New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

Apparently posting links to back up his claims cuts into his valuable "posting links to the exact same ABC news article over and over" time.

 

[The Big Dog]

16.5 : Uh. If people asking you for links causes /ignore/ why are you posting in a forum where people are going to ask you for links to back up what you said?

Also, I looked back 177 posts and didn't see it. A link?

A link for what?

What would you like.

I'll honestly tell you that I was appalled with the trolling and nonsense in this thread. I put people on ignore so I don't get suspended.

What link do you want?

 

[RandFan]

I don't know when the last time I'd seen that used; I'd forgotten about it.

I don't remember last time I saw it either. I actually date back to Compuserve and BBS.

I wonder who he's going to talk to about the issue if he blocks anyone who talks to him...

Who knows?

Oh well, I'm still interested in learning more about it.

Yeah, me too. I think this is the first thread I ever left and then came back to. Not sure why I'm interested. I really think this is very thin soup.

Well let me say that you were particularly civil. My hats off to you. I'm trying to better and I really do appreciate your tone and regret I was not more like you in this thread.

 

[A'isha]

Well let me say that you were particularly civil. My hats off to you. I'm trying to better and I really do appreciate your tone and regret I was not more like you in this thread.

I actually feel better about my attitude and posting style towards him, after what just happened to elbe.

 

[RandFan]

I'll honestly tell you that I was appalled with the trolling and nonsense in this thread.

Apparently questions and requests for links is "trolling and nonsense".

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

A link for what?

What would you like.

I'll honestly tell you that I was appalled with the trolling and nonsense in this thread. I put people on ignore so I don't get suspended.

What link do you want?

The CIA Timeline.

Also, no one's really trolling in this thread. (Well.. maybe one, but I'm really beginning to think that term is extremely overused.)

 

[RandFan]

I actually feel better about my attitude and posting style towards him, after what just happened to elbe.

Agreed. I challenge anyone to go back and look and see who was the most civil in this thread. I ignored a lot of personal insults and snark. I eventually gave into it and I regret that but we were by no means the least civil. And FTR: Both you and I apologized.

 

[elbe]

Yeah, me too. I think this is the first thread I ever left and then came back to. Not sure why I'm interested. I really think this is very thin soup.

What I do find interesting is that the allegations of wrongdoing during the incident seem to have dried up in favor of the administration's handling of the investigation.

Something that was brought up to me and if anyone can educate me I'd be quite happy: is there any active investigation outside of the pentagon/langley into what mistakes were made going into the incident and what can be done to prevent that sort of incident going forward?

Well let me say that you were particularly civil. My hats off to you. I'm trying to better and I really do appreciate your tone and regret I was not more like you in this thread.

I guess I can sort of understand his position, sort of. I guess since I haven't been won over to his way of thinking (which I was unable to even fully get out of him) I am, apparently, just trolling him. A bit weird, but he must think the evidence is far, far more conclusive than it appears to me.

 

[The Big Dog]

The CIA Timeline.

Also, no one's really trolling in this thread. (Well.. maybe one, but I'm really beginning to think that term is extremely overused.)

I get it I'm the bad guy because I did not post the CIA timeline.

There has been a ton of trolling in this thread.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cia...rty-killed-benghazi-7hrs-after-wh-told-attack

Oh look ansar al sharia.

I googled that. Seems simple.

 

[A'isha]

What I do find interesting is that the allegations of wrongdoing during the incident seem to have dried up in favor of the administration's handling of the investigation.

I heard this very point being made on NPR today: that in their eagerness to find something, anything with which to attack the Obama Administration, the people going on and on about the talking points memo revisions are completely ignoring everything that happened before the attacks happened and the attacks themselves.

Something that was brought up to me and if anyone can educate me I'd be quite happy: is there any active investigation outside of the pentagon/langley into what mistakes were made going into the incident and what can be done to prevent that sort of incident going forward?

Well, there was the State Department's ARB investigation and its resulting report, which was specifically focused on that.

