New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

Interesting reference to the first talking points memo drafted and distributed on 9/14/12:

You may find it "interesting", but it's also not new. This is straight out of the 43-page interim report released back in April by House Republicans.

This initial CIA draft included the assertion that the U.S. government “know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That draft also noted that press reports “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 that some of its members were involved.”

Which is exactly what I've been saying.

 

[A'isha]

"The hearing is closed, but the investigation is not over," said Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman on the House Oversight Committee.

Naturally.

I am sure every is looking forward to the complete transcripts.

Thanks to everyone who posted.

So where were the "new disclosures"?

 

[RandFan]

"The hearing is closed, but the investigation is not over," said Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman on the House Oversight Committee.

I am sure every is looking forward to the complete transcripts.

Thanks to everyone who posted.

Smoking gun?

 

[CORed]

I've never figured out what the motivation would have been for Obama and State department people to lie about Bengazi. If you allow your ambassador and/or other members of your diplomatic staff to get killed, you screwed up. How is it less of a screw-up if they were killed by a spontaneous riot than by a coordinated attack? If anything, losing them to a spontaneous riot would be a worse failure of security than losing them to a coordinated attack.

Clearly the initial story about Bengazi was incorrect, but I can't think what the motivation would have been to lie. I think I have to apply Hanlon's Razor here.

 

[AlBell]

There we have it, an admission that this waste of time is knowingly political in nature, and intended to disrupt government activities.

The bolded is exactly what the initial 'blame it on a utube clip' was to best insure Obama re-election and Hilary 2016 still being possible.

I take that's ok with you since you like both those things?

Finally, what do you ever see in media, involving politicians, that isn't knowingly political in nature? And at least some can imo be argued as intended to disrupt government activities.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I've never figured out what the motivation would have been for Obama and State department people to lie about Bengazi. If you allow your ambassador and/or other members of your diplomatic staff to get killed, you screwed up. How is it less of a screw-up if they were killed by a spontaneous riot than by a coordinated attack? If anything, losing them to a spontaneous riot would be a worse failure of security than losing them to a coordinated attack.

Clearly the initial story about Bengazi was incorrect, but I can't think what the motivation would have been to lie. I think I have to apply Hanlon's Razor here.

A possible motive would be to spin it as the fault of a right wing loons video (which they can't control) instead of a left wing security failure (which they can control, at least to some extent). Seriously, on 9/11 of all days the closest security backup forces are in northern Italy and all they had were 9mm pistols? Who thought that that was a good idea? Especially since the protests in Cairo were an ongoing concern for at least 3 hours before the attack in Libya.

 

[jj]

The bolded is exactly what the initial 'blame it on a utube clip' was to best insure Obama re-election and Hilary 2016 still being possible.

I take that's ok with you since you like both those things?

Disregarding the fact that Cheney had many more failures, W had many more failures, and even George HW had more failures than Obama, the obviously dishonest political attempt to somehow blame this on Hillary for purely political reasons is entirely evident. It's interesting how the myriad failures of the 'W' years in terms of security (You do recall 9/11, after all.) are excused away as fog of war, but now, the same people who repeatedly made that excuse for 'W' are demanding omniscience on Obama's part, and are actually focusing on Hillary, without evidence or cause, purely as an act of political deceit.

As to your presumption as to what I like, that fails on the previous rhetorical misconduct, assumption of facts not in evidence, suborned logic, straw men, and so on in the first sentence of your anti-freedom polemic. It, furthermore, assumes more facts not in evidence, and is a very thinly veiled personal attack.

 

[jj]

A possible motive would be to spin it as the fault of a right wing loons video (which they can't control) instead of a left wing security failure (which they can control, at least to some extent).

Look, a conspiracy theory! And this after a right-wing congress cut money for defense of embassies.

Note, Sam, I don't necessarily think you're putting this forth, but now we have to wait to see who picks it up and runs with it.

 

[Mark F]

Who thought that that was a good idea? Especially since the protests in Cairo were an ongoing concern for at least 3 hours before the attack in Libya.

This is an imporant and almost completely overlooked point. Benghazi was far from the only diplomatic compound with issues that night. How much security do you send and where?

 

[A'isha]

A possible motive would be to spin it as the fault of a right wing loons video (which they can't control) instead of a left wing security failure (which they can control, at least to some extent).

Local witnesses in Benghazi said that the attackers stated it was because of the video, and there was also a severe security failure. Why do you think it had to be one or the other?

