, even internally because that was the FBI balliwick. I've mentioned that several times but you've ignored that.

You take out al qua'ida affiliated ansar al sharia because then an idiotic story that the attack spontaneously arose out of a protest doesn't sound on its face totally ridiculous. Smart politics!

Otherwise?

Wait, al qua'ida affiliated militia spontaneously attacked? With mortars? Who the **** are they trying to kid? He'll, even the skeptic noted that the talking points were contradictory. But they left in the stuff that had data support, and left in the politically convenient, albeit false spontaneous attack theory.

 

[The Big Dog]

In keeping with the spirit and purpose of the thread, the latest:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-brussels-donkey-idUSBRE94U0PS20130531

Fans of this thread know that we have been talking about the fact that for over fifty pages there have been absolutely no new disclosures. I read the first ten pages, then jumped ahead to half way through the thread, then jumped to the end, and have learnt absolutely nothing. It would be appreciated if the OP could add some substance to this thread. Because I have learnt as much from Lola the performing donkey as I have from reading this thread, and that make the Banquet Bear sad.

Lolz, hicks testimony, the other whistleblowers' testimony, the release of 100 pages of emails, the admission that the the administration acted like idiots.

Oh there is nothing new.

Enjoy your bears!

damn I love posts like that! Gee top of the fold, first segment, disclosures (the emails)?

Nothing new.... Lolz. Fantastic.

 

[banquetbear]

Lolz, hicks testimony, the other whistleblowers' testimony, the release of 100 pages of emails, the admission that the the administration acted like idiots.

Oh there is nothing new.

Enjoy your bears!

damn I love posts like that! Gee top of the fold, first segment, disclosures (the emails)?

Nothing new.... Lolz. Fantastic.

...can you explain, in a paragraph or less, exactly what you are so fired up about? What is the controversy? Because obviously there is either 1) no controversy or 2) you are explaining yourself poorly.

 

[A'isha]

No investigation? Oh, a joke. Good one.

Issa's hearings are not an investigation, but they are a joke. Not a very good one, however.

You missed the part about grossly incompetent?

You missed my questions.

Answer them, please.

At least you agree that the soft footprint nonsense was silly.

I said nothing of the sort.

I've explained that ansar al Sharia was removed because of a NSS directive that the CIA not discuss the perpetrators, even internally because that was the FBI balliwick. I've mentioned that several times but you've ignored that.

Not only have I not ignored that, I've been constantly correcting your misleading to the point of outright falsehood repetition that it was an "NSS directive". As the emails explicitly note, it was an NSS/FBI/DOJ directive. As in, all three of them together, and it was expressly done because there was an investigation in progress, not to cover anything up, ensure an election victory, or because it was "politically convenient".

And the NSS didn't take out the Ansar al-Sharia mention. The NSS and the White House explicitly approved a draft of the memo that contained the Ansar al-Sharia mention.

You not only keep ignoring that, you have yet to explain why you think the NSS would clear the draft that mentioned Ansar al-Sharia on the 14th, but the secretly demand that the memo remove that mention on the 15th, despite being repeatedly asked.

This is why we accuse you of peddling a conspiracy theory. Because that? That's a conspiracy theory.

You take out al qua'ida affiliated ansar al sharia because then an idiotic story that the attack spontaneously arose out of a protest doesn't sound on its face totally ridiculous. Smart politics!

Again, NSS didn't take out the mention of Ansar al-Sharia, clearing the version of the memo that had that mention. Same with the White House. The "story" that the attack spontaneously arose out of a protest over the videos was the CIA's story from the very beginning. Which is why I asked you if the CIA was in on this conspiracy to modify the memo for election purposes.

Wait, al qua'ida affiliated militia spontaneously attacked? With mortars? Who the **** are they trying to kid?

The mortars weren't even used until eight hours after the consulate attack. If you think that a locally-based heavily-armed militia group couldn't bring up mortars in eight hours from the time of even a spontaneous initial attack, who the **** are you trying to kid?

He'll, even the skeptic noted that the talking points were contradictory. But they left in the stuff that had data support, and left in the politically convenient, albeit false spontaneous attack theory.

Again, how was it politically convenient? And if it was only "politically convenient" and not based on data support, as you claim, why did the CIA put it in long before anyone at the NSS saw the drafts?

 

[RandFan]

Put this in context.

