New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

From the same article:



I am confident that the Navy knows where its ships are much better than you, I, Greg Hicks, or some blogster quoting some GOP monkey looking at a map and trying to find excuses to support his conspiracy.

Next thing you know there'll be articles saying someone heard "Pull it!" right before the attack began.

Remirol:

I suggest that you have missed the entire point of my post. The point of my post was not to argue where the ships were, but instead to point out that to the extent that they were not in position to render any assistance

"This of course raises the real question that was ignored in the Slate column: why were the military assets so poorly deployed?

Avid readers of this thread already know the answer to that question: the military assets were so poorly deployed because the person responsible for preparing the security, John Brennan, never talked to the military commander for the region, General Ham:

"When questioned about this process today, General Ham, the combatant commander responsible for one of the most volatile threat environments in the world, stated that neither he or anyone working for him was consulted as part of the Brennan 9/11 planning process."
:

It is a very important question.

 

[The Big Dog]

Senators: The CIA Lied to Us

Additional details are coming out about the recent Senate Report concerning the Benghazi Terror Attacks:

Two leading Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence say that Michael Morell, former deputy director and twice acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency, provided an account of his role on Benghazi that was often highly misleading and at times deliberately false.

A link:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lawmakers-cia-2-lied-us-about-benghazi_782724.html?page=1

The upshot? Morell leaves the CIA working at a cushy job for a Hillary Clinton Political Consultant. I guess lying pays very well....

 

[citizenzen]

I suggest that you have missed the entire point of my post. The point of my post was not to argue where the ships were, but instead to point out that to the extent that they were not in position to render any assistance

Wouldn't that have required prior knowledge that the attack was forthcoming?

 

[The Big Dog]

Susan Rive does not regret lying to the American People

Susan Rice appeared on Meet the Press today, and stated that she didn't regret telling a version of the Benghazi attack that was not only completely false, but insulted and infuriated the Government of Libya, setting back the investigation by weeks.

John McCain the remarks embarrassing, and avid readers of this thread will no doubt agree.

A link:

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/545/article/p2p-79417132/

 

[DavidJames]

<snip> I can say congratulations to Susan Rice for being honest. A trait the loyal opposition would do well to imitate.

I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning (and) was provided to me and my colleagues - and indeed to Congress - by the intelligence community. And that's been well validated in many different ways since.

And that information turned out, in some respects, not to be 100 percent correct. But the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false,

Refreshing honesty. <snip>

 

[The Big Dog]

<snip> I can say congratulations to Susan Rice for being honest. A trait the loyal opposition would do well to imitate.

Refreshing honesty. <snip>

Actually, everything in this sentence is false:

"I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning (and) was provided to me and my colleagues - and indeed to Congress - by the intelligence community. And that's been well validated in many different ways since."

The State Department knew that the talking points were false, they knew that the attack was carried by Ansar Al Sharia, they knew there was no demonstration outside the Facility in Benghazi

 

[citizenzen]

The State Department knew that the talking points were false, they knew that the attack was carried by Ansar Al Sharia, they knew there was no demonstration outside the Facility in Benghazi

Source please.

(or if you've sourced this in a prior post, please refer me to that post)

Thank you.

 

[The Big Dog]

Reaction from the right to Rice's lack of regret

Avid readers of the thread know that former Ambassador Rice said that while her statements on the Monday morning talk shows were not "100% accurate" she does not regret anything about misleading the American public. Nor does she regret infuriating the Libyans who were supposed to be our allies in conducting the ensuing investigation.

On Face the Nation Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. When asked about the President's statement Rice claimed: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest. Rice of course was WAY over her skies on this one, as she had no basis to refute the President, particularly as the President was relying on information that the State Department gave him!

That same day Magariaf exploded in an interview with NPR: “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.”

Karl Rove has written an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal that contains a relatively straightforward summary of the numerous questions that we all have about Rice's lack of regret. Prominently placed therein is a document that many avid readers of the thread consider one of the key smoking guns, Beth Jones e-mail memorializing her conversation with the Libyans and telling that Islamic extremists had carried out the attack.

Here is a link to the WSJ piece: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304709904579406784236827274?mod=hp_opinion&mg=reno64-wsj If you can't get beyond the paywall, here is a summary of the article: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Karl-Rove-Susan-Rice-Benghazi-attack/2014/02/26/id/555014

Trigger warnings: Karl Rove; citation to the testimony of Greg Hicks (who has repeatedly called an idiot in this thread (not by me of course))

Looking forward to your comments

 

[Unabogie]

Avid readers of the thread know that former Ambassador Rice said that while her statements on the Monday morning talk shows were not "100% accurate" she does not regret anything about misleading the American public. Nor does she regret infuriating the Libyans who were supposed to be our allies in conducting the ensuing investigation.