Seriously, on 9/11 of all days the closest security backup forces are in northern Italy and all they had were 9mm pistols? Who thought that that was a good idea?

No one, since that's not true.

The closest fighters were in northern Italy. The closest backup security force was Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group, on a training mission in Croatia. This group is specifically for responding to important threats within their geographic area, and Obama ordered them to deploy at 2:39 AM, Benghazi time (20 minutes later, he also ordered the deployment of Delta Force from the US). Because ordering a deployment like that doesn't exactly work the way that it does in movies, it took time to assemble the groups, vehicles, transport aircraft, and mission plans. The two groups arrived at staging bases in Italy late the evening of the 12th of September, Benghazi time. In the meantime, a Marine team in Spain had also been ordered to deploy, and arrived directly in Tripoli at about the same time.

The men with 9mm pistols were a small four-man group assigned to survey security around the Middle East, and were not part of any "backup" group or either of the two above groups, and were already in Tripoli when the attacks happened.

 

[jj]

This is an imporant and almost completely overlooked point. Benghazi was far from the only diplomatic compound with issues that night. How much security do you send and where?

Especially when blind-faith austerity worshipers have cut your security budget. Let's not forget that, either.

 

[AlBell]

... off topic pap elided ...

As to your presumption as to what I like, that fails on the previous rhetorical misconduct, assumption of facts not in evidence, suborned logic, straw men, and so on in the first sentence of your anti-freedom polemic. It, furthermore, assumes more facts not in evidence, and is a very thinly veiled personal attack.

WHATever. I notice you don't deny it. Do you need to discuss with a Park Ranger first?

 

[jj]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/08/what-dick-cheneys-benghazi-criticism-misses/193960

One more data point. Remember who was SecDef under Bush 1, too.

 

[A'isha]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/08/what-dick-cheneys-benghazi-criticism-misses/193960

One more data point. Remember who was SecDef under Bush 1, too.

"Martosko quotes Cheney saying that the Obama administration's handling of the Benghazi attacks was "a failure of leadership" for not anticipating an attack on September 11"

 

[The Big Dog]

This is an imporant and almost completely overlooked point. Benghazi was far from the only diplomatic compound with issues that night. How much security do you send and where?

According to Hicks, after the situation in Tripoli was secured, you decide to ask the special forces that were available to go assist security in Benghazi.

Unfortunately they were not permitted to go.

Hicks went though, I don't think he even had a side arm.

 

[A'isha]

According to Hicks, after the situation in Tripoli was secured, you decide to ask the special forces that were available to go assist security in Benghazi.

Unfortunately they were not permitted to go.

Why do you consider Hicks more of an authority on security and military matters than, well, the actual military?

 

[The Big Dog]

Actually, the more I think about it, the more bizarre the story of the 9mm sidearms becomes. Forget the fact that they are alleged only to have pistols, what is really odd is that the Administration leaked that information.

"At least 6 hours after the attacks began, our Special Forces have armed themselves only with pistols. So watch out."

And the reason they released that info? For the sole reason to undercut the testimony at the hearings.

Remarkable, absolutely remarkable.

 

[elbe]

Actually, the more I think about it, the more bizarre the story of the 9mm sidearms becomes. Forget the fact that they are alleged only to have pistols, what is really odd is that the Administration leaked that information.

"At least 6 hours after the attacks began, our Special Forces have armed themselves only with pistols. So watch out."

And the reason they released that info? For the sole reason to undercut the testimony at the hearings.

Remarkable, absolutely remarkable.

Yeeessss... everything is a conspiracy...

 

[A'isha]

"At least 6 hours after the attacks began, our Special Forces have armed themselves only with pistols. So watch out."

And the reason they released that info? For the sole reason to undercut the testimony at the hearings.

No, it's because they weren't on a Special Forces mission. They were on a security survey and advisory tour, something for which they did not need all their combat deployment gear.

The actual people who were deployed were properly armed. Which is why those people were deployed, and these four guys were not.

EDIT: And it wasn't the Administration, but military officials themselves.

 

[marplots]

Is there a reasonably coherent timeline (maybe with notes) of what happened on the net somewhere? I'm confused by who did what, when. If there's one at a trusted source, I'd love to see it.

And a second question. What ever happened to the allegations that the embassy grounds were also home to a "black site" operation by the CIA that shaped the response to the attack. Was that complete crap?