New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

Apologies to fellow conservatives, but this just Benghazi thing just isn't going to go anywhere. No proof of wrongdoing. No traction. No public interest. There's no "there" there.

The administration should rightly be criticized for trying to pin the blame on a YouTube video, which seems to have been done for political reasons.

But that's just politics. Not much of a scandal IMHO.

Hicks appears to believe that the Administration's act of blaming the video created a diplomatic problem with the government of Libya, and may have compromised the search for the terrorists.

I certainly understand that Hilary's "What difference does it make" is a pretty effective counterargument though.

 

[AlBell]

You seem to be laboring under a commonly held misconception that putting a thread in the CT forum means the CT being alleged must be false.

My point stands. This thread is not generating discussion of policy or politics. It's only CT discussion.

The politics should/could impact Hilary 2016, and I'd doubt impeachable offense, but can we see if we can actually find out before shooting the messenger?

CT is progressive speak, too often and imo this case, for We Don't Want To Go There as it might demonstrate the administration is as inept as it seems to be.

 

[jj]

Apologies to fellow conservatives, but this just Benghazi thing just isn't going to go anywhere. No proof of wrongdoing. No traction. No public interest. There's no "there" there.

This kind of "there must be something there" attitude mimics the whole "Vince Foster" excuse to start the Starr Chamber. It's nothing more or less than a knowing attempt at disrupting government. It should be shut down with a vengeance, and squashed by material already in evidence.

You'd think all of those gun-supporting pro-military types would understand "fog of war" and that the bad guy doesn't send you a telegram that he's going to come after you by surprise, wouldn't you?

 

[applecorped]

Apologies to fellow conservatives, but this just Benghazi thing just isn't going to go anywhere. No proof of wrongdoing. No traction. No public interest. There's no "there" there.

The administration should rightly be criticized for trying to pin the blame on a YouTube video, which seems to have been done for political reasons.

But that's just politics. Not much of a scandal IMHO.

Do you know if the victims families have an opinion, one wat or the other on the hearings?

 

[jj]

The politics should/could impact Hilary 2016, and I'd doubt impeachable offense, but can we see if we can actually find out before shooting the messenger?

There we have it, an admission that this waste of time is knowingly political in nature, and intended to disrupt government activities.

 

[RandFan]

But, but, but Iraq? Seriously? Take it to a different thread.

But, but, but, I find the outrage at the death of American service personnel to be so much political bluster. Proof of that is the utter lack of desire to hold anyone accountable for those deaths. There was no WMD but we were assured there was. Sorry, but I'll take the outrage over Benghazi as serious when I see that the outrage is morally consistent.

Seriously.

 

[RandFan]

They are not my claims. They are Mr. Hicks.

One ore time.


What does this:

Just so we are clear here, using your analogy, we never should have had the 911 Commission hearings?

Interesting.

Have to do with this?

Exactly. It's the same nonsense as 9/11. A malevolent presidential administration was indifferent to Americans in harms way and they did everything they could to have them die... or something. I don't know but its got CT written all over it.

 

[The Big Dog]

This kind of "there must be something there" attitude mimics the whole "Vince Foster" excuse to start the Starr Chamber. It's nothing more or less than a knowing attempt at disrupting government. It should be shut down with a vengeance, and squashed by material already in evidence.

You'd think all of those gun-supporting pro-military types would understand "fog of war" and that the bad guy doesn't send you a telegram that he's going to come after you by surprise, wouldn't you?

Ansar Al Sharia did not send a telegram. They posted it on Twitter.

The Americans on the ground, who have not yet testified, knew it was an attack and their "jaws" dropped when they heard Rice directly contradicting the president of Libya on the same news program.

But a good skeptic would certainly want to "shut that down."

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Apologies to fellow conservatives, but this just Benghazi thing just isn't going to go anywhere. No proof of wrongdoing. No traction. No public interest. There's no "there" there.

The administration should rightly be criticized for trying to pin the blame on a YouTube video, which seems to have been done for political reasons.

But that's just politics. Not much of a scandal IMHO.

The "Scandal" is that just prior to an election the president deflected criticism away from his administration by blaming a right wing loons video for the attacks when it was fairly obvious that it was more than that within a day or two, certainly within 5 days. On the 18th, seven full days after the attacks the president went on the David Letterman Show and said that the video was the reason for the attacks. That's not a conspiracy, that actually happened.

The way the news cycle runs he kept the focus on the video and not on the failures of his administration to protect his own people and waited it out until something else became the next new thing for the news agencies to focus upon. He played politics with Benghazi plain and simple.

 

[The Big Dog]

One ore time.


What does this: Have to do with this?

ONE MORE TIME:

I'm done with your thread jack "sub thread."

 

[applecorped]

The "Scandal" is that just prior to an election the president deflected criticism away from his administration by blaming a right wing loons video for the attacks when it was fairly obvious that it was more than that within a day or two, certainly within 5 days. On the 18th, seven full days after the attacks the president went on the David Letterman Show and said that the video was the reason for the attacks. That's not a conspiracy, that actually happened.

The way the news cycle runs he kept the focus on the video and not on the failures of his administration to protect his own people and waited it out until something else became the next new thing for the news agencies to focus upon. He played politics with Benghazi plain and simple.

Naw, that's a CT.

 

[RandFan]

ONE MORE TIME:

I'm done with your thread jack "sub thread."

What did I do wrong? You asked me a question that appears to be simply rhetorical and I'm trying to understand the point of the question. Why can't you explain it to me? That's a fair question.

Just so we are clear here, using your analogy, we never should have had the 911 Commission hearings?

