New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

The "Scandal" here is not that the attacks happened. I get that stuff happens and that not every planned terrorist attack can or will be found out ahead of time. What is unconscionable is what was said for a week afterwards by the president on down. They either lied or are completely incompetent. Take your pick.

What, specifically, were the lies about?

 

[elbe]

The argument that the talking points were false because no one at all asked Hicks about it is "inane"

Understood.

Thanks for posting.

Can you demonstrate that they were "false" because they didn't ask Hicks about them? Not that they disagreed with Hicks, but that the reason was because they didn't involve him.

 

[A'isha]

It appears that he is not aware that the people who put together the talking points included the Administration. He is wandering around a mine field, and does not know it.

Yes, and all of this was known and gone over and ranted about by Republicans eight months ago.

What, specifically, is Hicks saying now that is a "new disclosure"?

 

[The Big Dog]

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) on Sunday said the talking points United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice used in the wake of the Benghazi, Libya attack were “absolutely” altered and incorrect.

“They certainly weren’t accurate,” Lynch said. “I don’t know what the process was there, but absolutely, they were false, they were wrong. There were no protests outside the Benghazi compound there, this was a deliberate and strategic attack on the consulate there.”

Can you demonstrate that they were "false" because they didn't ask Hicks about them? Not that they disagreed with Hicks, but that the reason was because they didn't involve him.

Any other questions?

 

[A'isha]

Any other questions?

Yes.

Where did Rep. Lynch say anything about the talking points being false because they didn't ask Hicks about them?

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes.

Where did Rep. Lynch say anything about the talking points being false because they didn't ask Hicks about them?

You just said the CIA did, sport. C'mon, keep up.

Here is how this is going:

The CIA did talk to Hicks about the talking points, and therefore they were knowingly false.

The CIA did not talk to Hicks about the talking points, and therefore they were false because the people putting them together intentionally avoided the facts, or are grossly incompetent.

You know this is going very badly for you, right?

 

[elbe]

Any other questions?

What did those quotes have to do with each other?

 

[elbe]

The CIA did talk to Hicks about the talking points, and therefore they were knowingly false.

Unverifiable, unless you have full access to all intelligence sources the CIA had at the time.

 

[The Big Dog]

Back to the testimony:

Despite initial claims by the administration that the attack was triggered by protests over an anti-Islam film -- and subsequent claims that the flawed statement was based on the intelligence at the time -- one whistle-blower said it was evident from the start the attack was terrorism.

"The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya," testified Greg Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya who became the top U.S. diplomat in the country after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed.

 

[A'isha]

You just said the CIA did, sport.

No, I said that the CIA did talk to Hicks. Therefore, the talking points are not false because they didn't talk to him, contrary to your assertion.

C'mon, keep up.

Physician, heal thyself.

The CIA did talk to Hicks about the talking points, and therefore they were knowingly false.

The CIA did not talk to Hicks about the talking points, and therefore they were false because the people putting them together intentionally avoided the facts, or are grossly incompetent.

If the talking points were false, it's not because they didn't talk to Hicks. Period.

You know this is going very badly for you, right?

Okay.

 

[A'isha]

Back to the testimony:

Despite initial claims by the administration that the attack was triggered by protests over an anti-Islam film -- and subsequent claims that the flawed statement was based on the intelligence at the time -- one whistle-blower said it was evident from the start the attack was terrorism.

"The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya," testified Greg Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya who became the top U.S. diplomat in the country after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed.

More conflating of "there was no protest against the video outside the consulate which preceded the attack on the consulate" with "the video had nothing to do with the motivations for the attack on the consulate", this time apparently deliberately.

 

[dudalb]

Benghazi
. Now say it loudly 20 or 30 times. Then repeat. Do it long enough and something will appear.

Benghazi has not been so much talked about since 1941 and 42.......

 

[Sam.I.Am]

What, specifically, were the lies about?

Pretty much everything being said at the very top of the food chain on down from the 11th to the 19th (when Clinton first stated that it now looked like a planned terrorist attack and not because of the right wing loons video).

I'll quote the president himself on this:

Obama (Sept 11th 2012) "It's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts and that you've thought through the ramifications before you make them."

That is what he said about Romneys comments on the attacks in Benghazi. When his feet were being held to the fire he said that the attacks were directly related to the video and dismissed claims that it was actually a terrorist attack. He did this for a full week. Even though several people who were there said differently. There wasn't even a protest over the video at the location of the attack. The video had little to no influence on what happened when it happened.

