New Disclosures on Benghazi

[uke2se]

Not secured to "secure an airport" WTF? Take it up with Hicks, friend.

Armed with pistols in an unclear situation?

A diplomat expressing his wishes should override military considerations?

What about the second question? Why did Hicks "not correct" the questioner? Hell if I know, bro.

You are free to speculate.

I think it's pretty obvious why he didn't.

What he said was the U.S. might have prevented the night’s second deadly attack if the military had been able to get a fighter jet to Benghazi as soon as possible.

And they weren't able to, so what's Hick's deal do you think?

I think it's pretty obvious what his deal is.

Finally, I'd like to add a personal question which you are free to ignore and I won't press you on it should you chose not to answer:

Did you lose someone close to you at Benghazi? It seems you have a personal axe to grind here and are willing to cast rationality out the window for a chance for revenge. That's just my impression, and if you did lose someone, I will bow out of this discussion.

 

[The Big Dog]

Shall we take this as an admission that you will never give a rational answer to the first question, nor any answer at all to the second?

Sure, if you wish, because no one at all is going to see that huge font I used answering the question as best i could.

Thanks for asking about me though.

I can see you are truly concerned with the ONGOING TESTIMONY.

Thanks for posting.

 

[A'isha]

Not secured to "secure an airport" WTF? Take it up with Hicks, friend.

And what was his military expertise and authority that would override SOCAFRICA's assessment, again?

What he said was the U.S. might have prevented the night’s second deadly attack if the military had been able to get a fighter jet to Benghazi as soon as possible.

And he knew exactly why that couldn't and didn't happen, because he was explicitly told. So why does he keep talking about it?

 

[RandFan]

Is the whitehouse paying you to carry their water on the demean, deny, and obfuscate action now ongoing? If not they should be.

Shill gambit - RationalWiki Very popular among conspiracy theorists. Amazing it pops up twice in this thread.

The shill gambit is a type of ad hominem and poisoning the well wherein one party dismisses the other's arguments by proclaiming them to be on the payroll of some agency. It usually goes something like this:

Alice: There is absolutely no evidence that explosives were planted in the Twin Towers

Bob: Ah, I knew it, another Bush administration shill spreading disinfo! Go spew your lies somewhere else, shill!

 

[A'isha]

I can see you are truly concerned with the ONGOING TESTIMONY.

Why should we be concerned with it, since he's merely repeating the exact same stuff he said and that we had already been discussing in this thread before today's hearing started?

 

[uke2se]

Sure, if you wish, because no one at all is going to see that huge font I used answering the question as best i could.

Thanks for asking about me though.

I can see you are truly concerned with the ONGOING TESTIMONY.

Thanks for posting.

I am concerned with Republicans trying to use the death of four Americans as a political weapon against the Obama administration. I am concerned about that because I think it's about as low as I've seen Republicans go - and that's really saying something.

 

[RandFan]

I am concerned with Republicans trying to use the death of four Americans as a political weapon against the Obama administration. I am concerned about that because I think it's about as low as I've seen Republicans go - and that's really saying something.

The same Republicans who NEVER condemn the Bush admin for lying to get us into a war.

The Benghazi incident deserves investigation and if there was malfeasance, negligence and/or cover up it should be brought to the public's attention and people should be held accountable. Wrong is wrong. Now, if we could get the Republican on board with that concept.

Still, IMO, this is looking more and more like CT. I predict this thread will end up in that forum.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Again, you're conflating "there was no protest against the video outside the consulate which preceded the attack on the consulate" and "the video had nothing to do with the motivations for the attack on the consulate".

No I am not. That's what the people on the ground have said in no uncertain terms and have been saying it from the beginning.

The president is the one who conflated the video protests in Cairo and elsewhere with the attack in Benghazi a full week later. Not me.

 

[The Big Dog]

More testimony:

Hicks, who now works as a State foreign affairs officer for government affairs, says has been "effectively demoted from deputy chief of mission to desk officer."

 

[The Big Dog]

Confirmation of the role of Ansar al Sharia, reference to the Twitter feed:

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.

 

[The Big Dog]

Testimony regarding the Fighter Jets:

At about 10:45 or 11:00, we confer and I asked the defense attache who’d been talking with AFRICOM and with the Joint Staff: Is anything coming? Will they be sending us any help? Is there something out there? And he answered that the nearest help was in Aviano, and the nearest — where there were fighter planes. And he said that it would take two to three hours for them to get on site, but that there also were no tankers available for them to refuel. And I said, thank you very much, and we went on with our work.

