New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

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.

I'm relying on the 9/12 state department email to the Libyans and the actual emails that were passed between the administration from 9/12 to 9/15.

They showed that it was quite clearly not the best evidence available and was flat out wrong.

If you have something to contradict the fact that the state department told the Libyan government on 9/12 that it was al qua'ida affiliated ansar al sharia, post it.

 

[remirol]

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

We're all still waiting for him to explain, with his *cough* wealth of experience, how it was possible to pick those particular three threats out of the parade of the ones America and its embassies receive every day and identify them as "definitely true, this is happening" and the others as "only hot air, no resources required".

If he knows a reliable method to do this, he has a job just waiting for him in a number of Interested Organizations. This question has been dodged every time it's been brought up though, so we might be waiting awhile.

Without that little bit of information, it's just a variant of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy -- wait til something happens, go back and correlate all the signs associated with it, stamp your feet, and scream THEY* SHOULDVE KNOWN!!!one


* It's never "we" should've known. Always "they". After all, "we" wouldn't miss anything like that even though last time "we" were in charge, "we" missed something much, much bigger than that. But that's excusable, because "we" aren't THEM and THEM must be stopped at all costs, no matter what fictions "we" have to propagate.

 

[Rich_C]

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?hp#/?chapt=0

This article says it was not Al Queda behind Benghazi. And that it was in fact partly a spontaneous attack based on the stupid video. Interesting. That would mean Susan Rice was actually right.

 

[Unabogie]

So far, no mention of the big story by the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0

Not that this will ever quell the conspiracy theory, but this completely demolishes the lies that the right has told about what happened there.

No, it wasn't Al Qaeda. Yes, the video did play a part.

Again, I don't expect our resident conspiracy nuts to change their minds. They'll scoff at this report and call it "lies", and say that it's just a "white wash" and a "cover up".

I think this is the truth: Mitt Romney stepped on his pecker the night this happened, and accused Obama of "apologizing" for being attacked. This backfired on him, and the GOP rallied around the conspiracy theory in order to shore up Mitt's big blunder. From that point on, the CTers were off to the races.

Over a year later, and it's basically what Susan Rice said it was. In fact, John McCain and Lindsay Graham owe her a big fat apology (that is, if they had any shame).

 

[remirol]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/conspiracy-theory-unravels-nothing

Trigger warning: MSNBC. Headline, oddly enough, reflects actual article.

This CT was called back on Page 1, I believe? Time to move it yet?

 

[tyr_13]

I'm relying on the 9/12 state department email to the Libyans and the actual emails that were passed between the administration from 9/12 to 9/15.

They showed that it was quite clearly not the best evidence available and was flat out wrong.

If you have something to contradict the fact that the state department told the Libyan government on 9/12 that it was al qua'ida affiliated ansar al sharia, post it.

Sorry, but no. That's shifting the burden and of course immaterial to the criticism I've leveled at you.

In fact nothing you said actually addresses what I said. You're looking back at those communications with the benefit of hindsight and assigning value for other people at the time based on that hindsight while at the same time tossing out alternate explanations.

Oh, and it looks like even your hindsight might be wrong.

 

[NoahFence]

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?

It doesn't.

 

[NoahFence]

My initial reaction to all this hand-wringing is that right-leaning CTers are trying to keep this in the forefront in order to prevent Hillary from winning in '16 (despite the fact she's not come out and said she's running).

I've not seen a lick that changes that initial perception.

It's a witch hunt. that's all.

 

[G6000]

Over a year later, and it's basically what Susan Rice said it was. In fact, John McCain and Lindsay Graham owe her a big fat apology (that is, if they had any shame).

No, Susan Rice made some misstatements.

 

[G6000]

So far, no mention of the big story by the New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0

Not that this will ever quell the conspiracy theory, but this completely demolishes the lies that the right has told about what happened there.

No, it wasn't Al Qaeda. Yes, the video did play a part.

Again, I don't expect our resident conspiracy nuts to change their minds. They'll scoff at this report and call it "lies", and say that it's just a "white wash" and a "cover up".

I think this is the truth: Mitt Romney stepped on his pecker the night this happened, and accused Obama of "apologizing" for being attacked. This backfired on him, and the GOP rallied around the conspiracy theory in order to shore up Mitt's big blunder. From that point on, the CTers were off to the races.

Over a year later, and it's basically what Susan Rice said it was. In fact, John McCain and Lindsay Graham owe her a big fat apology (that is, if they had any shame).

Here is a clip from Sunday's Meet the Press: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/meet-the-press/53936454/#53936454

The reporter who wrote the NYT story does not let Susan Rice off the hook as you just did:

DAVID GREGORY: Andrea mitchell , in the days after the attack on this program and others, then UN ambassador, who is now the president's national security adviser, Susan Rice , came on the program and I asked her if there was a terrorist element involved. this is what she said then:

SUSAN RICE: Putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo. Almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo which were prompted by the video.

DAVID GREGORY: She says the video was a part of this, this was a spontaneous event in part based on what the intelligence community believed. That's being bolstered by this original assessment by the New York Times.

DAVID KIRKPATRICK: If i can interrupt you, I would say, no, we're not bolstering that original assessment. In fact, she made some clear misstatements there. This was not a street protest and it was not a copycat of what happened in Cairo . That was an unarmed street protest . This was a group of armed men, who inspired by a video, deliberately attacked the compound. So what she's doing there through her misstatement is actually setting up kind of a false dichotomy . Either it was a spontaneous street protest or it was an armed terrorist attack . Neither of those turns out to be exactly the case. It was an armed terrorist attack motivated in large part by the video.

 

[G6000]

There was no seeking of truth by the Right with respect to Benghazi. There was a seeking of damage to Obama.

A lot of garbage was manufactured by the Right ove Benghazi. The "Obama watched while they died" baloney. The "stand down order". The implication the Battle of Benghazi raged continuously, first for five hours, then six, then seven, and now Congressman Issa has stretched it out to an eight hour long battle.

These and more are a dead giveaway the Right is not the slightest bit interested in discerning the truth.

There were ten attacks on our diplomatic missions on George Bush's watch. The rubes cannot tell us how many Americans were killed. They cannot tell us what Bush was doing before, during, or after any of those attacks. They cannot tell us if any requests for extra protection were made prior to any of those attacks. And that is because they really don't care.

The dead of Benghazi made a convenient podium on which to stand to try to damage Obama. This whole incident has been a sickening exploitation of the dead.

ANDREA MITCHELL: In Susan Rice's defense, and the State Department's as well, in those first few days everybody was trying to cover up, appropriately, they thought, the fact this was a CIA outpost. It was a cover for an outpost to try to disarm the very militias that ended up attacking.

 

[The Big Dog]

The Old Gray Lady Embarrasses itself

A report from the New York Times attempts to spin the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, and manages to violate the most fundamental rules of journalism.

The first spin is that the "attackers" were motivated by the anti-islam video. The article is bereft of facts supporting this claim. The closest one comes is:

"There is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers. A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet."

Who, what, where, when. Noticeably absent. When did this take place? What provides the conclusion that the people he talked to were the attackers involved in planning and perpetrating the initial assault, and not the follow on looters? Nothing at all.

Lets take a look at something else. Here is how he describes the history of violence in Benghazi:

"By the summer of 2012, a new pattern of hit-and-run attacks against Western interests was emerging. There were three separate attacks in Benghazi involving small explosives that locals used for fishing, two on the American compound and a third near a United Nations convoy.

.....

After a rocket-propelled grenade seriously wounded a guard in the British ambassador’s convoy, the British began limiting their presence in Benghazi to day trips, depositing their vehicles and weapons inside the American compound at night before flying back to Tripoli, the capital."

The attack on the Red Cross? Completely ignored. Lets see what the original version of the talking points said:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya. Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interest in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out that individuals had previously surveilled the US facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

What else is missing?