On Face the Nation Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. When asked about the President's statement Rice claimed: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest. Rice of course was WAY over her skies on this one, as she had no basis to refute the President, particularly as the President was relying on information that the State Department gave him!

That same day Magariaf exploded in an interview with NPR: “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.”

Karl Rove has written an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal that contains a relatively straightforward summary of the numerous questions that we all have about Rice's lack of regret. Prominently placed therein is a document that many avid readers of the thread consider one of the key smoking guns, Beth Jones e-mail memorializing her conversation with the Libyans and telling that Islamic extremists had carried out the attack.

Here is a link to the WSJ piece: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304709904579406784236827274?mod=hp_opinion&mg=reno64-wsj If you can't get beyond the paywall, here is a summary of the article: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Karl-Rove-Susan-Rice-Benghazi-attack/2014/02/26/id/555014

Trigger warnings: Karl Rove; citation to the testimony of Greg Hicks (who has repeatedly called an idiot in this thread (not by me of course))

Looking forward to your comments

You've completely mischaracterized what Susan Rice said, and then followed it up with a link to NewsMax. Exactly what sort of comments did you expect?

 

[citizenzen]

Here is a link to the WSJ piece: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304709904579406784236827274?mod=hp_opinion&mg=reno64-wsj If you can't get beyond the paywall, here is a summary of the article: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Karl-Rove-Susan-Rice-Benghazi-attack/2014/02/26/id/555014

Trigger warnings: Karl Rove; citation to the testimony of Greg Hicks (who has repeatedly called an idiot in this thread (not by me of course))

Looking forward to your comments

My comment ...

You really have to do better than a Newsmax article drawn from an Op-ed piece.

Really.

If you can't, then you really have no evidence.

Ev-i-dence.

 

[The Big Dog]

My comment ...

You really have to do better than a Newsmax article drawn from an Op-ed piece.

Really.

If you can't, then you really have no evidence.

Ev-i-dence.

The "Op-Ed piece" contains numerous facts which have been discussed at significant length in this thread. If you have any specific questions, I would be happy to address them.

You've completely mischaracterized what Susan Rice said, and then followed it up with a link to NewsMax. Exactly what sort of comments did you expect?

I notice that you do not explain how you believe that I have mis-characterized Ms. Rice's testimony. Please note that I have sourced those quotes from the Benghazi Timeline published by Fact Check dot org, and they have been discussed here before. If you feel I have mis-quoted them, please be specific and i would be happy to address them.

I linked both the WSJ and Newsmax. If you believe that there are some facts that are mis-stated therein, please let me know.

 

[Unabogie]

I notice that you do not explain how you believe that I have mis-characterized Ms. Rice's testimony. Please note that I have sourced those quotes from the Benghazi Timeline published by Fact Check dot org, and they have been discussed here before. If you feel I have mis-quoted them, please be specific and i would be happy to address them.

I linked both the WSJ and Newsmax. If you believe that there are some facts that are mis-stated therein, please let me know.

You wrote:

Ambassador Rice said that while her statements on the Monday morning talk shows were not "100% accurate" she does not regret anything about misleading the American public.

You're assuming that she agrees or that anyone but the right wing agrees that she "misled" anyone. In fact, what she said was that she relayed the information she was given. This is a fact. Your spin on it, that she "misled" people (which in English means she knowingly lied) is your own characterization, one that Susan Rice did not say she had no regrets about, since she in fact did not do that and would not agree with you that she had.

 

[The Big Dog]

You wrote:



You're assuming that she agrees or that anyone but the right wing agrees that she "misled" anyone. In fact, what she said was that she relayed the information she was given. This is a fact. Your spin on it, that she "misled" people (which in English means she knowingly lied) is your own characterization, one that Susan Rice did not say she had no regrets about, since she in fact did not do that and would not agree with you that she had.

When she said she did not regret her statements, she had already acknowledged that her statements were inaccurate, and therefore misleading.

Your suggestion that misleading someone means she knowingly lied is not true. More importantly, again, I must stress that when she knew that her statements were in fact wrong, she did not express any regret that they were so.

This is so despite the fact that she infuriated the Libyan government with her comments, particularly as she directly contradicted him despite, at best, being kept in the dark and being spoon fed grossly inadequate talking points.

I guess that we should all be thankful that she is no longer in a diplomatic position.