Benghazi:

• It was a CIA operation.
• There were riots as a result of the anti-Muslim video in other places.
• It was reasonable to conclude that the video and riots played a part.
• It was reasonable for The State Department to think the CIA was trying to shift blame.
• No one died as a direct result of incompetence on the part of the Obama administration.

Katrina:

• George Bush hired an inexperienced incompetent in Brown to head FEMA.
• Bush lied when he said the disaster could not have been expected (see text below).
• Many (1,577 in Louisiana alone) Americans died due to that gross incompetence.
• FEMA had no advanced preparedness to deal with those made homeless. (FEMA chief Michael D. Brown admitted on the 1 year anniversary of landfall that "There was no plan" [3])

Why does Benghazi deserve this much attention?

The Federal Emergency Management Agency lists a hurricane strike on New Orleans as one of the most dire threats to the nation, up there with a large earthquake in California or a terrorist attack on New York City. Even the Red Cross no longer opens hurricane shelters in the city, claiming the risk to its workers is too great.

That was in 2004. Katrina was 2005.

 

[RandFan]

BTW: I was defending Bush on this forum when I found and posted that National Geographic article.

You show me how Benghazi is a scandal the way Katrina was and I will be your biggest supporter. I promise.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not only have I not ignored that, I've been constantly correcting your misleading to the point of outright falsehood repetition that it was an "NSS directive". As the emails explicitly note, it was an NSS/FBI/DOJ directive. As in, all three of them together, and it was expressly done because there was an investigation in progress, not to cover anything up, ensure an election victory, or because it was "politically convenient".

And the NSS didn't take out the Ansar al-Sharia mention. The NSS and the White House explicitly approved a draft of the memo that contained the Ansar al-Sharia mention.

You not only keep ignoring that, you have yet to explain why you think the NSS would clear the draft that mentioned Ansar al-Sharia on the 14th, but the secretly demand that the memo remove that mention on the 15th, despite being repeatedly asked.

This is why we accuse you of peddling a conspiracy theory. Because that? That's a conspiracy theory.



Again, NSS didn't take out the mention of Ansar al-Sharia, clearing the version of the memo that had that mention. Same with the White House. The "story" that the attack spontaneously arose out of a protest over the videos was the CIA's story from the very beginning. Which is why I asked you if the CIA was in on this conspiracy to modify the memo for ?

That is awesome! You seem to believe that it was a Spontaneous attack! So you are the one.

Anyway, I'm assuming you've never had a job.

Ansar al sharia was removed from the talking points after the CIA lawyer (the lawyer) sent an email saying: NSS/doj/FBI directive not to even mention internally (I mean what the ****?) the perpetrators. Hmmm, NSS (boss) doj, not boss, FBI not just not a boss, but the competition.

CIA doesn't care what the justice department says, they do care what the NSS says.

Get it yet?

 

[RandFan]

That is awesome! You seem to believe that it was a Spontaneous attack! So you are the one.

Anyway, I'm assuming you've never had a job.

Ansar al sharia was removed from the talking points after the CIA lawyer (the lawyer) sent an email saying: NSS/doj/FBI directive not to even mention internally (I mean what the ****?) the perpetrators. Hmmm, NSS (boss) doj, not boss, FBI not just not a boss, but the competition.

CIA doesn't care what the justice department says, they do care what the NSS says.

Get it yet?

No. And?

 

[The Big Dog]

No. And?

Pats on head.

 

[RandFan]

Pats on head.

So, no ethical breaches. No criminality. Just a political witch hunt.

Pat's 16.5 on head.

 

[The Big Dog]

So, no ethical breaches. No criminality. Just a political witch hunt.

Pat's 16.5 on head.

Yeah, because when the government acts recklessly, irresponsibly, and incompetently we should give them a pass!

Lolz.

But look on the bright side, you are both skeptic and an independent, and post nine minutes after just about every post I make, not that you are trying to disrupt the thread or anything, randfan.

Not that we are counting.

Hee hee!

 

[RandFan]

Yeah, because when the government acts recklessly, irresponsibly, and incompetently we should give them a pass!

A.) Straw man. B.) Evidence?

Lolz.

Childish

But look on the bright side, you are both skeptic and an independent, and post nine minutes after just about every post I make, not that you are trying to disrupt the thread or anything, randfan.

I'm not going to let you turn a minor tragedy into a political witch hunt. You have yet to post a single material fact that there was any criminality or breach of ethics. Nor have you addressed the prosaic explanation that has been posted over and over.

