New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

Someone yesterday was claiming that the initial draft of the talking points mentioned reports in the press regarding Ansar al Sharia.

And of course that is true, that entity's name was all over the press.

One of the very first mentions of that came from Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, who told the BBC that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack.

And where in the hell did he find that out out? Avid readers of this thread already know, from Elizabeth Jones of the State Department:

Sept. 12, 6:06 p.m.: Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East, sends an email to top State Department officials that reads in part: “[T]he group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.”

Kind of puts into perspective that silly article from Mother Jones I "cited" last night, and the nonsense claims that the talking points contained classified information.

 

[A'isha]

We've devoted much discussion to the CIA's "alleged" conclusion that the attack spontaneously arose from an anti-video protest outside the Consulate. So I did some digging to find the first reference to the "CIA's" alleged conclusion. It turns out that the first reference to the video and the attack came from Hillary Clinton on 9/11/12.

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

So, your conspiracy theory, based on the fact that you put "CIA" in quotes when you described their "alleged conclusion", is now that the CIA only put the information they did into the memo from the very beginning of the drafting process because of Hillary Clinton's vague comments on the day of the attacks?

 

[The Big Dog]

16.5 there will be no criminal prosecutions resulting from this "scandal." Neither will there be any political impact against Obama.

Cool story bro.

The Obama administration’s approval of these arms shipments almost certainly violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970, adopted February 26, 2011, which required all member states to “prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer” of weapons to any party in Libya.

 

[RandFan]

We've devoted much discussion to the CIA's "alleged" conclusion that the attack spontaneously arose from an anti-video protest outside the Consulate."

We've devoted as much discussion to your "alleged" conclusion that Nuland and or the WH acted contrary to what they knew.

So I did some digging to find the first reference to the "CIA's" alleged conclusion. It turns out that the first reference to the video and the attack came from Hillary Clinton on 9/11/12.

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

And?

 

[RandFan]

So, your conspiracy theory, based on the fact that you put "CIA" in quotes when you described their "alleged conclusion", is now that the CIA only put the information they did into the memo from the very beginning of the drafting process because of Hillary Clinton's vague comments on the day of the attacks?

Connecting dots. It's what the CT does. George Bush knew the Bin Laden family. You connect those dots and you've got conspiracy.

C'mon guys, it's all about connecting dots these days (apologies to Fletch).

Conspiracy Theories - Penn & Teller ********!

 

[elbe]

We've devoted much discussion to the CIA's "alleged" conclusion that the attack spontaneously arose from an anti-video protest outside the Consulate. So I did some digging to find the first reference to the "CIA's" alleged conclusion. It turns out that the first reference to the video and the attack came from Hillary Clinton on 9/11/12.

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

Considering that there were already protests about the video and the attack on Benghazi fell right on the heels of the Cairo protests it's not surprising that that's the position that State and the CIA took until more and better evidence could be collected and collated.

 

[A'isha]

Someone yesterday was claiming that the initial draft of the talking points mentioned reports in the press regarding Ansar al Sharia.

And of course that is true, that entity's name was all over the press.

One of the very first mentions of that came from Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, who told the BBC that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack.

And where in the hell did he find that out out? Avid readers of this thread already know, from Elizabeth Jones of the State Department:

Sept. 12, 6:06 p.m.: Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East, sends an email to top State Department officials that reads in part: “[T]he group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.”

So now your conspiracy theory is that the only reason Ansar al-Sharia was mentioned in the press is because Ahmad Jibril, the Libyan Ambassador to the UK, passed on that information to the press in the UK, information which he only knew because the US State Department had told the Libyan Ambassador to the US, Ali Aujali, that information that same day?

And if Beth Jones didn't send her email until 6:06 PM, how were the writers of this CBS/AP article able to report on Ansar al-Sharia twelve hours before then?

Kind of puts into perspective that silly article from Mother Jones I "cited" last night, and the nonsense claims that the talking points contained classified information.

No, it has nothing to do with what the Mother Jones article said, or why the memo was edited and by who.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Cool story bro.

Not a story, a prediction. Want to wager on it?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why is there such a huge thread devoted to this one conspiracy theory, that is being defended by one poster that is only here to promote said conspiracy theory??

