New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

The actual social media posts establishing ansar al sharia's involvement have been discussed at lenghth:

And which confirms everything the CNN article says and the description in the initial CIA draft of the talking points.

You found a random message board post at a, in your own words, "web page [that] is a forum for supporters of the Sharia", not an official Ansar al-Shariah site, and the post merely says that Ansar al-Shariah gunmen participated in the attack, not that they claim responsibility. The CNN article even speculates that the person who made the report mentioned in the emails might have been reading a site for supporters instead of the actual Ansar al-Shariah sites, since the report mentions a claim of responsibility that never happened, as well as an Ansar al-Shariah assault in Embassy Tripoli which also never happened.

The only thing your website post there actually says is something that Ansar al-Shariah admitted to at the same "press conference" where they denied responsibility for the attack itself, that Ansar al-Shariah fighters were present at the attack.

So, what we have is Ansar al-Shariah officially denying responsibility while saying their fighters were present and nowhere officially claiming responsibility, while an unofficial fansite post says nothing about claiming responsibility, but says their fighters were present.

So what does the CIA say in the talking points again?

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 did not deny some of its members were involved.

Exactly that.. No Ansar al-Shariah claiming responsibility, because they didn't. No attack on Embassy Tripoli, because there wasn't one. Which means that the State Department emails contained erroneous early reports, and therefore are useless as "smoking guns" to prove that the Obama Administration knew the "truth" before the talking points were assembled because the information reported in the emails was wrong.

 

[The Big Dog]

And which confirms everything the CNN article says and the description in the initial CIA draft of the talking points.

You found a random message board post at a, in your own words, "web page [that] is a forum for supporters of the Sharia", not an official Ansar al-Shariah site, and the post merely says that Ansar al-Shariah gunmen participated in the attack, not that they claim responsibility. The CNN article even speculates that the person who made the report mentioned in the emails might have been reading a site for supporters instead of the actual Ansar al-Shariah sites, since the report mentions a claim of responsibility that never happened, as well as an Ansar al-Shariah assault in Embassy Tripoli which also never happened.

The only thing your website post there actually says is something that Ansar al-Shariah admitted to at the same "press conference" where they denied responsibility for the attack itself, that Ansar al-Shariah fighters were present at the attack.

So, what we have is Ansar al-Shariah officially denying responsibility while saying their fighters were present and nowhere officially claiming responsibility, while an unofficial fansite post says nothing about claiming responsibility, but says their fighters were present.

So what does the CIA say in the talking points again?

Exactly that.. No Ansar al-Shariah claiming responsibility, because they didn't. No attack on Embassy Tripoli, because there wasn't one. Which means that the State Department emails contained erroneous early reports, and therefore are useless as "smoking guns" to prove that the Obama Administration knew the "truth" before the talking points were assembled because the information reported in the emails was wrong.

First of all your claim that there was no social media traffic regarding Ansar Al Sharia's involvement. I have provided three separate source for that. 1. the above quoted post. 2. the reports from PD Tripoli regarding it; 3. the Ali Ani al Harzi "posted an update on social media about the fighting shortly after it had begun." This was "[o]ne of the first clues the intelligence community had about the perpetrators" in Benghazi.

you did not mention the third at all.

Second, you asked why the Tripoli attack did not materialize The answer is in Beth Jones very next email an hour later states that the Libya government had delivered the promised police protection to the Embassy (of course your claims in this regard are a red herring).

Third, and most importantly, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the information regarding Ansar Al Sharia's involvement mentioned in the emails and on social media was 100% correct, and I am at a loss to understand why you claim otherwise.

I have posted this before:

Terrorist Designations of Three Ansar al-Shari'a Organizations and Leaders

"Created separately after the fall of the Qadhafi regime, Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah have been involved in terrorist attacks against civilian targets, frequent assassinations, and attempted assassinations of security officials and political actors in eastern Libya, and the September 11, 2012 attacks against the U.S. Special Mission and Annex in Benghazi, Libya. Members of both organizations continue to pose a threat to U.S. interests in Libya.Ahmed Abu Khattalah is a senior leader of Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi and Sufian bin Qumu is the leader of Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah."

 

[A'isha]

First of all your claim that there was no social media traffic regarding Ansar Al Sharia's involvement.

