New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

Whose fault is it?

The fault of the people who put together the talking points.

 

[elbe]

He has said that no one talked to him in connection with the preparation of the talking points.

That's really not a very good answer. I doubt the CIA, when gathering information, would specify that they were talking to him specifically about talking points. Did he talk to the CIA or not?

 

[The Big Dog]

Wow, I hadn't heard this before:

Hicks described how, as diplomatic officials were trying to find out what happened to Stevens, they were receiving phone calls from supposed tipsters saying they knew where the ambassador was and urging Americans to come get him.

"We suspected that we were being baited into a trap," Hicks said, adding that he did not want to send anybody into what he suspected was an "ambush."

 

[The Big Dog]

That's really not a very good answer. I doubt the CIA, when gathering information, would specify that they were talking to him specifically about talking points. Did he talk to the CIA or not?

Not a good answer? WTF? We were talking about the freaking talking points when you butted in.

He said no one talked to him about the talking points.

/by the way, of course he talked to the CIA, he was on the ground with them in Benghazi after the attacks.

 

[A'isha]

Wow, I hadn't heard this before:

Hicks described how, as diplomatic officials were trying to find out what happened to Stevens, they were receiving phone calls from supposed tipsters saying they knew where the ambassador was and urging Americans to come get him.

"We suspected that we were being baited into a trap," Hicks said, adding that he did not want to send anybody into what he suspected was an "ambush."

Maybe you should have read the ARB report when it was released last December:

Uncertainty on Ambassador Stevens’ Whereabouts

U.S. efforts to determine Ambassador Stevens’ whereabouts were unsuccessful for several hours. At approximately 0200 local, Embassy Tripoli received a phone call from ARSO 1’s cell phone, which he had given to the Ambassador while they were sheltered in the safe area. A male, Arabic-speaking caller said an unresponsive male who matched the physical description of the Ambassador was at a hospital. There was confusion over which hospital this might be, and the caller was unable to provide a picture of the Ambassador or give any other proof that he was with him. There was some concern that the call might be a ruse to lure American personnel into a trap.

 

[A'isha]

Not a good answer? WTF? We were talking about the freaking talking points when you butted in.

He said no one talked to him about the talking points.

/by the way, of course he talked to the CIA, he was on the ground with them in Benghazi after the attacks.

So, if the CIA assembled the talking points, and he talked to the CIA, then what, exactly is his complaint?

 

[elbe]

Not a good answer? WTF? We were talking about the freaking talking points when you butted in.

He said no one talked to him about the talking points.

/by the way, of course he talked to the CIA, he was on the ground with them in Benghazi after the attacks.

You're the one making a big deal over whether he was talked to about the talking points but is there any reason he should have been talked to specifically about them? By your own admission they already talked to him so, I assume, they already had his details.

 

[The Big Dog]

So, if the CIA assembled the talking points, and he talked to the CIA, then what, exactly is his complaint?

FACE PALM.

That the talking points falsely said that the attack spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest.

I know you are going to complain, but perhaps you should read this:

During the House hearing, Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina asked how Hicks reacted to the interviews, where, he said Rice perpetuated a “demonstrably false narrative.”

“I was stunned, my jaw dropped and I was embarrassed,” Hicks said.

Asked if he would have said the same things Susan Rice said on the Sunday morning shows, Hicks said no.

“Not after hearing what President Magariaf said,” Hick said, referring to the Libyan president, who publicly described the violence as a terror attack shortly after it happened.

“He had gone to Benghazi himself at great personal and political risk. For him to appear on world television and say this was a planned attack by terrorists is phenomenal. I was jumping up and down when he said that. It was a gift for us from a policy perspective, from my perspective sitting in Tripoli.”

 

[The Big Dog]

You're the one making a big deal over whether he was talked to about the talking points but is there any reason he should have been talked to specifically about them? By your own admission they already talked to him so, I assume, they already had his details.

because they were false.

/I can hardly believe we are having this discussion.

 

[elbe]

because they were false.

Irrelevant to my questions.

/I can hardly believe we are having this discussion.

Me? No, I'm just demonstrating how one specific argument you made is inane.

 

[The Big Dog]

Gosar then asked Hicks what difference he thought it made.

“I think the question is, what difference did it make? President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced (because of Rice’s comments). His ability to lead his own country was angry,” he said.

“And I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi,” Hicks added.

 

[A'isha]

FACE PALM.

