New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

The ability to look back at what happened to determine what happened as opposed to what was known is wonderful thing. Is there a material fact demonstrating what was known as opposed to what was believed?

The email that 16.5 is extracting out-of-context bits from to make it sound like the White House (via the NSS) alone wanted to scrub the memo actually reads as follows:

From: Stephen W. Preston
[CIA's] General Counsel


Folks, I know there is a hurry to get this out, but we need to hold it long enough to ascertain whether providing it conflicts with express instructions from NSS/DOJ/FBI that, in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this etc. - even internally, not to mention for public release. I am copying [CIA FO] who may be more familiar with those instructions and the tasking arising from the HPSCI coffee.

This email was sent in the wake of CIA-OPA sending an unready draft out, and was sent only internally to the CIA people involved in putting together the initial drafts.

 

[RandFan]

The email that 16.5 is extracting out-of-context bits from to make it sound like the White House (via the NSS) alone wanted to scrub the memo actually reads as follows:

This email was sent in the wake of CIA-OPA sending an unready draft out, and was sent only internally to the CIA people involved in putting together the initial drafts.

Funny how the more we know... well, the more we know.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, I think I tracked down one more bit of evidence that the CIA relied on!

"Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but it did not deny that some of its members were involved."

Well we know that the initial press reports were based on information from Liz Jones. But they go on and say that the leadership did not order the attacks. lets go to the statement:

"Ansar al-Shariah Brigade didn't participate in this popular uprising as a separate entity, but it was carrying out its duties in al-Jala'a hospital and other places where it was entrusted with some duties. The Brigade didn't participate as a sole entity; rather, it was a spontaneous popular uprising in response to what happened by the West.

That is not a denial, folks. But look! Where did the talking points get their information regarding the spontaneous attacks?

From the Ansar al Sharia's press release!

My god, what a *********** pack of clowns the Benghazi Talking Points working group was.

 

[A'isha]

Well, I think I tracked down one more bit of evidence that the CIA relied on!

Uh, no, once again you're stumbled upon "new information" that has long since been brought up in this thread.

Well we know that the initial press reports were based on information from Liz Jones.

No, that's your completely unsupported claim, and is contradicted by the fact that CBS/AP was reporting about Ansar al-Sharia's claims long before the Libyan Ambassador to the UK spoke with the BBC.

But they go on and say that the leadership did not order the attacks. lets go to the statement:

"Ansar al-Shariah Brigade didn't participate in this popular uprising as a separate entity, but it was carrying out its duties in al-Jala'a hospital and other places where it was entrusted with some duties. The Brigade didn't participate as a sole entity; rather, it was a spontaneous popular uprising in response to what happened by the West.

That is not a denial, folks. But look! Where did the talking points get their information regarding the spontaneous attacks?

From the Ansar al Sharia's press release!

Nope.

The group also posted on Facebook and Twitter a YouTube video on Sept. 12 praising the attack but emphasizing that it was not organized or officially led by Ansar al Sharia. The video leaves open the possibility that individual members of the group may have been involved in the attack.

"We commend the Libyan Muslim people in Benghazi [that were] against the attack on the [Muslim] Prophet [Muhammad]," a summary of the video states. "Katibat Ansar al-Sharia [in Benghazi] as a military did not participate formally/officially and not by direct orders."

Zelin, a researcher at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, captured screenshots of the Facebook page, and said they suggest that the State Department operations center got it wrong when it emailed officials saying the group had claimed responsibility.

"Based on the original reaction from Katibat Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi (ASB), the language would suggest that the attack was not planned by the senior leadership, but rather members in an individual capacity were involved," Zelin told The Cable in an email. "Further, because this video statement was not posted until 7AM EST on the 12th on ASB's official Facebook page and Twitter account, it calls into question the leaked emails, which stated there was a statement claiming responsibility the night of the attack. It is possible staffers were mistaken in the heat of the moment. Not only was there no statement from ASB until the following morning, but it did not claim responsibility."

This statement was, as Foreign Policy notes, entirely separate from the one you falsely claim was the sole source for the CIA's information about the group denying responsibility.

My god, what a *********** pack of clowns the Benghazi Talking Points working group was.

Only the straw version in your head that is completely unconnected to the actual working group.

 

[RandFan]

Well, I think I tracked down one more bit of evidence that the CIA relied on!

"Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but it did not deny that some of its members were involved."

Well we know that the initial press reports were based on information from Liz Jones. But they go on and say that the leadership did not order the attacks. lets go to the statement:

"Ansar al-Shariah Brigade didn't participate in this popular uprising as a separate entity, but it was carrying out its duties in al-Jala'a hospital and other places where it was entrusted with some duties. The Brigade didn't participate as a sole entity; rather, it was a spontaneous popular uprising in response to what happened by the West.

That is not a denial, folks. But look! Where did the talking points get their information regarding the spontaneous attacks?

From the Ansar al Sharia's press release!

My god, what a *********** pack of clowns the Benghazi Talking Points working group was.

A.) None sequitur (and wrong). B.) Rhetoric is not an argument. None of this proves what was "known" even if it were true (which it's not).

You have yet to provide a single material fact to demonstrate what was known. We don't even know conclusively what everyone believed. We know what the draft said. We know what the revisions said. We know what the final said. We have a parsimonious explanation for the changes that have nothing to do with your claims.

What we now know, which isn't everything BTW, doesn't prove what was known. Isn't that right cap'n?

 

[The Big Dog]

That is not a denial, folks. But look! Where did the talking points get their information regarding the spontaneous attacks?

.

Of course, I'm not the only one who thinks they were idiots:

"In the view of some involved in the process at high levels, "spontaneous" was the wrong word for administration officials to use publicly when describing the attacks, because they say it didn't translate well and it was taken out of context."