Except I didn't say anything about there being "no social media traffic regarding Ansar Al Sharia's involvement". I said that the email's statement that "extremist group Ansar Al Sharia has taken credit for the attack in Benghazi” turned out to be wrong, since Ansar al-Shariah did not take credit for the attack.

Social media only mentioned that Ansar al-Shariah fighters participated in the attack, but nowhere did Ansar al-Sharia did claim responsibility that night or the day after, and in fact denied responsibility at the same press conference where they admitted that their fighters participated in the attack.

1. the above quoted post.

Which didn't say Ansar al-Shariah took credit for the attack, and wasn't an official Ansar al-Shariah site in any case.

2. the reports from PD Tripoli regarding it;

The what?

3. the Ali Ani al Harzi "posted an update on social media about the fighting shortly after it had begun." This was "[o]ne of the first clues the intelligence community had about the perpetrators" in Benghazi.

you did not mention the third at all.

Er, the "third" was also encompassed by what the CNN article I linked to said, that the initial reports probably came from mentions on non-official sites run by Ansar al-Shariah supporters, like the one you linked to. And "an update about the fighting" is not a claim of responsibility, since (as pointed out) Ansar al-Shariah admitted that their fighters were there while simultaneously denying responsibility.

Second, you asked why the Tripoli attack did not materialize The answer is in Beth Jones very next email an hour later states that the Libya government had delivered the promised police protection to the Embassy (of course your claims in this regard are a red herring).

And you have some evidence that there was actually a planned attack on Embassy Tripoli which was foiled by increased Libyan police protection?

Third, and most importantly, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the information regarding Ansar Al Sharia's involvement mentioned in the emails and on social media was 100% correct, and I am at a loss to understand why you claim otherwise."

Maybe because I'm not claiming otherwise. "Involvement" is not "claiming responsibility". The email explicitly stated that Ansar al-Shariah claimed responsibility that night.

And they didn't.

 

[The Big Dog]

snipped for brevity

There was social media reporting that Ansar Al Sharia was attacking, some of which was posted by a member of Ansar Al Sharia (Ali Ani al Harzi) who was updating details about the fighting during the attack from Benghazi and which was picked up by State departments and CIA assets in Libya and Ansar Al Sharia in fact did the attack, which is exactly what Beth Jones said she told told the Libyans

So what is your point again?

A summary and helpful review what we have learned would be very useful, in my view.

9/11/12: Internet posting: "Gunmen from the group Ansar al-Sharia attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi"

Ali Ani al Harzi "posted an update on social media about the fighting shortly after it had begun." This was "[o]ne of the first clues the intelligence community had about the perpetrators" in Benghazi.

9/12/12 (local time in Benghazi):

At 6:07 p.m (DC TIme), the State Department Operations Center sent an update that again went to the National Security Staff at the White House. The tagline on this update said: "Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."

In the text, the email said: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

Greg Hicks: “We began to hear also that the ambassador’s been taken to a hospital,” said Hicks. “We learn that it is in a hospital which is controlled by Ansar al-Shariah, the group that Twitter feeds had identified as leading the attack on the consulate.”

CIA: "1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they’ve hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel on loan to the agency. They don’t leave the Benghazi airport until 4:30 a.m. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport; obtaining vehicles; and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is already dead. (Also killed was a State Department communication specialist.) But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militia that mounted the consulate attack."

BBC: "Libya's deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, named Ansar al-Sharia as the perpetrators."

NY TIMES: "That assault was led by a brigade of Islamist fighters known as Ansar al-Sharia, or the Supporters of Islamic Law. Brigade members emphasized at the time that they were not acting alone."

E-mail to senior State Department officers, from Elizabeth Jones, the acting Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. Describing a conversation she had with then-Libyan ambassador Ali Aujali, Jones wrote that "I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists."

All of this was known by September 12, 2012 DC time.

 

[A'isha]

So what is your point again?

That you're illegitimately excoriating the administration for relying on a (correct) CIA assessment instead of (incorrect) State Department emails when directing Susan Rice on what to say the weekend after the attacks took place, and that those incorrect State Department emails are pretty far from being a "smoking gun" showing an Obama Administration coverup because they were incorrect.