That the talking points falsely said that the attack spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest.

Which apparently had nothing to do with the people who put the talking points together not speaking with him, since they did speak with him.

I know you are going to complain, but perhaps you should read this:

During the House hearing, Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina asked how Hicks reacted to the interviews, where, he said Rice perpetuated a “demonstrably false narrative.”

“I was stunned, my jaw dropped and I was embarrassed,” Hicks said.

Asked if he would have said the same things Susan Rice said on the Sunday morning shows, Hicks said no.

“Not after hearing what President Magariaf said,” Hick said, referring to the Libyan president, who publicly described the violence as a terror attack shortly after it happened.

“He had gone to Benghazi himself at great personal and political risk. For him to appear on world television and say this was a planned attack by terrorists is phenomenal. I was jumping up and down when he said that. It was a gift for us from a policy perspective, from my perspective sitting in Tripoli.”

Gosar then asked Hicks what difference he thought it made.

“I think the question is, what difference did it make? President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced (because of Rice’s comments). His ability to lead his own country was angry,” he said.

“And I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi,” Hicks added.

So, is Hicks saying anything that either he didn't already say in April or that wasn't included in the ARB Report released last December? This is pretty much word-for-word the same stuff you cut-and-pasted in this thread from the April transcripts.

 

[The Big Dog]

Irrelevant to my questions.



Me? No, I'm just demonstrating how one specific argument you made is inane.

The argument that the talking points were false because no one at all asked Hicks about it is "inane"

Understood.

Thanks for posting.

 

[The Big Dog]

Which apparently had nothing to do with the people who put the talking points together not speaking with him, since they did speak with him.

.

Then they knew it was false, and published it anyway.

Thank you.

 

[A'isha]

The argument that the talking points were false because no one at all asked Hicks about it is "inane"

It pretty much is. The CIA assembled the talking points. The CIA spoke with Hicks before they assembled the talking points.

What, again, is the complaint here?

 

[A'isha]

Then they knew it was false, and published it anyway.

Thank you.

Which wouldn't have changed if they spoke to Hicks, because they did speak to Hicks and published them that way anyway!

 

[The Big Dog]

Which wouldn't have changed if they spoke to Hicks, because they did speak to Hicks and published them that way anyway!

That is fine.

They published false talking points.

We've established that thanks.

/I'm guessing ANT has not fully thought through where he is going here.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

The fault of the people who put together the talking points.

Really? That's where you want to go with this? Blame the functionaries.

Let me clue you in. That's not how it works. At the end of the day the person responsible for saying something is the person who said it. If you hired the wrong people to tell you what was going on and they tell you the wrong thing it's still your fault for hiring them in the first place. It's the same reason why ships captains get canned when their ship hits a reef while they were in their stateroom taking a crap (or whatever). They certified that the people running things in their absence are competent to do so.

This is no different. You don't get to put something off on the people that you hired. You get paid to sit in the big chair, you take the responsibility when things go right and when they go wrong. Don't like it? Vacate the chair.

The "Scandal" here is not that the attacks happened. I get that stuff happens and that not every planned terrorist attack can or will be found out ahead of time. What is unconscionable is what was said for a week afterwards by the president on down. They either lied or are completely incompetent. Take your pick.

 

[A'isha]

That is fine.

They published false talking points.

We've established that thanks.

/I'm guessing ANT has not fully thought through where he is going here.

Maybe Congress should hold a hearing focusing on the composition of the talking points, then.

Oh, wait...

 

[The Big Dog]

Really? That's where you want to go with this? Blame the functionaries.

Let me clue you in. That's not how it works. At the end of the day the person responsible for saying something is the person who said it. If you hired the wrong people to tell you what was going on and they tell you the wrong thing it's still your fault for hiring them in the first place. It's the same reason why ships captains get canned when their ship hits a reef while they were in their stateroom taking a crap (or whatever). They certified that the people running things in their absence are competent to do so.

This is no different. You don't get to put something off on the people that you hired. You get paid to sit in the big chair, you take the responsibility when things go right and when they go wrong. Don't like it? Vacate the chair.

The "Scandal" here is not that the attacks happened. I get that stuff happens and that not every planned terrorist attack can or will be found out ahead of time. What is unconscionable is what was said for a week afterwards by the president on down. They either lied or are completely incompetent. Take your pick.

It appears that he is not aware that the people who put together the talking points included the Administration. He is wandering around a mine field, and does not know it.

Fantastic.