 

[The Big Dog]

Questions regarding security in Tripoli, and discussion of the Special ops forces:

In Tripoli, we had — the defense attache had persuaded the Libyans to fly their C-130 to Benghazi. We wanted to airlift — we had — since we had consolidated at the annex, and the Libyan government had now provided us with external security around our facilities, we wanted to send further reinforcements to Benghazi. We determined that Lt. Colonel Gibson and his team of special forces troops should go. The people in Benghazi had been fighting all night. They were tired. They were exhausted. We wanted to make sure the airport was secure for their withdrawal.

 

[elbe]

Just curious, but has the thread now become a "greatest hits" thread?

 

[A'isha]

No I am not. That's what the people on the ground have said in no uncertain terms and have been saying it from the beginning.

The president is the one who conflated the video protests in Cairo and elsewhere with the attack in Benghazi a full week later. Not me.

Again, the fact that there were no protests about the video before the attack does not mean that the video was not at least partially motivating the attack. I cited several news articles where reporters went to Benghazi and talked to witnesses and participants in the consulate attack, and who reported that the video was mentioned during the attack by those attackers.

Confirmation of the role of Ansar al Sharia, reference to the Twitter feed:

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.

Have you even been reading what has been posted? That's not a "confirmation of the role of Ansar al Sharia" (something which doesn't even need "confirming" at this stage), but merely a reference to the email that went out reporting that Ansar al-Sharia purportedly claimed responsibility over twitter, but which did not actually come from their official twitter feed. The lack of that claim on their twitter feed and facebook page combined with their immediate denials in the days after the attack muddied the issue of their participation until the statements from witnesses and examination of video cleared things up.

 

[A'isha]

Just curious, but has the thread now become a "greatest hits" thread?

It certainly seems to be very environmentally-conscious, what with all the recycling of the same statements over and over.

Are we ever going to hear any of these supposed "new disclosures"?

 

[The Big Dog]

Interesting reference to the first talking points memo drafted and distributed on 9/14/12:

The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of a response to the congressman, which was distributed internally for comment at 11:15 a.m. on Friday, September 14 This initial CIA draft included the assertion that the U.S. government “know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That draft also noted that press reports “linked the attack to Ansar al Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.”

The references to Ansar al Sharia were deleted at the request of State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland

 

[RandFan]

What is the nature of the accusations? What's the point here? Is this like the never ending request by 9/11 truthers "let's get to the bottom of this" or is there a specific allegation of negligence, malfeasance or cover up. I apologize for not knowing. This is a sincere question and not an attempt at gotcha. I realize the truthers statement could be interpreted as provocative but that's not my intent. That's how I see this entire affair. But I'm happy to be disabused of that.

 

[RandFan]

Interesting reference to the first talking points memo drafted and distributed on 9/14/12:

The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of a response to the congressman, which was distributed internally for comment at 11:15 a.m. on Friday, September 14 This initial CIA draft included the assertion that the U.S. government “know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That draft also noted that press reports “linked the attack to Ansar al Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.”

The references to Ansar al Sharia were deleted at the request of State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland

Why is it interesting? This is what makes this such CT in my opinion. Vague "interesting" testimony. The apparent "squibs" evident during 9/11 are "interesting" to truthers, but so what? What is it supposed to demonstrate or is this a case of connect the disparate dots?

 

[Bingowings]

I will be adding nothing interesting or valuable to this thread. Just these hideously snide observations from a far away land, after posting which I will relurk for another year or so.

1. 
   
   46* US troops dead so far this year in Afghanistan, so that's a shame but these other dead dudes, in this other warzone?

• 
  I read the first fifty posts of this thread last night. I didn't understand most of the technical details of the goings-on but got the gist and really enjoyed the use of bolding and size by various participants. "This can only get better!" I thought, betting myself a large slug of gin that there would be a MASSIVE reply to someone by the end of today.

CHEERS!

_{*This might be inaccurate but it's more than four. Sorry about the list numbering scheme. Math is hard!}

 

[The Big Dog]

"The hearing is closed, but the investigation is not over," said Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman on the House Oversight Committee.

I am sure every is looking forward to the complete transcripts.

Thanks to everyone who posted.