New Disclosures on Benghazi

[elbe]

You appear to be focusing on the CIA, and that is fine. The issue is not whether the talking points were "incorrect." The issue is whether the Administration knew that there was SUBSTANTIAL information that was not reflected in the talking points.

The problem as I've stated before is that the Administration used these "non-specific" bland talking points (knowing that the early draft specifically referenced Ansar al Sharia) and went on a blizzard of talk shows and repeated the incorrect information, even going so far as to contradict the President of Libya, despite the fact the US had told Libya in the first place that Ansar al Sahria was involved!

And then Nuland went on TV and said that Rice had done a great job.

And then Obama repeated the wrong information, again.

The wrong story was repeated for 2 weeks after the attack.

It wasn't incorrect, assuming you agree that the original CIA talking point was accurate, it was just incomplete. Do you have evidence that, at some point, they explicitly denied the involvement of Ansar al Sharia? Failure to mention them on talk shows is not sufficient evidence that they were intentionally trying to mislead the public. I honestly don't expect any government talking point to be complete and thorough because I know there are political and Intelligence reasons for keeping information from the public. But, again, that doesn't mean they were telling us something else.

 

[elbe]

Well sorry about that! I will admit that I did a dumb thing and peeked at a particularly vile comment continuing the demonization of Greg Hicks. That may have colored my tone.

Won't happen again.

Don't worry about it, I'm just trying to help.

 

[marplots]

You appear to be focusing on the CIA, and that is fine. The issue is not whether the talking points were "incorrect." The issue is whether the Administration knew that there was SUBSTANTIAL information that was not reflected in the talking points.

The problem as I've stated before is that the Administration used these "non-specific" bland talking points (knowing that the early draft specifically referenced Ansar al Sharia) and went on a blizzard of talk shows and repeated the incorrect information, even going so far as to contradict the President of Libya, despite the fact the US had told Libya in the first place that Ansar al Sahria was involved!

And then Nuland went on TV and said that Rice had done a great job.

And then Obama repeated the wrong information, again.

The wrong story was repeated for 2 weeks after the attack.

I'm having a hard time reconciling the first highlighted bit with the other highlighted bits.

 

[A'isha]

I wonder if 16.5 even stopped to wonder why Greg Hicks missed two calls from Stevens about the attacks on the night of the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and while the Ambassador was in the dangerous city of Benghazi, and had to be told that the attack was happening by staffer who came to his house and interrupted his TV-watching with the news.

Or is even simply asking that question dismissable as "demonization" to 16.5?

EDIT: I would think that, if these Congressional hearings are really all about getting to the bottom of what happened at Benghazi and addressing the various failures and problems that occurred that night, that the panel on Wednesday would have asked Hicks about his own actions. And yet, strangely, the Republicans at the hearing made no attempt whatsoever to address that. I wonder why...

 

[The Big Dog]

It wasn't incorrect, assuming you agree that the original CIA talking point was accurate, it was just incomplete. Do you have evidence that, at some point, they explicitly denied the involvement of Ansar al Sharia? Failure to mention them on talk shows is not sufficient evidence that they were intentionally trying to mislead the public. I honestly don't expect any government talking point to be complete and thorough because I know there are political and Intelligence reasons for keeping information from the public. But, again, that doesn't mean they were telling us something else.

Well, we all know that they were not accurate. The attack did not spontaneously arise out of an anti-video protest. Rice admitted that shortly after the election.

I'm having a hard time reconciling the first highlighted bit with the other highlighted bits.

See just above. Perhaps I should have said the "BIG" issue, because at this point there is no question that they were wrong. The problem being that the Administration ran with a story for two weeks that was incorrect, while at the same time not mentioning that that there was substantial intelligence that the attack was a planned attack by terrorists. Just as Margirif stated.

 

[marplots]

I wonder if 16.5 even stopped to wonder why Greg Hicks missed two calls from Stevens about the attacks on the night of the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and while the Ambassador was in the dangerous city of Benghazi, and had to be told that the attack was happening by staffer who came to his house and interrupted his TV-watching with the news.

