New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Although most of the news about Benghazi today involves the tragic murder of an American teacher, behind the scenes, the Congress has finally had the chance to talk to a number of the actual participants involved in defending the attack.

Although much of the testimony is going on behind closed doors, the testimony has confirmed what avid readers of this thread have long known, the attacks were well-planned, professional, and coordinated.

A "fair and balanced" summary is located here:

The witnesses also testified that the mortar fire was extremely accurate, professional and likely the work of a trained mortar team which they believe included a spotter.
 
Robrob said:
Oh look, another myth bites the dust.

CIA Benghazi Team Clash Led To 'Stand Down' Report
Click to expand...

I cannot believe how incompetently written that article is. It is mixing various issues and has the time line COMPLETELY wrong. Lets take a look:

"The testimony from the CIA officers and contractors who were in Libya that night bolster those denials but also shed light on what may have led to the delay of less than 30 minutes. None of those who testified said that a quicker response would have saved the lives of Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glenn (sic) Doherty."

At the time they were having the discussions about leaving the annex, Tyrone Woods was at the annex, and was one of the officers making the decision to go to the consulate, and Glen (not Glenn Huff Po) Doherty was in freaking Tripoli.

The stand down and the fly over discussion occurred over the next several hours.

Unbelievable.
 
16.5 said:
Susan Rice does not regret lying to the American people and directly contradicting the president of Libya regarding the attacks in Libya.
Click to expand...

Article directly contradicts you:

FTFA said:
That particular assessment from talking points prepared by the CIA was wrong, and Rice was accused of being deliberately misleading. But a former senior intelligence official told us that the talking point that called the Benghazi attack spontaneous was precisely what classified intelligence reports said at the time.
Click to expand...

Do you regret having lied about the contents of the article?
 
16.5 said:
Susan Rice does not regret lying to the American people and directly contradicting the president of Libya regarding the attacks in Libya.

Wow.

As avid readers demand, a link:

National Security Advisor does not regret lying
Click to expand...

Not sure what point you're fishing for. I read through the article, trying to find anything that would support what you're saying. Here's the closest I got. From the article:

Susan Rice became national security advisor as a consolation prize. She lost her chance to be Secretary of State when she – then the UN ambassador – was asked to pinch hit for Hillary Clinton and answer questions about the attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi where our ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and 3 others were killed.

[Susan Rice on "Face the Nation": What our assessment is as of the present, is in fact what, it began spontaneously in Benghazi…]

That particular assessment from talking points prepared by the CIA was wrong, and Rice was accused of being deliberately misleading. But a former senior intelligence official told us that the talking point that called the Benghazi attack spontaneous was precisely what classified intelligence reports said at the time.
Click to expand...

Is this what you were referring to? If so, how does this equate with what you said? If not, then what in the article was? Given either route, how does this support your assertions? Do you seek to prove a coverup via quote-mining?
 
16.5 said:
Susan Rice does not regret lying to the American people and directly contradicting the president of Libya regarding the attacks in Libya.

Wow.

As avid readers demand, a link:

National Security Advisor does not regret lying
Click to expand...

...as an avid reader of this thread: I was majorly disappointed that the cite you provided didn't seem to match how you described it. Can you point out where Susan Rice firstly admitted lying, then stated she regretted it?
 
What an odd series of posts. I'm sure that we can all agree that Rice made it utterly clear that she did not regret the statements that she made during the Sunday morning talk shows.

I am sure that we can agree that what she said during the Sunday morning was false. The state department specifically identified the attack as a terror attack perpetrated by ansar al sharia before she went on the talk shows. She also intentionally contradicted the President of Libya with the lies in the talking points. I do understand that the talking points were intentionally manipulated to delete information, but avid readers know that the claim thatthe talking points were the best intelligence available is completely laughable.

I do recognize that Rice might have been completely ignorant of the true facts (although why she contradicted the president of Libya would be almost spectacularly negligent). But then in that case, one would expect that Rice would regret being used as a complete dupe.

Folks, always recall that a single article is not remotely all the information available. Feel free to review my posts in this thread for the necessary context.

Thanks!
 
So I haven't read this thread for a while. Has anyone ever said what exactly is unique about this particular terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities that makes it different from all the others? In other words, why does it merit any greater attention?
 
And 16.5 is still ignoring the fact that these preliminary assessments were accompanied by a disclaimer pointing out that they were in fact preliminary and subject to change when more firm information became available?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
So I haven't read this thread for a while. Has anyone ever said what exactly is unique about this particular terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities that makes it different from all the others? In other words, why does it merit any greater attention?
Click to expand...

Yes joe, quite literally a dozen times. There was a period in this thread when that particular tu quoque was being bandied about and was definitively refuted by me. You may wish to review that portion of the thread again.

JoeTheJuggler said:
And 16.5 is still ignoring the fact that these preliminary assessments were accompanied by a disclaimer pointing out that they were in fact preliminary and subject to change when more firm information became available?
Click to expand...

Avid readers of this thread know that those disclaimers themselves were false.

RICE: So we’ll want to see the results of that [FBI] investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

The bolded parts are COMPLETELY untrue. We know it wasn't the best information, and we know that the DoD and State Departments assessment (as evidenced by Ham, the CIA and others) was that this was a well planned and coordinated attack. You can't even trust this administration's disclaimers!
 
Still resting on hindsight and Monday morning quarterbacking to convince people that the administration was lying is a losing argument. Mostly it is so because it's invalid.
 
16.5 said:
Yes joe, quite literally a dozen times. There was a period in this thread when that particular tu quoque was being bandied about and was definitively refuted by me. You may wish to review that portion of the thread again.



Avid readers of this thread know that those disclaimers themselves were false.

RICE: So we’ll want to see the results of that [FBI] investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

The bolded parts are COMPLETELY untrue. We know it wasn't the best information, and we know that the DoD and State Departments assessment (as evidenced by Ham, the CIA and others) was that this was a well planned and coordinated attack. You can't even trust this administration's disclaimers!
Click to expand...

Or maybe they just didn't want to make claims until they had absolute proof? Sounds like you're twisting their words to me.
 
16.5... I've got experience in the intel field. Specifically, I was a Human Intelligence Collector. HUMINT. And I can tell you without any shred of doubt that the intelligence world doesn't take initial reports as fact. Ever. There's a reason you use multiple sources with varying degrees of veracity. At most you'll hedge your bets and make a bland statement and follow that up with the qualifier that the statement is pending more corroboration.

Frankly, I think it's a little absurd to hold someone's toes to the fire based on what they said on very little confirmed information, and even more so when they outright say they're basing what they're saying off of limited information.

Intel don't work like it does on TV. It's boring, and it takes time.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
Click to expand...

Huh.
 
Mister Earl said:
16.5... I've got experience in the intel field. Specifically, I was a Human Intelligence Collector. HUMINT. And I can tell you without any shred of doubt that the intelligence world doesn't take initial reports as fact. Ever. There's a reason you use multiple sources with varying degrees of veracity. At most you'll hedge your bets and make a bland statement and follow that up with the qualifier that the statement is pending more corroboration.

Frankly, I think it's a little absurd to hold someone's toes to the fire based on what they said on very little confirmed information, and even more so when they outright say they're basing what they're saying off of limited information.

Intel don't work like it does on TV. It's boring, and it takes time.
Click to expand...

Cool story bro. Looking forward to your explanation why the state department told the Libyans it was ansar al sharia, the state department later completely disavowed the lie, it was ansar al sharia, and rice got up there and contradicted the president of Libya.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom