New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

According to my research. You are wrong. In fact, even this article that is trying to "help" prove your point shows that you are absolutely wrong in your statement. Unless security can't stop people from being shot, or bombed, even outside of their homes.

The hilited section is merely your opinion, it's not fact. Your claim is that Benghazi was preventable, due to incompetence, and that the Administration misrepresented the situation. That's your claim, don't state is as fact unless it's confirmed.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

Thank you for posting. If American Diplomats were killed at 10 different attacks during the Bush years, you and your links and the former President have not shown that they occurred.

More importantly, however, and with particular focus on the Benghazi attacks, we seem to be in a agreement that arguments based on the attacks during the Bush years are fallacious.

With regard to your claims regarding incompetent security planning and that the Benghazi attack was preventable, those are not my opinions, those are the findings of the Senate. You may wish to familiarize yourself with their report:

The deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was "likely preventable" based on known security shortfalls and prior warnings that the security situation there was deteriorating, the majority of the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a report released on Wednesday.

The misrepresentations are well known, but here is an outline.

Fact Check Benghazi Timeline

Thanks.

 

[AlexW]

I said it wasn't accurate. Please do not misrepresent what I said further.

I have quoted the Greg hicks article at length in this thread.

Here is the link again.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304302704579332732276330284

I can't read that article as I don't subscribe to the WSJ. In any event, I do note that it's in the "opinion" section. Maybe there are links therein to other articles or documents supporting what they say there--hard to tell. In any case, I think it's likely fair to say that Hicks and Stevens may have had some disagreements about security needs; and there may be some disparate information out there. I still don't see how the information from Ham can be disregarded out of hand. I think it's also fair to say that given what transpired, there was not enough security at the compound. My main point is that there can be many reasons contributing to why that was the case, including a deliberate choice by the ambassador to exhibit a small footprint.

 

[tyr_13]

The House committee still investigating (for certain definitions) Benghazi are ready to spend an additional $3.3 million. That would put it's effective yearly budge above the House Intelligence committee.

The predictable rebuke to this is that it's Obama's fault they have to spend so much because he's still hiding the bad stuff. This assumes there is worse stuff. What is the way to tell the difference between actions consistent with nothing worse being there, and actions consistent with worse things being covered up? There hasn't been anything convincing presented here, so restating that isn't what I'm looking for. My point is that no matter what happens, no matter how much time and money is spent, it will never convince those who are already sure something is horribly wrong. Because one can't prove a negative, they will keep hunting for years. It's just like every other unsupported CT, only it has a House committee wasting time and money.

 

[The Big Dog]

Government Motion Puts to Rest Video Theory

A motion filed by the U.S. Justice Department in the criminal case against Benghazi attack suspect Ahmed Abu Khatallah provides unprecedented details about the evolution of the assault on the American Facilities in benghazi.

The Justice Department's court filings make clear that those spearheading the attack were part of a "conspiracy," one that involved several members of the Ansar al-Sharia "Islamic extremist militia."

The motion says that in the days preceding the attack, the defendant "voiced concern and opposition to the presence of an American facility in Benghazi." According to the motion, a group of 20 or more "armed men," including militia members, assembled outside the U.S. compound at 9:45 p.m. the night of Sept. 11, 2012, and "aggressively breached" the gate.

The entire motion is available here:

Link to Government's Motion

 

[plague311]

A motion filed by the U.S. Justice Department in the criminal case against Benghazi attack suspect Ahmed Abu Khatallah provides unprecedented details about the evolution of the assault on the American Facilities in benghazi.

The Justice Department's court filings make clear that those spearheading the attack were part of a "conspiracy," one that involved several members of the Ansar al-Sharia "Islamic extremist militia."

The motion says that in the days preceding the attack, the defendant "voiced concern and opposition to the presence of an American facility in Benghazi." According to the motion, a group of 20 or more "armed men," including militia members, assembled outside the U.S. compound at 9:45 p.m. the night of Sept. 11, 2012, and "aggressively breached" the gate.

The entire motion is available here:

Link to Government's Motion

I'm sorry, maybe somewhere in there you stated this already, but where does it put the theory to rest? I see that they were "voicing concern and opposition to the presence of an American facility in Benghazi", but no where does your quoted portion say the video doesn't play a role. They could have been voicing it and then the video was the "straw that broke the camels back". I, honestly, don't have the time to read through the whole thing, so I apologize for asking you to do it. However, like I said, I don't see where it's backing up your claim.

 

[AlexW]

Interesting. Also read today that the investigation into the attack on the CIA annex is still ongoing. Sometimes investigations appear to just take time. I still don't really understand what the dust up is over statements made the week or two following the event that were almost universally pre- or post-fixed with the clarifying statement that "investigations (were) ongoing."

Just read an interesting AP article as well on the whole "Stand Down" issue. I know it's been discussed a bunch ITT, but thought it was a good summary of the whole issue:

LINK

 

[The Big Dog]

Interesting. Also read today that the investigation into the attack on the CIA annex is still ongoing. Sometimes investigations appear to just take time. I still don't really understand what the dust up is over statements made the week or two following the event that were almost universally pre- or post-fixed with the clarifying statement that "investigations (were) ongoing."

Just read an interesting AP article as well on the whole "Stand Down" issue. I know it's been discussed a bunch ITT, but thought it was a good summary of the whole issue:

LINK

That testimony clearly confirms Greg Hicks testimony in all material respects, including that the spec ops commander in Tripoli wanted to go to Benghazi but was ordered not to get on the plane and he was angry about it.

Curious that article did not mention that aspect of Hicks' testimony.

It appears that there is a semantic difference between "standing down" and "don't go" in the military. He was given a don't go to benghazi order.

Glad we can confirm that.

 

[wareyin]

It appears that there is a semantic difference between "standing down" and "don't go" in the military. He was given a don't go to benghazi order.

This is more than a semantic difference. "Stand down" means to relax, no longer be in a state of readiness. He was told to remain where he was to assist with security and ops there, not to relax.

 

[The Big Dog]

Faraj al-Shibli, who was suspected of involvement in the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, has been found dead, a Libyan source and locals in the town of Marj said.

al-Shibil had substantial involvement with al Qua'ida and was one of the key links between international terrorist groups and the Ansar Al Sharia factions in North Africa.

More details here:

Benghazi attack suspect dead

 

[applecorped]

Faraj al-Shibli, who was suspected of involvement in the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, has been found dead, a Libyan source and locals in the town of Marj said.

al-Shibil had substantial involvement with al Qua'ida and was one of the key links between international terrorist groups and the Ansar Al Sharia factions in North Africa.

More details here:

Benghazi attack suspect dead

That is interesting, thank you.

 

[KDLarsen]

House panel: No administration wrongdoing in Benghazi attack
(08-01) 11:42 PDT WASHINGTON -- The House Intelligence Committee, led by Republicans, has concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, said Rep. Mike Thompson of St. Helena, the second-ranking Democrat on the committee.

The panel voted Thursday to declassify the report, the result of two years of investigation by the committee. U.S. intelligence agencies will have to approve making the report public.

Thompson said the report "confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given."

That conflicts with accusations of administration wrongdoing voiced by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (San Diego County), whose House Government Oversight and Reform Committee has held hearings on the Benghazi attack.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/House-panel-No-administration-wrongdoing-in-5663509.php

Surely Issa is going to need a few more hearings to confirm that?

 

[Unabogie]

The Fat Lady Sings

Apologies to fat ladies, but the GOP led panel has concluded that there was no administration wrongdoing, in a finding that surprises exactly no one.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/arti...ation-wrongdoing-in-5663509.php?cmpid=twitter

(08-01) 11:42 PDT WASHINGTON -- The House Intelligence Committee, led by Republicans, has concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, said Rep. Mike Thompson of St. Helena, the second-ranking Democrat on the committee.

The panel voted Thursday to declassify the report, the result of two years of investigation by the committee. U.S. intelligence agencies will have to approve making the report public.

Thompson said the report "confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given."

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

House panel: No administration wrongdoing in Benghazi attack

A REPUBLICAN-CHAIRED house panel investigating Benghazi, ahem...

has concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans,....the report "confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given."

oopsie-doodle. looks like the rightwing conspiracy mongers have been lying, again.

 

[Tricky]

I'm confident that, since we now have factual reports from several different bipartisan committees which all report no wrongdoing, the GOP will put this behind them and move on to more pressing issues.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Yeah, well, they didn't consult the guy ahead of me in traffic yesterday whose Camry was sporting this bumper sticker:

 

[The Big Dog]

Has anyone actually read the House Inelligence Report?

As best I can tell, all of the reporting is based on a single press release by a Democrat from St. Helena.

Anyone have the actual report? Anyone read it yet?

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm confident that, since we now have factual reports from several different bipartisan committees which all report no wrongdoing, the GOP will put this behind them and move on to more pressing issues.

No wrongdoing? The senate report made it absolutely clear that the attack was preventable and that clear warnings were ignored.

I am baffled that someone could claim that constitutes a finding of no wrong doing.

Again, have you read the actual report or are we just going to stop because some democrat issued a press release?

 

[DavidJames]

No wrongdoing? The senate report made it absolutely clear that the attack was preventable and that clear warnings were ignored.

I am baffled that someone could claim that constitutes a finding of no wrong doing.

Again, have you read the actual report or are we just going to stop because some democrat issued a press release?

You are welcome to provide in context quotes from the report showing the Obama administration failures, criminal liability or complicity.

As far as clear warnings being ignored, it would be fascinating to hear how you compare and contrast those with what was available prior to 9/11 and your thoughts on liability of both.

 

[Mister Earl]

I'm sure Issa already has a fallback controversy to fabricate.

 

[12AX7]

Has anyone actually read the House Inelligence Report?

As best I can tell, all of the reporting is based on a single press release by a Democrat from St. Helena.

Anyone have the actual report? Anyone read it yet?

You should ask the "House Intelligence Committee, led by Republicans, that concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration in the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya" that same question.

Maybe they just didn't read the report.