New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

So, you are asserting that we should keep our own ambassadors in the dark? Are you asserting that we should not attempt to find out what information others have available in a crisis situation?

What? Exactly what are you suggesting here when somebody tells one of OUR OWN ambassadors something classified? You're suggesting that ambassadors are not cleared for this? What?

What are you talking about? The Libyan Ambassador, our Ambassador to Libya was dead.

 

[Upchurch]

"But CIA deputy director Michael Morell later removed the reference to Ansar al-Sharia because the assessment was still classified and because FBI officials believed that making the information public could compromise their investigation, said senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the internal debate."

Is clearly not true. Who wrote that? Did they not read the e-mails???

If it was classified, why did they put it in there in the first place, and why did Elizabeth Jones tell the Libyan Ambassador?

I think there's a bit of a false picture here when we assume everyone knows what everyone else is up to or has the same goal in mind.

^ A whole big heaping helping of this. ^

You know that term "fog of war?" Think of "fog of bureaucracy."

And, in this case, there was a little of both. Perhaps a lot of both.

It was a preliminary statement based on what they knew, but couldn't necessarily confirm, at the time coupled with some need to not compromise security/investigation needs. It wasn't meant to be the final word on the subject.

What, then, is the problem?

 

[The Big Dog]

^ A whole big heaping helping of this. ^


And, in this case, there was a little of both. Perhaps a lot of both.

It was a preliminary statement based on what they knew, but couldn't necessarily confirm, at the time coupled with some need to not compromise security/investigation needs. It wasn't meant to be the final word on the subject.

What, then, is the problem?

You quoted my post pointing out the Ezra Klein (Political Contributor to MsNBC and Rachel Maddow's show) Blog contained major errors, yet did not comment on it.

For example the actual e-mails said that the FBI did not have a problem with the release of the unrevised talking points, and there was no claim whatsoever that the identity of Ansar al sharia was "classified."

 

[RandFan]

I'm going to focus on these two points. I want to make it absolutely clear that I dispute the claim that it was based on the best intelligence at the time. Deleting the reference to Ansar al sharia and and Al Quaeda, which the FBI said were responsible in the emails makes it absolutely clear that we are not dealing with the best intelligence.

You have consistently ignored a single question. What did people know and when did they know it?

A.) There was confusion and contradiction. The CIA memos make that clear.
B.) It doesn't follow that anything the FBI wrote proves what people knew.

 

[RandFan]

For example the actual e-mails said that the FBI did not have a problem with the release of the unrevised talking points, and there was no claim whatsoever that the identity of Ansar al sharia was "classified."

Doesn't prove what the state department or CIA knew. It's simply adding another variable to the mix. The FBI isn't some magical entity that can read anyone's mind or determine what the truth was at that time.

 

[Upchurch]

For example the actual e-mails said that the FBI did not have a problem with the release of the unrevised talking points, and there was no claim whatsoever that the identity of Ansar al sharia was "classified."

No one said it was. The claim from that source was that the assessment of the situation was classified.

What is the actual problem here?

 

[RandFan]

I think there's a bit of a false picture here when we assume everyone knows what everyone else is up to or has the same goal in mind.

My idea of how this all works is closer to that of a huge corporation with multiple divisions and plenty of Balkanization. It's probably a mistake to think our executive branch runs in a linear, "makes sense" kind of way.

You know that term "fog of war?" Think of "fog of bureaucracy."

That's what we have been trying to get through to 16.5 for 30 pages. We've demonstrated that the CIA considered the riot from the very first draft of their memo. The FBI doesn't have some magic ability to read anyone's mind and there has been no emails from those who wrote the draft or subsequent drafts or the final that they knew that the bit about the video was false. The same is true with the state department. Those facts have been repeated hundreds of times and never ever addressed (as far as I can tell).

 

[The Big Dog]

No one said it was. The claim from that source was that the assessment of the situation was classified.

What is the actual problem here?

Yes, I agree that no one said it was classified, and nothing was removed because it was classified and that it makes no sense at all to contend it was classified..

I also agree that the statement that "FBI officials believed that making the information public could compromise their investigation."

Is false.

No problem here, just pointing out the blog that you posted contained false statements

 

[A'isha]

Doesn't prove what the state department or CIA knew. It's simply adding another variable to the mix. The FBI isn't some magical entity that can read anyone's mind or determine what the truth was at that time.

And 16.5 is ignoring the fact that the FBI wasn't the only providing input about that - the drafters of the memo specifically wanted to check things with the Department of Justice regarding potential issues with the investigation separately from the FBI's concerns.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, I agree that no one said it was classified, and nothing was removed because it was classified and that it makes no sense at all to contend it was classified..