 

[The Big Dog]

That you're illegitimately excoriating the administration for relying on a (correct) CIA assessment instead of (incorrect) State Department emails when directing Susan Rice on what to say the weekend after the attacks took place, and that those incorrect State Department emails are pretty far from being a "smoking gun" showing an Obama Administration coverup because they were incorrect.

It is simply ridiculous that you are claiming that the state department's emails stating that ansar al sharia attacked the facility are "incorrect" when I have REPEATEDLY posted extensive evidence that ansar al sharia attacked the facility.

I JUST posted a statement from the state department designating ansar al sharia as a terrorist organization because they led the attack in Benghazi.

The CIA said that ansar al sharia attacked the facility.

Ansar al sharia attacked the facility. End of story. Please stop perpetrating the lie that the state department's identification of ansar al sharia was incorrect.

 

[A'isha]

It is simply ridiculous that you are claiming that the state department's emails stating that ansar al sharia attacked the facility are "incorrect" when I have REPEATEDLY posted extensive evidence that ansar al sharia attacked the facility.

I JUST posted a statement from the state department designating ansar al sharia as a terrorist organization because they led the attack in Benghazi.

The CIA said that ansar al sharia attacked the facility.

Ansar al sharia attacked the facility. End of story. Please stop perpetrating the lie that the state department's identification of ansar al sharia was incorrect.

"The Obama Administration knew at the time that Ansar al-Shariah was present at the attack" and "the Obama Administration knew at the time that Ansar al-Shariah perpetrated and claimed responsibility for the attack" are not at all the same thing. The false claim of "cover-up" is based solely on pretending that the latter was the case, when in fact it was the former.

And, of course, there's the fact that the video was the primary driver for all the other violence across the region that day, and that even the Ansar al-Shariah fighters present at the attack as the attack was occurring brought up the video.

That's why this whole Benghazi nonsense pushed by the Republicans has gotten nowhere after nearly two years and umpteen investigations and reports. No one, not the military, not the intelligence community, not the Congress, and especially not the American people, are buying the fiction that they're trying to sell.

 

[The Big Dog]

Investigation Points

While the Democrats CONTINUE to dither regarding whether or not they will participate in the Select Committee to Investigate the Terror Attack in Benghazi Libya, House Leadership has appointed a very balanced team so far.

Here is a good summary of who is who:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/gop-benghazi-team-brings-long-list-accusations-23767387

I am sure that we can all agree that the Democrat who said he was going to be our "worst nightmare" if he is appointed to the Committee has no business being anywhere near it.

 

[The Big Dog]

In a ridiculously contrived and crass political stunt Hillary Clinton's team "intentionally leaked" the Chapter of her upcoming autobiography regarding Benghazi, where see ironically accuses those responsible for investigating the attack of playing politics. What a combination of audacity and self delusion.

Further, she spins her now deservedly infamous "what difference does it make" line by using a horrible analogy to criminals randomly holding a family hostage. This was not a random event! This was not "because of a protest" nor "was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans." It was a terrorist attack, and Clinton clearly does not understand their motivations and as such how in the hell can Clinton contend that she are trying to prevent the next attack when she refuses to acknowledge how this one even happened?

She is also hiding behind the ARB report (which did not even bother to interview her) and claims that Susan Rice relied on the best evidence available, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (as shown in this thread)

Further, I understand the Clinton team has added Tommy Vietor to handle the spin on Benghazi. This is the same clown who said "Dude, this was like two years ago,” during a discussion of Benghazi a few weeks ago.

So make sure you look for Hillary's book, available in the Fiction section, and in the whitewash aisle of your better paint stores.

 

[Unabogie]

In a ridiculously contrived and crass political stunt.

Which perfectly describes this entire Benghazi "scandal". How can you deride something as contrived and political when that's all the right has been doing since those FOUR DEAD AMERICANS met their fate? Recall again that when Reagan lost over 200 marines in Beirut, even though by his own admission he did not take the necessary steps to beef up security, the other side did not take that as an opportunity to turn it into this kind of nonsense.

 

[12AX7]

Recall again that when Reagan lost over 200 marines in Beirut, even though by his own admission he did not take the necessary steps to beef up security, the other side did not take that as an opportunity to turn it into this kind of nonsense.