Why did you ask me this question and what does it have to do with my analogy?

 

[The Big Dog]

The "Scandal" is that just prior to an election the president deflected criticism away from his administration by blaming a right wing loons video for the attacks when it was fairly obvious that it was more than that within a day or two, certainly within 5 days. On the 18th, seven full days after the attacks the president went on the David Letterman Show and said that the video was the reason for the attacks. That's not a conspiracy, that actually happened.

The way the news cycle runs he kept the focus on the video and not on the failures of his administration to protect his own people and waited it out until something else became the next new thing for the news agencies to focus upon. He played politics with Benghazi plain and simple.

What is particularly interesting is Hicks will testify that in creating the talking points: No one talked to him. He was stunned as anyone when Rice went on National TV to assert a theory that the President of Libya called "far fetched" and "preposterous."

On Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice hit the media circuit, appearing on all five Sunday talk shows to dispel the notion that the strike was a premeditated terrorist act and to perpetuate the case that it began "spontaneously" out of protests in Egypt. Rice's spot on "Face the Nation" that day was preceded by the new President of Libya Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had "no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined."

"For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens's front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable," he said. "I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate. Chris - Chris's last report, if you want to say his final report - is, 'Greg, we are under attack.'

"...I've never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day," Hicks continued in his interview with investigators. "The net impact of what has transpired is, [Rice,] the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world, has basically said that the president of Libya is either a liar of doesn't know what he's talking about. ....My jaw hit the floor as I watched this."

 

[RandFan]

What is particularly interesting is Hicks will testify that in creating the talking points: No one talked to him. He was stunned as anyone when Rice went on National TV to assert a theory that the President of Libya called "far fetched" and "preposterous."

Not that interesting, unless of course you assume some over arching conspiracy. Is that what you are suggesting?

 

[A'isha]

I'm just going to point out here that the date (September the 11th) should have been enough to have back up security forces on a higher alert than "Only armed with 9mm sidearms".

Which is a legitimate issue that I wish the right would focus on instead of the nonsense conspiracy theories about how Obama ordered a "stand-down" of military assets which could have saved the lives of the four people killed that night.

And in any case, it's also irrelevant to the Special Forces men who were refused authorization, since they weren't any kind of "back up security forces".

What? If you have someone who was on the ground at the time who hasn't yet given any testimony how can you possibly say that there ARE no new disclosures on Benghazi? You haven't even heard the testimony yet. You seem to be saying that you don't want to hear what the guy has to say because it might not fit into what you want to believe.

No, it's because testimony in front of Issa's dog-and-pony show is anything other than purely partisan political theater. The Accountability Review Board already investigated this, but Hicks' partisan-activist lawyer, naturally, is screaming "cover-up", which is why partisan hack Issa wants to put them in the center ring of his circus.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Naw, that's a CT.

Except that's what happened. He knew (unless he's completely incompetent) that the attack at Benghazi was not related to the video at all yet he continued his press that it was related to the video over a week later.

I'm fine with the idea that the attack wasn't caught onto before it happened. That's not all that surprising to me at all. What is surprising to me is that there were apparently no provisions made for higher security on September 11th of all days. Nobody on hot standby to go wherever, Libya being a known hot spot, the closest backup forces are in northern Italy. This whole thing reeks of incompetence from the top down. That's what Obama was hiding and the only logical explanation is that he did it to win an election.

 

[A'isha]

Ansar Al Sharia did not send a telegram. They posted it on Twitter.

The Americans on the ground, who have not yet testified, knew it was an attack and their "jaws" dropped when they heard Rice directly contradicting the president of Libya on the same news program.

But a good skeptic would certainly want to "shut that down."

A "good skeptic" would also know this about the Ansar al-Sharia claims of responsibility:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...-claim-of-responsibility-for-benghazi-attack/

 

[The Big Dog]

A "good skeptic" would also know this about the Ansar al-Sharia claims of responsibility:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...-claim-of-responsibility-for-benghazi-attack/

A great skeptic would look at the official timeline:

“1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they’ve hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel who are on loan to the agency. They don’t leave Benghazi airport until 4:30. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport, obtaining vehicles, and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they correctly suspect is already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Shariah militia that mounted the consulate attack.”

 

[A'isha]

A great skeptic would look at the official timeline:

Not to figure out what was known at the time (such as the uncorroborated early reports of claims of responsibility by Ansar al-Sharia and their explicit denials which muddled the issue), they wouldn't.

EDIT: On the morning of September 12th, 2012, I myself posted right here at JREF about an AP/CBS article that mentioned Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility (and note the report of what the Libyan Interior Ministry official said). Three and a half hours later, richardm posted a link to a BBC article containing their denial of responsibility.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Which is a legitimate issue that I wish the right would focus on instead of the nonsense conspiracy theories about how Obama ordered a "stand-down" of military assets which could have saved the lives of the four people killed that night.

And in any case, it's also irrelevant to the Special Forces men who were refused authorization, since they weren't any kind of "back up security forces".



No, it's because testimony in front of Issa's dog-and-pony show is anything other than purely partisan political theater. The Accountability Review Board already investigated this, but Hicks' partisan-activist lawyer, naturally, is screaming "cover-up", which is why partisan hack Issa wants to put them in the center ring of his circus.

The ARB didn't talk to Hicks, or at least I can't find any reference to it anywhere on line including the released report. That alone makes that investigation a "Dog and pony show" in my eyes. How can you not talk to the people (at the time Hicks was the second most senior FSO in Libya behind Stevens so presumably he was the most senior FSO in Libya after Stevens was killed) who were there and then reach a conclusion on what happened?