I also agree that the statement that "FBI officials believed that making the information public could compromise their investigation."

Is false.

So, you are cherry picking the items that support your preferred conclusion, instead of the other way around. This would be an example.

No problem here...

If there is no problem, why did you start the thread?

 

[The Big Dog]

So, you are cherry picking the items that support your preferred conclusion, instead of the other way around. This would be an example.


If there is no problem, why did you start the thread?

Cherry picking? I am responding to what you posted. This whole thing that you took from a left wing blog:

But CIA deputy director Michael Morell later removed the reference to Ansar al-Sharia because the assessment was still classified and because FBI officials believed that making the information public could compromise their investigation, said senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the internal debate.

is false.

Thanks for posting.

 

[RandFan]

Cherry picking? I am responding to what you posted. This whole thing that you took from a left wing blog:

But CIA deputy director Michael Morell later removed the reference to Ansar al-Sharia because the assessment was still classified and because FBI officials believed that making the information public could compromise their investigation, said senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the internal debate.

is false.

Thanks for posting.

Facts:

• The CIA didn't know exactly what had happened.
• The FBI didn't know exactly what had happened.
• The State Department didn't know exactly what had happened.

Your speculation is based on nothing more than rank speculation.

 

[Upchurch]

Cherry picking? I am responding to what you posted. This whole thing that you took from a left wing blog:

But CIA deputy director Michael Morell later removed the reference to Ansar al-Sharia because the assessment was still classified and because FBI officials believed that making the information public could compromise their investigation, said senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the internal debate.

is false.

Yes, rejecting data without cause is called "cherry picking" and it is a logical fallacy.

For what purpose did you start this thread?

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, rejecting data without cause is called "cherry picking" and it is a logical fallacy.

For what purpose did you start this thread?

I have cause, read the emails.

And you might want to check the definition of cherry picking.

 

[RandFan]

I have cause, read the emails.

And you might want to check the definition of cherry picking.

You go out of your way to ignore evidence that doesn't conform to your preconceived narrative. That's the very definition of cherry picking.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed unintentionally.[1]

• You ignore the fact that the CIA included two possible causes in the draft and subsequent memos including the final sent to state.
• You ignore the fact that you have no evidence to prove what anyone "knew" as a fact when Rice testified.
• You ignore the fact that the Prime Minister is human and he A.) could have been wrong. B.) Could have been self serving.
• You ignore the fact that your conclusions are based primarily on hind sight analysis and assumptions without any basis in fact that your assumptions were held by those whose job it was to determine what happened.

That is particularly egregious cherry picking.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, at least some folks aren't making it all about me. Lolz.

Ansar al sharia was not removed from the talking points because it was classified.

The FBI did not object to the inclusion of ansar al sharia in the talking points.

Read the emails.

 

[RandFan]

Well, at least some folks aren't making it all about me. Lolz.

Sadly you aren't one of those folks.

Ansar al sharia was not removed from the talking points because it was classified.

The FBI did not object to the inclusion of ansar al sharia in the talking points.

Read the emails.

Straw men.

• The CIA didn't include the riot scenario because they thought it wasn't true.
• The State Department didn't exclude any talking points because they "knew" those talking points were true.

At the end of the day this remains what we have been saying for a long time. It's the result of an interdepartmental squabble, confusion as to what exactly was the truth and CYA.

 

[Upchurch]

Ansar al sharia was not removed from the talking points because it was classified.

The FBI did not object to the inclusion of ansar al sharia in the talking points.

Lets pretend for a moment, that is true. What's your point?

 

[The Big Dog]

Lets pretend for a moment, that is true. What's your point?

My point? Upchurch, you posted an excerpt from Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein.

The excerpt you posted from Ezra Klein contained two statements.

The excerpt:

"But CIA deputy director Michael Morell later removed the reference to Ansar al-Sharia because the assessment was still classified and because FBI officials believed that making the information public could compromise their investigation, said senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the internal debate."

Contains the two bolded statements that are clearly not true.

My point is that Ezra Pound's blog contained false statements.

 

[A'isha]

It looks like there actually might be a scandal about Benghazi after all...

...for Republicans.

Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims

One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.

CBS News reported Thursday that leaked versions sent out by the GOP last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday's official batch. Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

The GOP version of Nuland's comment, according to CBS News: The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

The White House email: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

The news parallels a Tuesday CNN report which initially introduced the contradiction between what was revealed in a White House Benghazi email version, versus what was reported in media outlets. On Monday, Mother Jones noted that the Republicans' interim report included the correct version of the emails, signaling that more malice and less incompetence may have been at play with the alleged alterations.