Careful; you'll get "tu quoque!!!1!" thrown at you.

See, I reminded avid readers of this thread a while back that Congressional Republicans cut Obama's State Department requests for diplomatic security by $128 million in 2011 and $331 million in 2012, then they ignored Hillary Clinton's warnings that these cuts would "be detrimental to Americas national security".

But don't let facts get in the way from a good opportunity to make Republican political hay from dead Americans.

 

[The Big Dog]

Which perfectly describes this entire Benghazi "scandal". How can you deride something as contrived and political when that's all the right has been doing since those FOUR DEAD AMERICANS met their fate? Recall again that when Reagan lost over 200 marines in Beirut, even though by his own admission he did not take the necessary steps to beef up security, the other side did not take that as an opportunity to turn it into this kind of nonsense.

You did not actually respond to anything I posted other than to attempt to change the subject to Beirut (which of course was fully investigated with the open cooperation of the Administration).

Here the administration has repeatedly thwarted the investigation which reignited as the result of overt evidence that Administration withheld documents. Now Hillary pulls this political stunt (intentionality releasing a chapter) that contains patent falsehoods such as the claim that rice was relying on intelligence let alone the best intelligence available.

If Hillary persists in spinning her actions in the run up to her inevitable run for president, we are justified in holding her actions to scrutiny.

 

[The Big Dog]

Careful; you'll get "tu quoque!!!1!" thrown at you.

See, I reminded avid readers of this thread a while back that Congressional Republicans cut Obama's State Department requests for diplomatic security by $128 million in 2011 and $331 million in 2012, then they ignored Hillary Clinton's warnings that these cuts would "be detrimental to Americas national security".

But don't let facts get in the way from a good opportunity to make Republican political hay from dead Americans.

And avid readers will instantly recall that I quoted the sworn testimony before congress from Charlene Lamb that lack of budget had absolutely no impact on security in benghazi because "we will move assets to cover that" and that such claims had scored three pinoccios from the wapo.

Hat tip on the tu quoque, though. Good call.

 

[A'isha]

And avid readers will instantly recall that I quoted the sworn testimony before congress from Charlene Lamb that lack of budget had absolutely no impact on security in benghazi because "we will move assets to cover that" and that such claims had scored three pinoccios from the wapo.

"Move assets", huh? Move them from where, do you think? And what will happen to the security level of the places previously protected by those assets that had been moved?

 

[tyr_13]

There isn't any reason to cooperate with witch hunts. And it is a witch hunt as evidenced not only by Issa's statements well before Benghazi happened, but from the lies and spin put on every piece of information that administration does put out. If the investigators were honest and reasonable, it would be a different story. They aren't. The American people are tired of this. The White House is tired of this. Congress is tired of this. The military is tired of this. There isn't any valid reason left to keep on investigating besides making political hay using the deaths of patriots.

 

[The Big Dog]

"Move assets", huh? Move them from where, do you think? And what will happen to the security level of the places previously protected by those assets that had been moved?

I am very surprised that I have to address this serially debunked talking point. From the Congressional testimony:

Oct. 10, 2012 hearing:

QUESTION: It has been suggested that budget cuts were responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi. And I'd like to ask Ms. Lamb, you made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE CHARLENE LAMB: No, sir.

***

QUESTION: So there's not a budget problem. It's not you all don't have the money to do this?

LAMB: Sir, it's a volatile situation. We will move assets to cover that.

May 8, 2013 hearing:

QUESTION: Mr. Nordstrom, you were on that panel. Do you remember what she [Lamb] said?

REGIONAL SECURITY OFFICER ERIC NORDSTROM: Yes, she said that resources was not an issue. And I think I would also point to the ARB report, if I'm not mistaken, that they talked to our chief financial officer with D.S. [Diplomatic Security], who also said that resources were not an issue.


*****

"State Department officials repeatedly told Congress that a lack of funds was not an issue. Instead, security was hampered because of bureaucratic issues and management failures. In other words, given the internal failures, no amount of money for the State Department likely would have made a difference in this tragedy.

Three Pinocchios"

More detail available here in this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

 

[A'isha]

None of that comes close to answering the questions, though.