Saying that for a day or so is acceptable given the situation. Fog of war and all of that. Saying it for a week is not. They had the information in hand but they decided to continue on the path of blaming it on a video instead.

 

[Tony]

Issa accuses Benghazi commission chairman of refusing to testify, then refuses to let him testify

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ng-to-testify-then-refuses-to-let-him-testify

Yep, this whole thing is partisan BS brought to you by the party of "Country First". What a joke.

 

[A'isha]

That is what he said about Romneys comments on the attacks in Benghazi. When his feet were being held to the fire he said that the attacks were directly related to the video and dismissed claims that it was actually a terrorist attack.

Except those two things are not mutually exclusive, as the news articles I posted above show.

Even though several people who were there said differently.

And several other people who were also there disagreed with them.

There wasn't even a protest over the video at the location of the attack.

Again the conflation between "there was no protest against the video outside the consulate which preceded the attack on the consulate" and "the video had nothing to do with the motivations for the attack on the consulate".

The video had little to no influence on what happened when it happened.

And, at least at one point, and according to the statements of witnesses to the attacks about what the attackers were saying about the video during the attack, there was evidence that it did.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Except those two things are not mutually exclusive, as the news articles I posted above show.



And several other people who were also there disagreed with them.



Again the conflation between "there was no protest against the video outside the consulate which preceded the attack on the consulate" and "the video had nothing to do with the motivations for the attack on the consulate".



And, at least at one point, and according to the statements of witnesses to the attacks about what the attackers were saying about the video during the attack, there was evidence that it did.

So this means that when there are conflicting reports you get to pick and choose which one to run with for a week? How about just saying "We don't know yet"? You know, kinda following the principle of:

Obama (Sept 11th 2012) "It's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts and that you've thought through the ramifications before you make them."

 

[The Big Dog]

Issa accuses Benghazi commission chairman of refusing to testify, then refuses to let him testify

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ng-to-testify-then-refuses-to-let-him-testify

Yep, this whole thing is partisan BS brought to you by the party of "Country First". What a joke.

“Ambassador Pickering initially told the Committee he was not available on that date,” Hill tells ABC News. “When asked about a different date, he said he was not inclined to testify.”

This MORNING he volunteered to testify TODAY. The Committee still has not received Pickering’s offer to testify and, even if it comes now, the Committee has a “three-day rule” that requires witnesses be locked in three days in advance to give Committee members adequate time to prepare.

I notice that the blog on which the Kos article contains a major false statment:

"In fact, Hill has released letters dated February 22 inviting Pickering (read them here), and the other co-chairman of the investigation, former Joint Chiefs Chair retired Adm. Michael Mullen, to testify at today’s hearing."

That is false, the invitation was for March.

Great find Tony, way to expose this ridiculous stunt.

I look forward to Hutchinson's testimony in the near future.

 

[The Big Dog]

Back to the testimony:

Hicks said State Department lawyers instructed him not to let the embassy’s Regional Security Officer be personally interviewed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz.

This was the first time he was ever instructed not to talk with members of Congress, Hicks said.

Hicks told the Oversight Committee a State Department lawyer accompanying the delegation attempted to sit in every meeting the delegation had at the embassy. When the lawyer was excluded from a classified briefing with Congressman Chaffetz because he did not have the appropriate security clearance, Hicks said he received an angry phone call by Cheryl Mills, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff.

“A phone call from that senior person is not considered to be good news,” Hicks said. “She demanded a report on the visit. She was upset.”

 

[The Big Dog]

Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya during the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks, testified before a House committee that he was frustrated when the U.S. military turned down a request to dispatch four Special Operations troops from Tripoli to Benghazi the next morning, saying he felt they were urgently needed to help evacuate Americans.

“People in Benghazi had been fighting all night,” he said. “They were tired, exhausted. We wanted to make sure the airport was secure for their withdrawal.”

 

[A'isha]

So this means that when there are conflicting reports you get to pick and choose which one to run with for a week? How about just saying "We don't know yet"?

No, it means you make an estimate based on the information that you think is the most reliable, and you probably also add the disclaimer that the issue is still being investigated and the estimate could change, and then change that estimate based on the new information you learn in the course of that investigation.

Like this.