New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

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

If the Republican cutting of the State Department security budget....s?

I specifically posted a link that debunks this claim, and particularly your claim that it was republicans cutting the budget.

Boxer earned three pinnochios for making the same claim that you are pressing here.

 

[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.

Here is an excellent fact check of Hillary's chapter on Benghazi that she "intentionally leaked."

Fact Check of Hillary's Chapter on Benghazi

Avid readers will note that the article references Clinton's and Rice's claims that Rice was relying on the best intelligence available, a claim that we know is utterly baseless, for numerous reasons, including the fact that the CIA specifically stressed that the attack did "not/NOT" arise out of an escalation of a protest demonstration outside the Diplomatic Facility.

 

[sunmaster14]

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.

I see. So your strategy to defend against information being twisted and lied about is to impede the gathering of any information at all. Seems kind of medieval to me, but, hey, different strokes for different folks.

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.

Is your problem with Gowdy that he's a Republican or that he's pro-life, or what? If you have some specific reasons for why he's neither honest nor reasonable, I'm all ears (or eyes). It would be nice if this investigation were bipartisan like the Watergate investigation was, but unfortunately, the Democrats seem to have your attitude towards information. If it can possibly be spun against their party leader, they don't want it to see the light of day.

<snip>

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.

If he literally took no action after 5:30pm EDT on Sep 11, 2012 with respect to aiding the Americans under attack in Benghazi - not even so much as a phone call to follow up - then that would be scandalous. I want to know if he was presented with any relevant options, and if he made any relevant decisions. I want to know why special forces in Croatia did not even BEGIN to move until over two hours after the start of the attacks. I want to know why those forces didn't continue to deploy after arriving in Italy, since there was no way to know when the attack would end. I want to know whether Obama was frustrated that military resources were not available for immediate deployment in a region that is hardly in the middle of nowhere, and if he has taken any action since then to make sure we don't get caught with our pants down again.

That's just off the top of my head. It's amazing how little we really know about what happened that night.

 

[A'isha]

I specifically posted a link that debunks this claim, and particularly your claim that it was republicans cutting the budget.

It didn't, actually. It said:

In fact, the Congressional Research Service has documented that Congress, whether led by Democrats and Republicans, year after year did not fully fund the various pots of money for embassy security. (See page 25.) The State Department, for instance, was shortchanged by $142 million in fiscal year 2010, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

There is always a give-and-take between Congress and the executive branch about funding issues. Boxer spent many years on the Appropriations Committee, and we assume she does not believe that Congress should just rubber-stamp a president’s budget proposals.

The funding gap was a bit higher in 2011 and 2012, when Republicans controlled the House, but we don’t understand why Boxer would frame the security funding problem in such partisan terms. As journalist David Rohde has written, this is “an enduring post-9/11 problem that both political parties ignore.”

And that link there to David Rohde? In that piece, he says:

Democrats have blamed Republicans for the lack of funding. They point out that House Republicans rejected $450 million in administration requests for increased Diplomatic Security spending since 2010. They say Senate Democrats were able to restore a small part of the funding.

But these partisan charges and counter-charges ignore a basic truth. Resource shortages and a reliance on contractors caused bitter divisions between field officers in Benghazi and State Department managers in Washington.

State Department officials confirmed complaints from Lieutenant Colonel Andy Wood, the former head of a U.S. Special Forces “Site Security Team” in Tripoli, that Charlene Lamb, the Diplomatic Security Service official who oversees security in Washington, urged them to reduce the numbers of American security personnel on the ground even as security worsened across Libya. Mr. Wood and his team left the country the month before the attack.

In equivocating and evasive testimony before Congress in October, Ms. Lamb at first said she received no formal requests for additional security from Libya. She then claimed, “We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi.”

Ms. Lamb’s superior, David Kennedy, has defended her. He argued that a handful of additional Diplomatic Security guards in Benghazi – or the Special Forces team in Tripoli – would not have made a difference.

To date, no evidence has emerged that officials higher than Ms. Lamb or Mr. Kennedy were involved in the decision to reject the requests for additional security from Libya. Both are career civil servants, not Obama administration appointees.

Ms. Lamb has declined all interview requests.

There is a broader issue beyond the political blame game. Benghazi is a symptom of a brittle, over-stretched and under-funded State Department. Without being able to hire private contractors, the department provided too few guards and hoped a nearby CIA base or friendly Libyan militia would help them. An excellent recent report in the New York Times found that the U.S. military’s Africa Command was under-resourced as well as unable to help.

The investigation by the Senate and House intelligence committees into whether or not the Obama administration misled Americans after the attack or altered intelligence should continue. But the core issue before the attack was a lack of resources and skilled management, not shadowy conspiracies.

I've asked my question twice now. Does this mean I'm not going to get an answer from you?

Here is an excellent fact check of Hillary's chapter on Benghazi that she "intentionally leaked."

Fact Check of Hillary's Chapter on Benghazi

Fox News "fact checking" anything regarding Benghazi after running nonsense like this as "scoops" is nothing short of laughable.

 

[tyr_13]

I see. So your strategy to defend against information being twisted and lied about is to impede the gathering of any information at all. Seems kind of medieval to me, but, hey, different strokes for different folks.

No, that's not what I've said. I've said I'm against further wasting of resources by the same people who have shown they themselves are going to spin whatever they get as a political tool, not against information gathering at all.

Is your problem with Gowdy that he's a Republican or that he's pro-life, or what? If you have some specific reasons for why he's neither honest nor reasonable, I'm all ears (or eyes). It would be nice if this investigation were bipartisan like the Watergate investigation was, but unfortunately, the Democrats seem to have your attitude towards information. If it can possibly be spun against their party leader, they don't want it to see the light of day.

I already stated why. It has nothing to do with being pro-life or even a Republican per say, but being a far right who ran to the right of an already very conservative Republican because that man actually believed AGW is an issue. Most importantly, his work with Issa on specifically the Benghazi issue has shown how his work is.

The investigation isn't bipartisan, and it's not because the Democrats have refused to help purely out of desire to protect Obama, but because the Republicans have turned all inquires into a farce. One can't break something, then complain when the other side wants nothing to do with it.

If he literally took no action after 5:30pm EDT on Sep 11, 2012 with respect to aiding the Americans under attack in Benghazi - not even so much as a phone call to follow up - then that would be scandalous. I want to know if he was presented with any relevant options, and if he made any relevant decisions. I want to know why special forces in Croatia did not even BEGIN to move until over two hours after the start of the attacks. I want to know why those forces didn't continue to deploy after arriving in Italy, since there was no way to know when the attack would end. I want to know whether Obama was frustrated that military resources were not available for immediate deployment in a region that is hardly in the middle of nowhere, and if he has taken any action since then to make sure we don't get caught with our pants down again.

That's just off the top of my head. It's amazing how little we really know about what happened that night.

Like I said, you just want something, anything, to use against the Democrats. Most of your list doesn't raise to the level of scandal even if true or have been addressed repeatedly by the military, which avid readers of this thread already know. Obama not micro-managing wouldn't be worth noting. Remember, one of the Republican's primary supporters didn't even answer his phone on that night, and in fact had to be actually gone to, and it hasn't been a scandal for him.

Which decisions? What do you think could have been done differently with the information they had at the time? Again, these questions have been asked and answered so many times by both the White House and more importantly the military that they can't be taken seriously.

 

[The Big Dog]

, one of the Republican's primary supporters didn't even answer his phone on that night, and in fact had to be actually gone to, and it hasn't been a scandal for him.

Which decisions? What do you think could have been done differently with the information they had at the time? Again, these questions have been asked and answered so many times by both the White House and more importantly the military that they can't be taken seriously.

Tyr is taking about Greg hicks. Why he called him a republican supporter, I have no idea, but Greg hicks is absolutely a target. As Avid readers of the thread know, Greg Hicks did not pick up the phone for at most ten minutes. That ten minutes means more to the apologists than anything else.

What could he Obama Administartion done differently? Not lie.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hillary Clinton is doing the rounds, stumping for her new book (and putting her feet in her mouth about being broke). On topic, she claimed about Benghazi: “I take responsibility, but I was not making security decisions.”

Translation: She claims It wasn't her fault.

General Ham twice offered additional security in Beghazi, Amb Stevens begged for more security in Benghazi, the Brits and Red Cross pulled out of Benghazi and Hillary claimed she was not making security decisions.

Keeping the facility open and refusing offers of security are part and parcel of security decisions and I cannot believe she is trying to pass this off on some underlings.

 

[AlexW]

I've always been under the impression that Steven's wanted to stay and didn't want more security; or at least robust security. He thought it sent the wrong message to the local populace. This article is typical of one's I've read:

LINK

 

[The Big Dog]

I've always been under the impression that Steven's wanted to stay and didn't want more security; or at least robust security. He thought it sent the wrong message to the local populace. This article is typical of one's I've read:

LINK

That is not accurate. The decision to refuse the extension of the security forces was made by hillary's right hand man, Undersecretary Kennedy. This has been discussed at some length in this thread.

Feel free to pm me if you want more information.

 

[plague311]

Hillary Clinton is doing the rounds, stumping for her new book (and putting her feet in her mouth about being broke). On topic, she claimed about Benghazi: “I take responsibility, but I was not making security decisions.”

Translation: She claims It wasn't her fault.

General Ham twice offered additional security in Beghazi, Amb Stevens begged for more security in Benghazi, the Brits and Red Cross pulled out of Benghazi and Hillary claimed she was not making security decisions.

Keeping the facility open and refusing offers of security are part and parcel of security decisions and I cannot believe she is trying to pass this off on some underlings.

I don't need any PM's or anything, but below you openly say that what AlexW claims is false, despite him providing a link. Can you provide the evidence from a reliable source that claims the opposite?

This whole benghazi "scandal" either needs to be proven or dropped. The right has consistently said the sky is falling over and over again, with absolutely nothing to support it. Now we're on committee number...what? 4? 5?

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

Some Good News!

Ahmed Abu Khattala was captured Sunday near Benghazi by American troops, working alongside the FBI, following months of planning, and was now in U.S. custody “in a secure location outside Libya” the first time one of the accused perpetrators of the 2012 assaults has been apprehended, according to U.S. officials.

The State Department designated Abu Khattala a terrorist in January, calling him a “senior leader” of the Benghazi branch of the militant organization Ansar al-Sharia, a group that arose after the 2011 fall of the Libyan regime of Moammar Gaddafi.

Ansar al-Sharia was also designated a terrorist organization and held specifically responsible for the Sept. 11, 2012, assault on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi.

Good news all around and a job well done.

 

[Unabogie]

The entire Benghazi conspiracy theory implodes.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/khattala-benghazi-video-new-york-times

Ahmed Abu Khatallah, the suspect captured by U.S. special forces on Tuesday for his role in the 2012 Benghazi attack, reportedly said he was motivated in part by the anti-Islam online video made in America, according to the New York Times.

"What he did in the period just before the attack has remained unclear. But Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video," Times reporter David Kirkpatrick wrote in a story on Khattala on Tuesday.

BOOM

 

[applecorped]

The entire Benghazi conspiracy theory implodes.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/khattala-benghazi-video-new-york-times



BOOM

Says the person being charged

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't need any PM's or anything, but below you openly say that what AlexW claims is false, despite him providing a link. Can you provide the evidence from a reliable source that claims the opposite?

This whole benghazi "scandal" either needs to be proven or dropped. The right has consistently said the sky is falling over and over again, with absolutely nothing to support it. Now we're on committee number...what? 4? 5?

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

I said it wasn't accurate. Please do not misrepresent what I said further.

I have quoted the Greg hicks article at length in this thread.

Here is the link again.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304302704579332732276330284

 

[The Big Dog]

The entire Benghazi conspiracy theory implodes.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/khattala-benghazi-video-new-york-times

BOOM

David Kirkpatrick again wades into the Benghazi attacks. Avid readers of this thread will recall that Kirkpatrick was the author of the thoroughly debunked article early last winter (it was memorably referred to as the 6000 word piece on Benghazi that did not mention Hillary Clinton).

David Kirkpatrick who once declared that there is “no evidence that al Qaeda or other international terrorists had any role in the assault”, and who was debunked by Diane Feinstein, and by Representative Adam Schiff A Democrat who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, who said that “the intelligence indicates that al Qaeda was involved.”

David Kirkpatrick who once again asserts that “Mr. Abu Khattala is a local, small-time Islamist militant. He has no known connections to international terrorist groups.” This is despite the fact (and without any mention of that fact that) the Department of State has also designated Ahmed Abu Khattalah, Sufian bin Qumu, and Seifallah Ben Hassine, as Specially Designated Global Terrorists in connection with the coordinated attack on the Benghazi facility. Qumu, who was once core Al Qua’ida and in fact served as Osama Bin Laden’s driver! What about THAT connection David?

David Kirkpatrick who claims that Mr. Abu Khattala told “fellow Islamist fighters and others” (WHO?) that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him (WHO?).” Putting aside the multiple levels of hearsay involved and the anonymous sources, Kirkpatrick fails to mention that Mr. Abu Khattala is also tied to the attacks on the Red Cross in April, the attack on the British Ambassador in May and the several previous attacks on the American Facility in Benghazi, all of which took place before the video was released.

David Kirkpatrick? Please..... BOOM Indeed.

 

[A'isha]

Says the person being charged

He was talking about the video's role in the attack since long before he was even captured.

David Kirkpatrick again wades into the Benghazi attacks. Avid readers of this thread will recall that Kirkpatrick was the author of the thoroughly debunked article early last winter (it was memorably referred to as the 6000 word piece on Benghazi that did not mention Hillary Clinton).

It wasn't debunked.

David Kirkpatrick who once again asserts that “Mr. Abu Khattala is a local, small-time Islamist militant. He has no known connections to international terrorist groups.” This is despite the fact (and without any mention of that fact that) the Department of State has also designated Ahmed Abu Khattalah, Sufian bin Qumu, and Seifallah Ben Hassine, as Specially Designated Global Terrorists in connection with the coordinated attack on the Benghazi facility. Qumu, who was once core Al Qua’ida and in fact served as Osama Bin Laden’s driver! What about THAT connection David?

What's Khattala's connection to Qumu, and (apparently, from your implication) through Qumu to core al-Qaeda?

David Kirkpatrick who claims that Mr. Abu Khattala told “fellow Islamist fighters and others” (WHO?) that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him (WHO?).”

Are the unnamed sources that Kilpacktrick describes as saying Khattala's leadership in the attack was apparent from the start, that he entered the compound during the assault, and that he returned to the Ansar al-Shariah compound (which, more unnamed sources described by Kilpatrick say, participated in the attack) just as untrustworthy? Did the US nab the wrong guy?

Putting aside the multiple levels of hearsay involved and the anonymous sources, Kirkpatrick fails to mention that Mr. Abu Khattala is also tied to the attacks on the Red Cross in April, the attack on the British Ambassador in May and the several previous attacks on the American Facility in Benghazi, all of which took place before the video was released.

Because he couldn't have decided to attack the consulate because he was inspired the video on the same day that some fifty other attacks across northern Africa and the middle east inspired the video were happening, and carried out other attacks previously?

 

[plague311]

David Kirkpatrick again wades into the Benghazi attacks. Avid readers of this thread will recall that Kirkpatrick was the author of the thoroughly debunked article early last winter (it was memorably referred to as the 6000 word piece on Benghazi that did not mention Hillary Clinton).

David Kirkpatrick who once declared that there is “no evidence that al Qaeda or other international terrorists had any role in the assault”, and who was debunked by Diane Feinstein, and by Representative Adam Schiff A Democrat who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, who said that “the intelligence indicates that al Qaeda was involved.”

David Kirkpatrick who once again asserts that “Mr. Abu Khattala is a local, small-time Islamist militant. He has no known connections to international terrorist groups.” This is despite the fact (and without any mention of that fact that) the Department of State has also designated Ahmed Abu Khattalah, Sufian bin Qumu, and Seifallah Ben Hassine, as Specially Designated Global Terrorists in connection with the coordinated attack on the Benghazi facility. Qumu, who was once core Al Qua’ida and in fact served as Osama Bin Laden’s driver! What about THAT connection David?

David Kirkpatrick who claims that Mr. Abu Khattala told “fellow Islamist fighters and others” (WHO?) that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him (WHO?).” Putting aside the multiple levels of hearsay involved and the anonymous sources, Kirkpatrick fails to mention that Mr. Abu Khattala is also tied to the attacks on the Red Cross in April, the attack on the British Ambassador in May and the several previous attacks on the American Facility in Benghazi, all of which took place before the video was released.

David Kirkpatrick? Please..... BOOM Indeed.

So I am definitely seeing a long ad hominem attack, but I'm not seeing anything to prove he's wrong. Got anything along those lines?

 

[The Big Dog]

It wasn't debunked.

Why do you claim it wasn't debunked and at the same tiime delete the very explanation from my post why it was debunked???

What's Khattala's connection to Qumu, and (apparently, from your implication) through Qumu to core al-Qaeda?

The attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi, just like the State Department said and I quoted.

Are the unnamed sources that Kilpacktrick describes as saying Khattala's leadership in the attack was apparent from the start, that he entered the compound during the assault, and that he returned to the Ansar al-Shariah compound (which, more unnamed sources described by Kilpatrick say, participated in the attack) just as untrustworthy? Did the US nab the wrong guy?

That would assume that was the ONLY evidence, which is wrong, and specifically includes the video which Kirkpatrick mentioned.

Because he couldn't have decided to attack the consulate because he was inspired the video on the same day that some fifty other attacks across northern Africa and the middle east inspired the video were happening, and carried out other attacks previously?

There were not fifty other attacks, he said it wasn't because of the video elsewhere (where we actually have direct quotes, not third hand hearsay) there were Islamic Militants from outside Benghazi and the attack (particularly the mortar attack on the Annex) showed substantial planning and very experienced military trained fighters.

Further, the Administrations false claim was that the attack spontaneously arose from a protest outside the Facility and there was NO PROTEST outside the facility.

Plague: showing that Kirkpatrick was wrong about the same subject previously is not an ad hominem, and I specifically pointed out that this new article is utterly wrong in two major respects:

1. The State Department has found a direct link between Ahmed Abu Khattalah and Sufian bin Qumu, which he IGNORED.

2. Ahmed Abu Khattalah was involved in numerous other terrorist attacks in Benghazi before this one.

 

[The Big Dog]

Clinton erroneously claims that GOP is Guilty of a Double Standard on Benghazi

Former President Bill Clinton has recently echoed a fallacious argument regarding the Benghazi attacks that has been discussed at length in this thread. After being directly asked about the Benghazi attacks, Clinton asserted that "When 10 different instances occurred when President Bush was in office where American diplomatic personnel were killed, how many outraged Republican members of Congress were there? None"

Put aside that the entire argument is a complete red herring and a tu quoque fallacy, it is also false. 10 different attacks did not result in Americans getting killed.

One American Diplomat was killed during the Bush years, in a car bomb attack near the American consulate in Pakistan.

In addition, and equally important, the attacks during Bush were not the result of incompetent security planning, were not found to be preventable and the Administration did not misrepresent what happened for nearly a month.

the Moderator did not challenge Clinton's comments, although he should have done so, in my view.

 

[plague311]

Former President Bill Clinton has recently echoed a fallacious argument regarding the Benghazi attacks that has been discussed at length in this thread. After being directly asked about the Benghazi attacks, Clinton asserted that "When 10 different instances occurred when President Bush was in office where American diplomatic personnel were killed, how many outraged Republican members of Congress were there? None"

Put aside that the entire argument is a complete red herring and a tu quoque fallacy, it is also false. 10 different attacks did not result in Americans getting killed.

One American Diplomat was killed during the Bush years, in a car bomb attack near the American consulate in Pakistan.

In addition, and equally important, the attacks during Bush were not the result of incompetent security planning, were not found to be preventable and the Administration did not misrepresent what happened for nearly a month.

the Moderator did not challenge Clinton's comments, although he should have done so, in my view.

According to my research. You are wrong. In fact, even this article that is trying to "help" prove your point shows that you are absolutely wrong in your statement. Unless security can't stop people from being shot, or bombed, even outside of their homes.

The hilited section is merely your opinion, it's not fact. Your claim is that Benghazi was preventable, due to incompetence, and that the Administration misrepresented the situation. That's your claim, don't state is as fact unless it's confirmed.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.