 

[The Big Dog]

Considering that there were already protests about the video and the attack on Benghazi fell right on the heels of the Cairo protests it's not surprising that that's the position that State and the CIA took until more and better evidence could be collected and collated.

I think we can ALL agree that this is the case of wrong information being much worse than no information.

The information was available by the time Hillary had issued the statement, people in her Department had seen the videos showing no protest, and by the time of Rice's Sunday Morning News Debacle, Hicks and the five security agents had been interviewed.

 

[elbe]

I think we can ALL agree that this is the case of wrong information being much worse than no information.

The information was available by the time Hillary had issued the statement, people in her Department had seen the videos showing no protest, and by the time of Rice's Sunday Morning News Debacle, Hicks and the five security agents had been interviewed.

But, as has been mentioned before, they weren't the only sources of intelligence that had to be incorporated. In retrospect it might be "obvious" to only listen to the people who turned out to be right, but when they didn't know they had to listen to everything.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not a story, a prediction. Want to wager on it?

Is that something we do on the JREF USA Politics forum, challenge one another to schoolyard wagers?

argument from "wanna bet on it"? Well played.

And I see the "conspiracy theory" meme is getting a work out. Fortunately, I don't have to deal with it.

Thanks for posting.

 

[A'isha]

I think we can ALL agree that this is the case of wrong information being much worse than no information.

The information was available by the time Hillary had issued the statement, people in her Department had seen the videos showing no protest,

And they were able to tell her that the same day the attacks happened, and that was the only source of information she was drawing on?

and by the time of Rice's Sunday Morning News Debacle, Hicks and the five security agents had been interviewed.

Again, why do you think that was the only source of information the CIA had?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think we can ALL agree that this is the case of wrong information being much worse than no information.

Nope.

 

[A'isha]

And I see the "conspiracy theory" meme is getting a work out. Fortunately, I don't have to deal with it.

No, you choose not to deal with it by refusing to explain why anyone else should believe your theories based on nothing more than your unsupported assertions.

 

[RandFan]

I think we can ALL agree that this is the case of wrong information being much worse than no information.

The information was available by the time Hillary had issued the statement, people in her Department had seen the videos showing no protest, and by the time of Rice's Sunday Morning News Debacle, Hicks and the five security agents had been interviewed.

[citations missing] Again. Surprise surprise.

 

[The Big Dog]

But, as has been mentioned before, they weren't the only sources of intelligence that had to be incorporated. In retrospect it might be "obvious" to only listen to the people who turned out to be right, but when they didn't know they had to listen to everything.

But that is what is so unique about this situation! There never was any evidence at all to support the claim that the attack spontaneously arose from an anti-video protest, because there wasn't any protest that night.

Further, they were telling the Libyans one thing (Al Qua'ida affiliated Ansar al Sharia did the attack) and then told everyone, but especially Rice something else, leading to the Sunday Morning News Show Debacle.

And THEN they kept repeating the far fetched story.

And then to top it all off they lied and said it was the best intelligence available, hogwash.

 

[RandFan]

Is that something we do on the JREF USA Politics forum, challenge one another to schoolyard wagers?

argument from "wanna bet on it"? Well played.

And I see the "conspiracy theory" meme is getting a work out. Fortunately, I don't have to deal with it.

Thanks for posting.

If it quacks like CT it probably is CT. Either address questions and support your thesis or not. The choice is up to you. Make valid arguments with supporting evidence or don't. You don't have to do anything other than to follow the rules.

 

[elbe]

But that is what is so unique about this situation! There never was any evidence at all to support the claim that the attack spontaneously arose from an anti-video protest, because there wasn't any protest that night.

Further, they were telling the Libyans one thing (Al Qua'ida affiliated Ansar al Sharia did the attack) and then told everyone, but especially Rice something else, leading to the Sunday Morning News Show Debacle.

And THEN they kept repeating the far fetched story.

And then to top it all off they lied and said it was the best intelligence available, hogwash.

You're ignoring, at the very least, that interviewed attackers said they were there because of the video. That's also been brought up several times already.

I'd also like to see a citation that you know all of the CIA's sources and what they said.

 

[RandFan]

But that is what is so unique about this situation! There never was any evidence at all to support the claim that the attack spontaneously arose from an anti-video protest, because there wasn't any protest that night.

Captain hindsight strikes again.