"We're portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots," said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. "It's actually closer to us being idiots."

/ring ring ring

 

[Reheat]

"We're portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots," said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. "It's actually closer to us being idiots."

/ring ring ring

Yes, idiots who wanted to win an election and protect Hitlery; and willing to go to any lengths to achieve both goals to include lying.

 

[RandFan]

Of course, I'm not the only one who thinks they were idiots:

"In the view of some involved in the process at high levels, "spontaneous" was the wrong word for administration officials to use publicly when describing the attacks, because they say it didn't translate well and it was taken out of context."

"We're portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots," said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. "It's actually closer to us being idiots."

/ring ring ring

Is this a material fact that demonstrates what was known? No. Assuming it's true [citation missing], it doesn't tell us anything. It's a 3rd party opinion and an appeal to pity. Typical of CT.

What we are looking for are material facts that demonstrate who "knew" what and when. Have you any of those?

 

[RandFan]

Yes, idiots who wanted to win an election and protect Hitlery; and willing to go to any lengths to achieve both goals to include lying.

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'm going to guess that you cannot demonstrate what was known by whom and when, right?

 

[A'isha]

Yes, idiots who wanted to win an election and protect Hitlery; and willing to go to any lengths to achieve both goals to include lying.

Again, what was the lie?

 

[A'isha]

Of course, I'm not the only one who thinks they were idiots:

No comment about how you were wrong about where that information in the memo came from?

"In the view of some involved in the process at high levels, "spontaneous" was the wrong word for administration officials to use publicly when describing the attacks, because they say it didn't translate well and it was taken out of context."

In the view of only some involved, at high levels?

 

[Reheat]

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'm going to guess that you cannot demonstrate what was known by whom and when, right?

That's the purpose of the ongoing investigation, which you seem to think is a "witch hunt". I must say there are a lot of indications to support that "witch hunt".

 

[A'isha]

That's the purpose of the ongoing investigation, which you seem to think is a "witch hunt". I must say there are a lot of indications to support that "witch hunt".

There isn't a single indication to support the witch hunt. It's all been partisan political theater where the Republicans have had to do things like lie about the contents of emails in order to try and gin up something they can point to and scream about being a "scandal".

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Only 3 more pages to go to make 50! Will 16.5 derail the attempt by actually stating what the alleged wrongdoing by the Obama Administration is? Though I'd have to say that 16.5's rope-a-dope performance has thus far been extremely impressive, having frustrated all but 3 others into abandoning the thread.

 

[RandFan]

That's the purpose of the ongoing investigation, which you seem to think is a "witch hunt".

Odd, that's exactly what they say over in the 9/11 CT forums. We've had an investigation. We've had 3 hearings. We know what the facts are here. There is no mystery.

I must say there are a lot of indications to support that "witch hunt".

There will always be indications to support an investigation of the death of JFK or the destruction of the twin towers. Are the "indications" reasonable and parsimonious? No.

Is there a single material fact that calls for further investigation or are these "indications" speculations based on wishful thinking?

 

[A'isha]

Only 3 more pages to go to make 50! Will 16.5 derail the attempt by actually stating what the alleged wrongdoing by the Obama Administration is? Though I'd have to say that 16.5's rope-a-dope performance has thus far been extremely impressive, having frustrated all but 3 others into abandoning the thread.

I don't think anything will be able to top his "what boneheads the CIA were, by relying on what the press said about Ansar al-Sharia and Ansar al-Sharia's own disavowal of responsibility when they described what the press said about Ansar al-Sharia and mentioned Ansar al-Sharia's own disavowal of responsibility in the talking points memo!"

 

[The Big Dog]

Only 3 more pages to go to make 50! Will 16.5 derail the attempt by actually stating what the alleged wrongdoing by the Obama Administration is? Though I'd have to say that 16.5's rope-a-dope performance has thus far been extremely impressive, having frustrated all but 3 others into abandoning the thread.

Thank you for your friendly and lively input.

the purpose of the thread is to track the new developments in connection with the ongoing Benghazi investigation, and secondarily to determine whether this statement:

"said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response: "It's actually closer to us being idiots."

is accurate, or whether they are lying. Thanks for posting

 

[A'isha]

the purpose of the thread is to track the new developments in connection with the ongoing Benghazi investigation,

So far there haven't been any.

and secondarily to determine whether this statement:

"said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response: "It's actually closer to us being idiots."

is accurate, or whether they are lying. Thanks for posting

What do you think is so important about the opinion of one anonymous Obama administration official (among all the many other officials, especially the non-anonymous ones) that it rates so much attention from you?

 

[RandFan]

the purpose of the thread is...

to make scurrilous accusations backed by 3rd party opinion and speculation. The GOP can't win an election based on merit. They need to scandalize Obama as detailed in the Heritage memo. In its own small way this thread helps meet that strategy. The idea is that if you throw enough mud against the wall some of it might stick. So, innuendo, rumor, speculations, vague and disparate facts.

To be sure, there has not been a single material fact that demonstrates what was known at the time since this thread was started. All of these pages and no evidence that there was any crime or breach in ethics. No evidence that there was a cover up.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

the purpose of the thread is to track the new developments in connection with the ongoing Benghazi investigation,

Right!

And we're supposed to now ignore it when you said the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths at Benghazi?

And all the BS of just asking questions and making insinuations?

and secondarily to determine whether this statement:

"said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response: "It's actually closer to us being idiots."

is accurate, or whether they are lying.

Well your claim that this is secondarily the purpose of the thread is certainly false. You said nothing about this quote in the OP, so it couldn't possibly be true that one of the purposes of this thread was to ask a question about it.