 

[A'isha]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cia...rty-killed-benghazi-7hrs-after-wh-told-attack

I like how CNS says that the lack of any help arriving from outside Libya was a massive failure on the White House's part by citing as evidence the flight time of a scheduled regular commercial British Airways flight between London and Tripoli that they looked up on expedia.com.

 

[RandFan]

What I do find interesting is that the allegations of wrongdoing during the incident seem to have dried up in favor of the administration's handling of the investigation.

Something that was brought up to me and if anyone can educate me I'd be quite happy: is there any active investigation outside of the pentagon/langley into what mistakes were made going into the incident and what can be done to prevent that sort of incident going forward?

I was a huge Bush supporter and when I was searching for evidence to support him following the Katrina fiasco I discovered a National Geographic article dated just before Katrina that a direct hurricane hit on New Orleans was one of FEMA's top concerns. It was then I knew that Bush lied when he said no one expected it.

I fessed up and posted the article. If I thought there was serious malfeasance like 9/11 or Katrina or Iraq I'd be on his side. Mistakes were made no question. But I've seen nothing that makes this historical.

 

[elbe]

Well, there was the State Department's ARB investigation and its resulting report, which was specifically focused on that.

The findings section of that is very interesting.

 

[uke2se]

I get it I'm the bad guy because I did not post the CIA timeline.

No, you're not the bad guy. You are, however, the one making claims and thus should be providing evidence without being repeatedly asked to do so.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cia...rty-killed-benghazi-7hrs-after-wh-told-attack

Oh look ansar al sharia.

I googled that. Seems simple.

Oh look, it's not the timeline of what CIA knew when, but the timeline of what actually took place, just as predicted.

 

[The Big Dog]

"The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks."

But Nuland wrote that the lines "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned ..."

The paragraph in question was then reportedly deleted.

 

[uke2se]

"The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks."

But Nuland wrote that the lines "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned ..."

The paragraph in question was then reportedly deleted.

Sounds like the CIA didn't know exactly who was attacking the embassy, and that they didn't even know if any of the attackers were involved with any of these unidentified groups.

Just like rational people noted pages ago.

 

[RandFan]

"The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks."

But Nuland wrote that the lines "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned ..."

The paragraph in question was then reportedly deleted.

Which proves what?

 

[RandFan]

Sounds like the CIA didn't know exactly who was attacking the embassy, and that they didn't even know if any of the attackers were involved with any of these unidentified groups.

Just like rational people noted pages ago.

Yep. That's what it sounds like. But, repeat to yourself in breathless tones "history in the making".

 

[elbe]

David Petraeus: CIA believed Benghazi was a terrorist attack (11/16/2012)

Petraeus told lawmakers the CIA believed it to be a terrorist attack from the beginning, King said.

“I told him in my questions that I had a very different recollection of that,” said King , the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and a member of the Intelligence Committee. “The clear impression was given was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it rose out of a spontaneous demonstration and it was not a terrorist attack.”

That account differed from that of Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), who said Petraeus “reinforced” the belief among CIA officials in the 24 hours after the attack that it was the result of the demonstration.

“He clarified that after more information came in, that it was not a protest,” Ruppersberger told reporters.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), another Intellligence Committee member who heard from Petraeus, backed up Ruppersberger’s view of Petraeus’s testimony.

”It was clear that initially that he thought that this was spontaneous, that extremist groups or indivduals may have capitalized on this situation to attack the temporary facility,” Schiff said in a phone interview with POLITICO.

The article is interesting information, I think, though hardly new.

So they believed it was terrorists "from the beginning", but there seems to be some mixed opinions.

 

[uke2se]

We know that Nowwwww.

Apologize more sport.

The administration deleted the reference to al qua'dia.

End of story.

We've already seen what was deleted (and not by the "administration"), and it was vague references to unidentified assailants responsible for previous attacks, and groups that might have links to Al Quaeda being active in Libya.

And if you're going to keep being uncivil, I will start reporting you.