Hee hee!

Childish.

 

[The Big Dog]

A.) Straw man. B.) Evidence?

Childish

I'm not going to let you turn a minor tragedy into a political witch hunt. You have yet to post a single material fact that there was any criminality or breach of ethics. Nor have you addressed the prosaic explanation that has been posted over and over.

Childish.

Randfan is not going to "let me." Because if we don't mention criminality or ethics, ya see, we can't talk about poor planning, faulty intelligence, grossly wrong talking points, diplomatic failures, or... Well just whatever the guy who isn't going to let us discuss benghazi talk about.

What are the approved topics, then?

I'm guessing spontaneous attacks arising out of nonexistent protests?

Lolz! I know, I know.. Childish. Amiright?

Thanks skeptic. Sorry, independent skeptic.

/Bummer though that you keep posting a false dichotomy.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan is not going to "let me." Because if we don't mention criminality or ethics, ya see, we can't talk about poor planning, faulty intelligence, grossly wrong talking points, diplomatic failures, or... Well just whatever the guy who isn't going to let us discuss benghazi talk about.

We've talked about those things.

What are the approved topics, then?

You are free to post anything that doesn't break forum rules.

I'm guessing spontaneous attacks arising out of nonexistent protests?

I'm guessing you've yet to post evidence of what was known at the time.

Bummer though that you keep posting a false dichotomy.

No. I'm providing context and I've said over and over, if you can show an ethical breach or evidence of criminality I'll be on your side in a second.

Lolz! I know, I know.. Childish. Amiright?

Well, what the hell do you think? You claim you want a serious discussion and you break out with "Lolz". Of course it's childish.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

That is awesome! You seem to believe that it was a Spontaneous attack! So you are the one.

Anyway, I'm assuming you've never had a job.

Where does this come from, and what relevance does it have? It looks to me like more of your standard technique for avoiding answering questions.

 

[elbe]

Where does this come from, and what relevance does it have? It looks to me like more of your standard technique for avoiding answering questions.

I think he's trying to draw some comparison to corporate bureaucratic structure (something that not everyone who works even has to deal with) for whatever reason. It's poorly thought out and just comes off as a random attack on ANT.

 

[A'isha]

That is awesome! You seem to believe that it was a Spontaneous attack! So you are the one.

No, I'm saying that the use of mortars eight hours after the initial attack does not, in any way, shape, or form, prove that said initial attack was not spontaneous.

Anyway, I'm assuming you've never had a job.

So, not only are you still refusing to answer my questions, you're back to the personal attacks too?

I thought you wanted to seriously discuss this topic.

Ansar al sharia was removed from the talking points after the CIA lawyer (the lawyer) sent an email saying: NSS/doj/FBI directive not to even mention internally (I mean what the ****?) the perpetrators.

At 4:20 PM on the 14th, Stephen W. Preston, the CIA's General Counsel, sent an email which read, "Folks, I know there is a hurry to get this out, but we need to hold it long enough to ascertain whether providing it conflicts with express instructions from NSS/DOJ/FBI that, in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this etc. - even internally, not to mention for public release."

The mention of Ansar al-Sharia was not removed from the talking points after that email. It continued to appear in the various drafts of the memo, and was cleared and appoved by both the NSS and the White House. At 7:39 PM, Victoria Nuland sent an email asking why everyone wanted members of Congress (using the talking points) to start talking about Ansar al-Sharia "when we ourselves aren't doing that until we have the investigation results". Then, and only then, was the mention of Ansar al-Sharia removed in the 8:59 draft of the memo.

Hmmm, NSS (boss) doj, not boss, FBI not just not a boss, but the competition.

A) NSS cleared the versions of the draft that contained the mention of Ansar al-Sharia, and B) "competition" for what?

CIA doesn't care what the justice department says, they do care what the NSS says.

The CIA certainly cared what the FBI said, changing the memo to say "there are indications" instead of "we do know" in response to their direct requests and even using the FBI's suggested verbiage.

And the NSS said they were fine with the drafts of the memo containing the mention of Ansar al-Sharia.

You seem to keep running away from that little fact, perhaps because it completely torpedoes your theory.

What are the approved topics, then?

I'm guessing spontaneous attacks arising out of nonexistent protests.

The protests that the memo said the attacks spontaneously arose out of most certainly did exist.