Or is even simply asking that question dismissable as "demonization" to 16.5?

That actually paints a better picture of how these events shake out and doesn't require us to think badly of Hicks at all. Who knows what the norm was? Lots of these human things happen and only become significant later on. That time I forgot to turn off the drier and the house caught fire, that time I didn't mail that important letter I meant to mail... and on and on.

It seems silly to place any large portion of blame on someone who screws up, not really understanding the significance of their action (or inaction) at the time.

What made the picture clearer for me was the overwhelming force brought to bear (150 or so attackers with some serious hardware) and a compound guarded largely by local troops. What's the scoop on that by the way? Did they all flee?

Anyhow, it seems like they didn't have much chance, no matter what was or wasn't done.

 

[marplots]

See just above. Perhaps I should have said the "BIG" issue, because at this point there is no question that they were wrong. The problem being that the Administration ran with a story for two weeks that was incorrect, while at the same time not mentioning that that there was substantial intelligence that the attack was a planned attack by terrorists. Just as Margirif stated.

Good enough. I agree that our government should be as transparent as possible. Now that we know the right story, I'm satisfied. Are you?

 

[A'isha]

That actually paints a better picture of how these events shake out and doesn't require us to think badly of Hicks at all.

Which is true, and I apologize for going too far in my posts.

Who knows what the norm was? Lots of these human things happen and only become significant later on. That time I forgot to turn off the drier and the house caught fire, that time I didn't mail that important letter I meant to mail... and on and on.

It seems silly to place any large portion of blame on someone who screws up, not really understanding the significance of their action (or inaction) at the time.

That's the issue, though, and the reason I brought up Hicks' actions that night. The Republicans are so eager to do just that, blame people for not being ready for the attack and for not responding either quickly enough or adequately enough when the attack occurred. But they're focusing that blame solely on their political opponents and are not being consistent, but merely partisan. If they were being consistent in the criticisms about what happened in Benghazi that night, they'd hammer at Hicks like they've hammered at Clinton and Obama. But Hicks gets a complete pass from them, because he's actually helping them focus blame solely on the Obama Administration.

That's why Issa's hearings are a complete farce, and aren't in any way, shape, or form about "investigating" Benghazi or trying to get at the "truth".

 

[elbe]

Well, we all know that they were not accurate. The attack did not spontaneously arise out of an anti-video protest. Rice admitted that shortly after the election.

I guess I need some evidence of when our intelligence first knew* it was not spontaneous. I also realize how difficult it can be to get information about what the CIA knew and when from the very nature of the CIA. But if you have anything, by all means, please present it.

* "knew" can be tricky, of course, because they could "suspect" but until it's part of the official intelligence...

 

[elbe]

That actually paints a better picture of how these events shake out and doesn't require us to think badly of Hicks at all.

Which is true, and I apologize for going too far in my posts.

For those who currently have ANT on ignore.

 

[The Big Dog]

Good enough. I agree that our government should be as transparent as possible. Now that we know the right story, I'm satisfied. Are you?

HA! You know I am going to say no, right?

I'd like to know more about Nuland's changes, and the Deputies meetings. I thought it was bizarre that she told the CIA to make changes, they made them and the next thing is she is telling them, “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.”

In other words: we are going over you heads! And then the White House weighs in? Somebody is in trouble.

 

[The Big Dog]

I guess I need some evidence of when our intelligence first knew* it was not spontaneous. I also realize how difficult it can be to get information about what the CIA knew and when from the very nature of the CIA. But if you have anything, by all means, please present it.

* "knew" can be tricky, of course, because they could "suspect" but until it's part of the official intelligence...

Depends who you consider "intelligence." Curiously enough when asked about the claim that the attack spontaneously arose out of the video protest, the STATE DEPARTMENT said:

Question: What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?

Senior state department official two: That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened. The Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on the street at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we saw on the cameras the – a large number of armed men assaulting the compound.

"Intelligence" knew no later than the 14th because the FBI interviewed the survivors no later than the 13th in Germany. Why the hell these assessments were not included baffles me to this day.

