New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
ANTPogo said:
So stop dodging the issue that local witnesses and bystanders reported that the attackers were specifically angry about the video.
Click to expand...

Dodging? there is nothing to dodge. We don't even disagree. The facts are that the attack did not spontaneously arise out of a non-extant protest, despite repeated misrepresentations to the American public that it did.

I understand that certain people who identified ansar al sharia as part of the attacks also mentioned the video.
 
16.5 said:
What makes you think it would have been sent to Tripoli? They were still in Benghazi over 12 hours after the attack began.
Click to expand...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...e-made-mistakes-but-without-malice/?tag=socsh

It's unclear what assistance FEST might have provided on site in the hours and days after the Benghazi attacks. In the end, Obama administration officials argue that its quick deployment would not have saved lives because, while the U.S.-based team might have made it to Tripoli, Libya, before the attacks ended, they most certainly wouldn't have made it to Benghazi in time.
Click to expand...

They weren't going directly to Benghazi from the US. They would have reached Tripoli first, then headed on to Benghazi. But by the time they would have reached Tripoli, Benghazi was already evacuated (or being evacuated). Why would FEST, not a combat unit, have then headed all alone into a dangerous city that had already been abandoned by armed US security forces?
 
16.5 said:
I understand that certain people who identified ansar al sharia as part of the attacks also mentioned the video.
Click to expand...

No, they said that the Ansar al-Sharia attackers specifically mentioned the video.

Do you think, then, that the self-proclaimed reasons for the attackers to make the attacks should have been part of the talking points and Rice's comments?
 
ANTPogo said:
No, they said that the Ansar al-Sharia attackers specifically mentioned the video.

Do you think, then, that the self-proclaimed reasons for the attackers to make the attacks should have been part of the talking points and Rice's comments?
Click to expand...

Oh, that is a good question! If the self proclaimed reasons were cited, then the identity of th attackers would be too: al quaeda affiliated Ansar al Sharia!

That would have been awesome!
 
ANTPogo said:
No, but you apparently think they should have disclosed their identity but not included their motivations.
Click to expand...

I cannot fathom why you concluded that. I said their identity would have been disclosed "too." As is: as well, also, in addition.
 
ANTPogo said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...e-made-mistakes-but-without-malice/?tag=socsh

They weren't going directly to Benghazi from the US. They would have reached Tripoli first, then headed on to Benghazi. But by the time they would have reached Tripoli, Benghazi was already evacuated (or being evacuated). Why would FEST, not a combat unit, have then headed all alone into a dangerous city that had already been abandoned by armed US security forces?
Click to expand...
This particular talking point has, IMO, disappeared in the news and only exists in right-wing blogasphere. Few if any who are experts have provided an explanation how any additional help could have arrived in time. Further there is a problem of unknown magnitude. To those who had to make the decision they had to contend with the chance of many more deaths. What intelligence was there that this wasn't a bait and ambush scenario?

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," --Robert Gates
 
GOP Sources Altered Benghazi E-Mails To Suggest A Cover-Up, Reporter Confirms

CBS News’ Major Garrett confirmed that it was a GOP source who leaked the altered emails.
The miscast quotes affect at least two emails that include a State Department spokesperson and a White House deputy adviser — the two parties GOP lawmakers insist were trying to engage a cover-up on behalf of the Obama administration to protect the president’s chances of re-election.
A leaked email adds new language to State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland’s email, including a specific reference to al-Qaeda:
“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 actual email read:
“The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.“
​
Click to expand...
Has anyone in the GOP owned up to this bit of obfuscation?
 
More new Disclosures

Woodward disappoints Republicans: Benghazi ‘is not Watergate’

Appearing Sunday’s on “Meet the Press,” Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward disappointed Republicans who very much want the attack on U.S. personnel in Libya to bring down President Barack Obama much like the Watergate scandal brought down President Richard Nixon, telling host David Gregory that what happened in Benghazi “is not Watergate” or even close.

“First of all, people are making comparisons to Watergate,” he said. “This is not Watergate. But there are some people in the administration who have acted as if they want to be Nixonian, and that’s a very big problem.”

He went on to say that information from the Central Intelligence Agency initially suggested the involvement of organized militants, thus reason for the surprise when the administration’s initial statements focused on protests across the region over an amateur anti-Islamic film.
Click to expand...
 
Reading the comments on this page makes me feel like the only non liberal-left wing-hack here.
 
fess said:
Reading the comments on this page makes me feel like the only non liberal-left wing-hack here.
Click to expand...

Lolz! I'm not although I can't read most of these posts, because when Some posters went on tilt, I put them on ignore. Hell oneimplied that I was a truther!

I never really posted in USA politics before, but was stunned by the extreme partisanship.

Stunned.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Lolz! I'm not although I can't read most of these posts, because when Rand man went on tilt, I put him on ignore. Hell he implied that I was a truther!

I never really posted in USA politics before, but was stunned by the extreme partisanship.

Stunned.
Click to expand...
Stunned I tell you. 35 pages, nearly 1400 posts and nothing has changed. The CIA included in it's first draft and final report the riot story. From the very beginning there was confusion. The State Department felt that the CIA was passing off their responsibility (it was a CIA operation).

No "new" information. Lots of "connect the dots" and CT type rumor and innuendo. Conspiracy theories and as Robert Gates has said, "a childish impression of military capabilities and military forces". 16.5 doesn't want to address those points.

Anyone want to take a stab at making a case that this is anything other than what has been understood since we first started the hearings? Anyone?
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
OK, totally overwhelmed.

At least 1000 new articles about the ABC report.

Sunday Morning news programs have scheduled updates.

History as it happens.
Click to expand...
That was two weeks ago. Anyone here see anything historical? Speak up. Don't be shy. Is there anything to this story to justify the scrutiny?
 
As the extent of the White House/State Department mishandling of the Benghazi became clear on the Sunday Morning News Programs, it makes sense to revisit them from this weekend.

BOB WOODWARD: Well, I think on the whole Benghazi thing, you look at those talking points. And I mean the initial draft by the CIA very explicitly said, "We know that activists who have ties to al-Qaeda were involved in the attack." And then you see what comes out a couple of days later, and there is no reference to this. This is a business where you have to tell the truth. And that did not happen here
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom