New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

The ARB didn't talk to Hicks, or at least I can't find any reference to it anywhere on line including the released report.

The ARB interviewed over 100 people. Is there even a list released of everyone they talked to?

EDIT: Does the report even mention any of the witnesses by name?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

The ARB interviewed over 100 people. Is there even a list released of everyone they talked to?

I can't find one but they certainly didn't talk to Mark Thompson:

Mark Thompson, deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau, was in direct, real-time communication with people on the ground during the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Libya, before he was locked out of the room. Yet despite his firsthand knowledge of how the attack unfolded, he was not interviewed by the State Department’s Accountability Review Board, even though he asked to be.

http://www.indystar.com/article/201...-ready-bombshell-from-Benghazi-whistleblowers

If you don't want to actually find out what happened then you certainly don't want to talk to the guy who was talking to the people under attack while they were under attack.

Edit: Apparently Hicks was interviewed by the ARB.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not. to figure out what was known at the time (such as the uncorroborated early reports of claims of responsibility by Ansar al-Sharia and their explicit denials which muddled the issue), they wouldn't.

EDIT: On the morning of September 12th, 2012, I myself posted right here at JREF about an AP/CBS article that mentioned Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility (and note the report of what the Libyan Interior Ministry official said). Three and a half hours later, richardm posted a link to a BBC article containing their denial of responsibility.

The CIA identified Ansar al Sharia in a cable (I myself just posted) on 9/12/12 at 1:20 am. Stating that they had mounted the attack.

Had you missed that part?

 

[A'isha]

I can't find one but they certainly didn't talk to Mark Thompson

Fox News says Hicks was interviewed by the ARB.

 

[A'isha]

The CIA identified Ansar al Sharia in a cable (I myself just posted) on 9/12/12 at 1:20 am. Stating that they had mounted the attack.

Had you missed that part?

Apparently I did. Where did you post that cable?

 

[Brainster]

Nothing to see in this Washington Post article either:

The Obama administration wants to consign the Benghazi terrorist attack to the history books, but this week three State Department officials will tell Congress that the Obama administration’s version of history is false — and that the falsehoods it told the American people were willful and deliberate.

Yep, move the whole thread to conspiracy theories.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

A great skeptic would look at the official timeline:

“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 who are on loan to the agency. They don’t leave Benghazi airport until 4:30. 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 correctly suspect is already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Shariah militia that mounted the consulate attack.”

Sounds more like CT discussion than a discussion of U.S. Politics to me.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yep, move the whole thread to conspiracy theories.

Again, moving the thread to CTs doesn't mean the CT is necessarily false or without value. It just means this discussion will be CT discussion and not U.S. Politics discussion.

 

[The Big Dog]

Sounds more like CT discussion than a discussion of U.S. Politics to me.

Stop thread jacking please.

Thanks!

 

[thaiboxerken]

Thank you for your note.

I will certainly take note that discussions regarding Congressional Hearings and the evidence therein are considered Conspiracy Theories.

/wow.

Only when those discussions ARE conspiracy theories. The GOP has become the party of conspiracy theories. They embrace birtherism. They think global warming is a hoax.

You're patronism is misplaced because you're absolutely wrong.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Apologies to fellow conservatives, but this just Benghazi thing just isn't going to go anywhere. No proof of wrongdoing. No traction. No public interest. There's no "there" there.

The administration should rightly be criticized for trying to pin the blame on a YouTube video, which seems to have been done for political reasons.

But that's just politics. Not much of a scandal IMHO.

Finally, a conservative voice of reason. That's rare these days.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Nothing to see in this Washington Post article either:



Yep, move the whole thread to conspiracy theories.

Yea, it's rather sad that they decided to wait until they understood the facts before saying "TERRORISM!!!!" while spitting all over the audience. I understand that's the Republican way to do things. Speculate as if it's factual and yell loud. Nice.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yea, it's rather sad that they decided to wait until they understood the facts before saying "TERRORISM!!!!" while spitting all over the audience. I understand that's the Republican way to do things. Speculate as if it's factual and yell loud. Nice.

I just quoted the CIA's document identifying Ansar al Sharia at 1:15 a.m. Local time on 9/12/12. They said that the militia that had mounted the attack were surrounding the hospital were the ambassador's body was taken.

Post something about republicans again. Beats addressing the facts, huh?

 

[A'isha]

I just quoted the CIA's document identifying Ansar al Sharia at 1:15 a.m. Local time on 9/12/12. They said that the militia that had mounted the attack were surrounding the hospital were the ambassador's body was taken.

You quoted the CIA's official unclassified timeline released in November 2012, a month and a half after the attacks.

That says nothing whatsoever about what was known and thought in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I just quoted the CIA's document identifying Ansar al Sharia at 1:15 a.m. Local time on 9/12/12. They said that the militia that had mounted the attack were surrounding the hospital were the ambassador's body was taken.

Post something about republicans again. Beats addressing the facts, huh?

Conspiracy theory forum is in another part of the site. Feel free to post there.

 

[The Big Dog]

Conspiracy theory forum is in another part of the site. Feel free to post there.

I started this thread, sport (although it has been thread jacked by folks like you)

You have nothing to say about the topic, so feel fee to post elsewhere.

Thanks for Posting.

 

[The Big Dog]

You quoted the CIA's official unclassified timeline released in November 2012, a month and a half after the attacks.

That says nothing whatsoever about what was known and thought in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

Lolz! Are you serious? I can't believe that! That s funny! You think the CIA went back and doctored the reports or something?

Where in the name of god did you think they got the information? Answer: from the cables/reports they were sending back in real time.

Unbelievable. Truly unbelievable.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

You quoted the CIA's official unclassified timeline released in November 2012, a month and a half after the attacks.

That says nothing whatsoever about what was known and thought in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

It's funny how apparently it was OK by yourself and others to claim that the attacks were the result of a right wing loons video right off of the bat while deciding that any mention of terrorists was off limits well after it was known that it was in fact terrorists and not people upset over the video. I can see not knowing for a day or two until the people who were there could be talked to in person but 7 days later? I don't buy that for a minute.

That is the "Scandal". It appears that Obama wanted to push his State Departments failures off of the front page because of the upcoming elections (which he succeeded in doing I might add). Maybe you can come up with a more plausible reason for Obama going on the David Letterman Show on the 18th and laying the blame at the feet of a video in front of a national audience.

 

[jj]

It's funny how apparently it was OK by yourself and others to claim that the attacks were the result of a right wing loons video right off of the bat while deciding that any mention of terrorists was off limits well after it was known that it was in fact terrorists and not people upset over the video.

Can you show evidence that the people you are addressing actually did what you accuse them of?

Now, I don't know, but I think that accusation might call for a bit of evidence.

 

[A'isha]

Lolz! Are you serious? I can't believe that!

That's your problem, not mine.

That s funny! You think the CIA went back and doctored the reports or something?

Why would I think that?

Where in the name of god did you think they got the information? Answer: from the cables/reports they were sending back in real time.

No, they got the information after a month and a half of thorough investigations.

It's funny how apparently it was OK by yourself and others to claim that the attacks were the result of a right wing loons video right off of the bat while deciding that any mention of terrorists was off limits well after it was known that it was in fact terrorists and not people upset over the video.

It was?

Can you quote me on that?