Then we saw on the cameras?? I don't think I noticed this before. Huh, that is interesting.

 

[marplots]

That's the issue, though, and the reason I brought up Hicks' actions that night. The Republicans are so eager to do just that, blame people for not being ready for the attack and for not responding either quickly enough or adequately enough when the attack occurred. But they're focusing that blame solely on their political opponents and are not being consistent, but merely partisan. If they were being consisting in the criticisms about what happened in Benghazi that night, they'd hammer at Hicks like they've hammered at Clinton and Obama. But Hicks gets a complete pass from them, because he's actually helping them focus blame solely on the Obama Administration.

That's why Issa's hearings are a complete farce, and aren't in any way, shape, or form about "investigating" Benghazi or trying to get at the "truth".

Yeah, it's embarrassing when either side does it to score points.

I'm saddened to think how this will play out in the end though. Even though I don't think anything of substance will ever emerge, the incident is going to go on that list Hannity or Limbaugh slips into nearly every interview.

It will become a code word for what is supposed to be another in a long list of pseudo-evidence of Obama malfeasance, tossed in with "Fast and Furious" "Solyndra" and I don't know what else they are currently using. Like a secret handshake for the faithful, just mentioning the code words sparks the proper mindset and sets the stage for whatever the next attack-point will be.

The method works because there aren't enough people to really pay close attention or ask questions. "Benghazi" comes to mean, "Oh yeah, and they screwed the pooch on that one" even when a close look doesn't show much in the way of a pregnant dog.

And so it goes. The technique works on the other side of the aisle as well. I expect the reason is to garner votes by way of imputing something that wasn't there so the largely uninformed middle of the pack voter can be swayed.

Ask someone who doesn't follow this stuff what Benghazi is all about and you'll find a very bizarre tale.

 

[elbe]

Depends who you consider "intelligence." Curiously enough when asked about the claim that the attack spontaneously arose out of the video protest, the STATE DEPARTMENT said:

Question: What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?

Senior state department official two: That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened. The Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on the street at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we saw on the cameras the – a large number of armed men assaulting the compound.

"Intelligence" knew no later than the 14th because the FBI interviewed the survivors no later than the 13th in Germany.

But we also know that some of the fighters interviewed credited the video, so why wouldn't they weigh the opinions of both the people being attacked and, presumably, some of the people doing the attacking? It also doesn't help that people are fallible and may reach conclusions that aren't supported by all the evidence, but also may not be willing to easily let go of them.

I'm just not seeing anything particularly conclusive.

I've mentioned it a couple times, but I really need more conclusive evidence to overrule my default opinion of Hanlon's razor. I don't believe I'm being unreasonable.

 

[The Big Dog]

But we also know that some of the fighters interviewed credited the video, so why wouldn't they weigh the opinions of both the people being attacked and, presumably, some of the people doing the attacking? It also doesn't help that people are fallible and may reach conclusions that aren't supported by all the evidence, but also may not be willing to easily let go of them.

I'm just not seeing anything particularly conclusive.

What is conclusive is there was no protest outside the Consulate before the attacks began. As the original CIA report noted there had been previous attacks on other Diplomatic compounds/convoys before anyone had heard of the video, and there was evidence of surveillance. This was a well planned attack with military grade weapons.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Ahh, frig! I had a whole post written out and accidentally hit the back button and lost it... Now I get to see if I remember what all I said.

I hate it when that happens.

I've read the Weekly Standard article, and the talking point revisions contained within, and it's left me somewhat confused on where the problem is.

By listening to the talking points coming from the government, I believed that our Ambassador was slain due to a group of people upset about some stupid video on the internet. This radically altered my perception of the Arab Spring and removed the strong hope I had of the middle-east transforming itself into a liberal society.

The initial bullet point language changed the event from an "attack" to a "demonstration". The information on heavy weapons and militant groups was also left out. Had the initial bullet point language not changed, and had the original information on heavy weapons and militant groups been included, my initial understanding of the event would not have been so depressingly wrong.