Describing a conversation she had with then-Libyan ambassador Ali Aujali, Jones wrote in the previously undisclosed email that 'I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.'

9/12 email from Elizabeth Jones of the state department describing discussion she had with Libyan ambassador.

Don't bother looking for it, it is not there. It appears that the New York Times does not understand the concept of "affiliated."

Here is a pretty good round up of what else the New York Times missed:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/30/completely-false-sources-on-ground-in-benghazi-challenge-nyt-report/

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

16.5, pointing out that there was no conspiracy and that there was nothing unique about the Benghazi attack or sacandalous about the Obama administration's response to it is not a tu quoque.

Or maybe they just didn't want to make claims until they had absolute proof? Sounds like you're twisting their words to me.

Yep. Rice made it clear that she wasn't making any definitive statements that early.

 

[A'isha]

The first spin is that the "attackers" were motivated by the anti-islam video. The article is bereft of facts supporting this claim. The closest one comes is:

"There is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers. A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet."

Who, what, where, when. Noticeably absent. When did this take place? What provides the conclusion that the people he talked to were the attackers involved in planning and perpetrating the initial assault, and not the follow on looters? Nothing at all.

It's talking about the original New York Times article being referenced, which was published in October 2012 and which was extensively quoted by me in this very thread the day after you started it.

Here is a pretty good round up of what else the New York Times missed:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ge-nyt-report/

Where does it do that? The Fox News article claims that their sources (which, in an entirely unsupported assertion, "continue to face threats of losing their jobs") "sharply challenged the Times’ findings that there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks".

Except that the quotes printed in the article from those "sources" don't say a single thing about involvement from Al Qaeda or that the film didn't play a role in inciting the initial attacks. The only things those quotes describe is the actions of the attackers once the attack had begun, and don't mention the motivation for the attacks or who those attackers were. And the description of those actions is entirely consistent with the descriptions in both the New York Times report and the October 2012 article.

Fox News fail.

 

[The Big Dog]

There were ten attacks on our diplomatic missions on George Bush's watch. The rubes cannot tell us how many Americans were killed.

Well, how many Americans were killed during those attacks? I've discussed that at length during this thread.

The "rubes" are dying to know.

 

[The Big Dog]

Bi-Partoisan House Intelligence Community Refutes NY Times Spin

“I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,” Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told “Fox News Sunday.”

He also repeatedly said the story was “not accurate.”

Rogers was joined on the show by California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, who said, “intelligence indicates Al Qaeda was involved.”

Well that makes the State department, The FBI, the CIA, the Democrats and the Republicans all saying that Islamic Terrorists were involved in the attack.

Thanks for the bird cage lining, NY Times. NEXT!

 

[The Big Dog]

Who was Secretary of State?

There has been plenty of excitement over the New York Times "investigation" which as I have mentioned does not quote Elizabeth Jones 9/12 email summarizing the fact that she told the Government of Libya that Islamist Terrorist Affiliated entity Ansar Al Sharia led the attacks.

What however is the paper of record missing?

The identity of the then presiding Secretary of State.

Things that make you say: HUH.

 

[Mister Earl]

Well, how many Americans were killed during those attacks? I've discussed that at length during this thread.

The "rubes" are dying to know.

So, someone else of a differing nationality being killed at our embassies is somehow less of a security lapse? Of course not. I'd even go so far as to say it's worse, given foreign nationals were being murdered on US territory.

But it's interesting seeing the contortions you're doing to make those somehow not count, and make this one stand out somehow.

 

[A'isha]

Well that makes the State department, The FBI, the CIA, the Democrats and the Republicans all saying that Islamic Terrorists were involved in the attack.

Which is kind of funny, since that's exactly what the New York Times is saying in their report too.

 

[lobosrul]

Well, how many Americans were killed during those attacks? I've discussed that at length during this thread.

The "rubes" are dying to know.

In case your serious, and don't know how to do an internet search:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+many+cia+bombings+during+bushes+term

From the 2nd hit:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.