 

[Mister Earl]

Why do you expect Susan Rice to feel bad about "misleading people", even though you admit she spoke on the information she'd been given, while you have been intentionally misleading people here, despite having the accurate information and willfully choosing to ignore it?

Double standards, much?

 

[elbe]

Why do you expect Susan Rice to feel bad about "misleading people", even though you admit she spoke on the information she'd been given, while you have been intentionally misleading people here, despite having the accurate information and willfully choosing to ignore it?

Double standards, much?

If you would rather assume malice than ignorance where else would it lead you?

 

[The Big Dog]

It may be very usefuil at this point to point out several important facts.

first: there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the story told by Ambassador Rice on the morning talk shows was incorrect and therefore misleading:

Oct. 9: At a background briefing, senior state department officials reveal there were no protests prior to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi — contrary to what administration officials have been saying for weeks. A senior department official says “everything is calm at 8:30 p.m.” (Libya time) when Stevens was outside the building to bid a visitor goodbye. The ambassador retired to his bedroom for the evening at 9 p.m. The calm was shattered by 9:40 p.m. when “loud noises” and “gunfire and an explosion” are heard.

A senior State Department official said it was “not our conclusion” that the Benghazi attack started as a spontaneous protest to the anti-Muslim video.

Second, Rice clearly went beyond the talking points when she attempted to refute Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf explanation that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. When asked about the President's statement Rice claimed: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest.

Third, there are several types of misrepresentation: Innocent, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation. Negligent misrepresentation is a representation about something while having no reasonable reasons for believing it to be true. Further, a misrepresentation can occur where the speaker demonstrates a reckless disregard for the truth. That is CLEARLY what occurred here.

If people want to argue that Rice was merely a "useful idiot" that was trotted out on the talk shows despite the fact that she knew that she did not have all the facts, I will not quibble with that.

 

[The Big Dog]

Additional details are coming out about the recent Senate Report concerning the Benghazi Terror Attacks:

Two leading Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence say that Michael Morell, former deputy director and twice acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency, provided an account of his role on Benghazi that was often highly misleading and at times deliberately false.

A link:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lawmakers-cia-2-lied-us-about-benghazi_782724.html?page=1

The upshot? Morell leaves the CIA working at a cushy job for a Hillary Clinton Political Consultant. I guess lying pays very well....

Perhaps many of you have heard Mike Morrel's name recently, as he seemingly has become the go to guy for pithy quotes on the Ukraine. As such, I thought avid readers would be interested in briefly revisiting this important issue.

Recall, Mike Morell was the guy who revised the talking points that were given to Rice and others as part of the Administrations cover story. This is so despite the fact that he had been advised that:

"The recently released bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi, which called the attack "preventable," notes that four days after the attack and one day before Rice filled in for an ailing Clinton, Morell and others received an email from the CIA station chief who was on the ground in Libya. He reported the attacks were "not an escalation of protests."

Not an escalation of protests.

Certain members of Congress are obvious furious at being misled, and one would expect that if Morell can break away from his duties at a Hillary Clinton think tank, that he will be recalled to testify.

here is an Op Ed that contains facts and I look forward to your comments.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022814-691717-cia-director-mike-morell-altered-talking-points.htm

 

[A'isha]

It might not have arisen out of a protest and Ansar al-Sharia may have been involved, but it's been known as early as a month after the attack that it was motivated in part by anger over the video, and that Ansar al-Sharia were not the only ones participating in the attack.

Which means that assertions about how the video had nothing to do with the attack and how we knew Ansar al-Sharia were responsible for the attack are false.

 

[The Big Dog]

It might not have arisen out of a protest and Ansar al-Sharia may have been involved, but it's been known as early as a month after the attack that it was motivated in part by anger over the video, and that Ansar al-Sharia were not the only ones participating in the attack.
Which means that assertions about how the video had nothing to do with the attack and how we knew Ansar al-Sharia were responsible for the attack are false.

With all due respect, your post is very difficult to follow.

If Ansar Al Sharia was involved in and participated in the attack,
but they were not the only ones who participated in the attack,
how does one conclude that Ansar Al sharia was not responsible?

The fact that others might also be responsible does not relieve Ansar Al Sharia of responsibility, nor does it in any way impact Liz Jones' knowledge that it was Ansar Al Sharia which she told the Libyans on 9/12.

 

[daredelvis]

Putin basically came to the conclusion after Benghazi, Syria, Egypt - everything Obama has been engaged in - he's a weak indecisive leader.

But I thought he decisively had Stevens killed, and then decisively covered it up (not sure how). I wish the "theorists" could get their story straight.

Daredelvis