My problem is I feel like my government stole my hope of a better world. That's a horrible thing to rob people of. Now maybe it was incompetence like you say. Or maybe it was intentional. I don't know. But I feel like its worth finding out.

 

[elbe]

What is conclusive is there was no protest outside the Consulate before the attacks began. As the original CIA report noted there had been previous attacks on other Diplomatic compounds/convoys before anyone had heard of the video, and there was evidence of surveillance. This was a well planned attack with military grade weapons.

I don't know if there was necessarily enough evidence to assume that at the time. Military grade weapons and protest are not mutually exclusive, I can reasonably believe that a terrorist group could take advantage of a protest for their own purposes.

 

[RandFan]

Not to speak for RandFan, but let me speak for RandFan.

I don't think he's accusing you of being internally inconsistent with your argument. I think he's pointing out that this is a new claim of culpability among a vast field culpability claims. In that sort of meta sense, you didn't so much move the goal posts, the other goal posts are still there. You just added new goal posts in a different spot.

Yes. Thank you.

 

[elbe]

By listening to the talking points coming from the government, I believed that our Ambassador was slain due to a group of people upset about some stupid video on the internet. This radically altered my perception of the Arab Spring and removed the strong hope I had of the middle-east transforming itself into a liberal society.

But we do know that there were protests about the video. The idea that another could take place would not have been absurd. Did the other protest alter your hope for a transformation?

The initial bullet point language changed the event from an "attack" to a "demonstration". The information on heavy weapons and militant groups was also left out. Had the initial bullet point language not changed, and had the original information on heavy weapons and militant groups been included, my initial understanding of the event would not have been so depressingly wrong.

I didn't notice that change, but I don't believe it significantly alters the meaning (just changes the tone). In both cases they blamed a spontaneous protest. As far as I'm aware we don't know the actual reasons they removed that part from the talking points, but they didn't reassign blame that was not already inside of the original. I am willing to believe that political machinations were involved in the changes, but I'm not convinced that it was to intentionally mislead the public.

My problem is I feel like my government stole my hope of a better world. That's a horrible thing to rob people of. Now maybe it was incompetence like you say. Or maybe it was intentional. I don't know. But I feel like its worth finding out.

I don't know, that seems... odd. Nothing about the attacks seem particularly, I guess, new. We know there are a lot of people who hate us for a variety of reasons and may take actions against us if given the opportunity.

And, again, I don't have a problem with finding out more. Pooches were screwed (which happens unfortunately frequently, but we are all human) and holding the appropriate people accountable is a good thing. I just don't trust that the politicians calling for these hearings are actually interested in the truth.

 

[marplots]

By listening to the talking points coming from the government, I believed that our Ambassador was slain due to a group of people upset about some stupid video on the internet. This radically altered my perception of the Arab Spring and removed the strong hope I had of the middle-east transforming itself into a liberal society.

But now that you know differently, your hope is once again restored.

The initial bullet point language changed the event from an "attack" to a "demonstration". The information on heavy weapons and militant groups was also left out. Had the initial bullet point language not changed, and had the original information on heavy weapons and militant groups been included, my initial understanding of the event would not have been so depressingly wrong.

Thankfully, you don't have to rely on your initial assessment any longer. (Actually, for more than six months.)

My problem is I feel like my government stole my hope of a better world. That's a horrible thing to rob people of.

Thank goodness you are a clear thinker and can reevaluate things. Hope returned, robbery reimbursed, back to the better world scenario.

Now maybe it was incompetence like you say. Or maybe it was intentional. I don't know. But I feel like its worth finding out.

Indeed. I think we have, haven't we? Our watchdogs in Congress did their thing and now we know the full scope of it all. Curiosity satisfied, hope restored - it's a wonderful thing when our government functions like it is supposed to, isn't it?

At this point, pursuing things seems like beating an almost dead horse. But it's nice to know anyhow. Thank goodness it wasn't anything more serious than sidetracking your vision of the middle east for a few days, all those months ago.