If the Republican cutting of the State Department security budget wasn't a problem at Benghazi because "we will move assets to cover that", where were those assets going to be moved from, and how would moving those assets affect the security situation at the facilities that previously had those assets?

 

[sunmaster14]

There isn't any reason to cooperate with witch hunts. And it is a witch hunt as evidenced not only by Issa's statements well before Benghazi happened, but from the lies and spin put on every piece of information that administration does put out.

It is not a witch hunt. Witches don't exist, so the hunt for them is necessarily unreasonable. This is a hunt for information that the administration has worked mightily to withhold from Congress and the American people. Maybe it will all turn out to be relatively uninteresting in the end, but I doubt it.

If the investigators were honest and reasonable, it would be a different story. They aren't.

The select committee is being chaired by Trey Gowdy, who strikes me as honest and reasonable. Whatever problems you may have with Darrell Issa, justified or not, Gowdy is definitely not Issa.

The American people are tired of this. The White House is tired of this. Congress is tired of this. The military is tired of this. There isn't any valid reason left to keep on investigating besides making political hay using the deaths of patriots.

Nobody is being forced to follow the news. If you're tired of it, don't listen. I for one am tired of the stonewalling by the administration. I look forward to finding out what President Obama did on the evening of Sep 11, 2012 while the consulate and CIA facility were under attack.

 

[Bogative]

There isn't any reason to cooperate with witch hunts. And it is a witch hunt as evidenced not only by Issa's statements well before Benghazi happened, but from the lies and spin put on every piece of information that administration does put out. If the investigators were honest and reasonable, it would be a different story. They aren't. The American people are tired of this. The White House is tired of this. Congress is tired of this. The military is tired of this. There isn't any valid reason left to keep on investigating besides making political hay using the deaths of patriots.

Bob Woodward now supports "witch hunts" and "making political hay using the death of patriots."

But the well-known scandal hound disagreed with that interpretation. “The issue is, is there new information out there?” Woodward explained. “And one of the questions I have — and I think there are serious, unanswered questions about this — did she keep a diary?”

“When I talked to President Obama, he confirmed that he keeps a diary,” he continued. “I asked for some of it for some of the work I was doing and he said, ‘No, it wouldn’t be relevant.’ But are there diaries?”

“Remember, go back to the 1980s and Iran-Contra,” Woodward noted. “Ronald Reagan kept a very detailed diary, and he finally turned it over.”

The veteran Post reporter also knocked Clinton and Obama’s continuing response to the Benghazi investigation, claiming it’s not all about partisan politics. “There are facts,” he asserted. “There is neutral inquiry. And there is a way to look at this and get that information and see if there is new information.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/01/b...nial-serious-unanswered-questions-about-this/

 

[tyr_13]

It is not a witch hunt. Witches don't exist, so the hunt for them is necessarily unreasonable. This is a hunt for information that the administration has worked mightily to withhold from Congress and the American people. Maybe it will all turn out to be relatively uninteresting in the end, but I doubt it.

It's a search for information that can be twisted, lied about, and spun against the Democrats. That's what they've done with all the information despite what the information actually was.

The select committee is being chaired by Trey Gowdy, who strikes me as honest and reasonable. Whatever problems you may have with Darrell Issa, justified or not, Gowdy is definitely not Issa.

Trey Gowdy is an ultra-conservative rank partisan who was elected by unseating an incumbent Republican for the sin of accepting scientific evidence. He's neither honest, nor reasonable. And he's from the same wing of the Republican party as Issa, working as his tag team partner in earlier hearings.

Nobody is being forced to follow the news. If you're tired of it, don't listen. I for one am tired of the stonewalling by the administration. I look forward to finding out what President Obama did on the evening of Sep 11, 2012 while the consulate and CIA facility were under attack.

So you can use it to attack the Democrats using the blood of four patriots. They've attempted to use every piece of evidence regardless of what it actually says to attack the administration. It's a witch hunt, and it's a citizen's responsibility to see these investigators squander government time and resources, and speak out against it.

But it does provide some amusement. Like trying to imagine what you think Obama could have been doing that was nefarious that night. The only reason you could possible want to know that is to use it to criticize him, because there is next to nothing he could have been doing that would have been a legitimate criticism.