New Disclosures on Benghazi

[RandFan]

The thread seems to have taken a more conciliatory tone. I thank elbe for his even temperament and appreciate ANTPogo's apology.

For my part I will say that it is not conspiratorial nor is it untoward to ask questions about the incident. I still believe that much of this politically motivated and it does strike me as conspiratorial. That's the last time I'll make that point.

I will also apologize to anyone for any offense. If anyone would like me to address a specific point or have a specific beef and they would personally like an apology please feel free to PM me.

Thanks.

ETA: I'm unsubscribing to the thread as, again, IMO, there's simply nothing to the story that warrants further discussion so if you want me to address something specifically you will need to PM me. If you want I'm happy to post my response here if you feel that necessary.

 

[A'isha]

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.

The revelation that there was no protest about the video in Libya which preceded the attacks actually muddied the waters further rather than clearing them up. It's resulted in the notion that because there was no non-attack protest about the video in Libya before that attacks, then the video was not an issue in the attacks at all.

And that appears to be untrue (or, at least, more complex than the false dichotomy presented by Republicans).

The idea that there might have been protests in Libya that preceded the attack also seems to be a muddling of what the CIA apparently actually thought. Their talking points specifically talked about the attack occurring spontaneously after (and because of) the protests against the video in Cairo, and that somehow appears to have been misinterpreted as the attack occurring spontaneously after (and because of) protests against the video in Benghazi.

 

[The Big Dog]

ABC has obtained access to additional details regarding the Talking Points. Here is one that is simply incredible:

Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

Read it for yourself:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

But there was no evidence of a protest at all, and there was no protest.

 

[Newtons Bit]

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.

We're used to attacks from small groups. But I think one of the commonly held beliefs (and I hope correctly) is that 90%+ of the Islamic world does not support the terrorists. The initial message from government went against that. The fact that we had just helped the Libyans overthrow He-Of-Many-Spellings added on another layer of hopelessness.

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.

I think being skeptical of the motives of the politicians is always a wise course to take. It's also radically different than a few in this thread who claim any desire to investigate the matter further is born from Obama Derangement Syndrome and/or a CT.

 

[Newtons Bit]

But there was no evidence of a protest at all, and there was no protest.

Well, there was ~20 students outside chanting/protesting. It's kind of hard to confuse that group with the 100+ trained fighters rushing the consulate with heavy weapons though.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, there was ~20 students outside chanting. It's kind of hard to confuse that group with the 100+ trained fighters rushing the consulate with heavy weapons.

Not prior to the attack:

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.

 

[marplots]

ABC has obtained access to additional details regarding the Talking Points. Here is one that is simply incredible:

Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

Read it for yourself:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

And an update at the same link:

A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.

Nuland is a savvy, career bureaucrat, she knows how to protect her butt. With some 30 years in the job, she's served under both Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State. And, she was right, wasn't she? Congress (at least some Congressmen) are fixating on not enough security and ignoring warnings.

 

[Newtons Bit]

ABC has obtained access to additional details regarding the Talking Points. Here is one that is simply incredible:

Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

Read it for yourself:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

Yikes.

 

[A'isha]

ABC has obtained access to additional details regarding the Talking Points.

16.5 gets surprised by old news an awful lot. This specific piece of information was in the House interim report released last month, and was even in the Weekly Standard article that was published before Wednesday's hearings.

 

[elbe]

But there was no evidence of a protest at all, and there was no protest.

There were, however, protestors, and the people examining the evidence could not just ignore that.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Not prior to the attack:

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.

Was I relying on now disproven "facts"?

 

[The Big Dog]

And an update at the same link:


Nuland is a savvy, career bureaucrat, she knows how to protect her butt. With some 30 years in the job, she's served under both Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State. And, she was right, wasn't she? Congress (at least some Congressmen) are fixating on not enough security and ignoring warnings.

Yeah, that update is a real eye opener. Holy crap, she was worried about how the agency would look?

Unbelievable.

 

[RandFan]

I said I wasn't going to participate in the discussion anymore but I did want to post the following link which I found. It's an and opinion piece I feel is apropos to my last post.

John King: Benghazi investigation both legitimate and partisan

 

[jj]

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.

Yes, fog of war does create a lot of confusion, especially when terrorists depend on it.

That's especially true when security staff has been cut, and the ability to monitor events has been reduced.

What I simply can not understand is why the uproar here is not recognized as the transparent political misconduct that it is. We had no huge congressional outcry for the same kind of events 6, 7, 8 years ago.

Where's the beef?

 

[The Big Dog]

Was I relying on now disproven "facts"?

I'm not sure where you got the information that there were protesters on the street. The State Department confirmed that there were none on October 9.

 

[AlBell]

What is ironic is that we see nobody addressing the house-led budget cuts that led to cuts in Dept. of State security. Tsk.

You should start a thread. Lots of lefties here to pile on.

 

[marplots]

Yeah, that update is a real eye opener. Holy crap, she was worried about how the agency would look?

Unbelievable.

I find it completely believable. I don't see how anyone could be in her position without being a team player.

 

[Tony]

Where's the beef?

I know the answer. Hint: It rhythms with "plack bemocrat dresident".

 

[jj]

Yeah, that update is a real eye opener. Holy crap, she was worried about how the agency would look?

Unbelievable.

In light of the political circus being made of this?

Absolutely believable.

When spin and electioneering are the only thing in town, and the well is poisoned once a minute by somebody who has to WIN WIN WIN, never mind the good of the country, it's easily believable somebody will worry about that.

Especially when security budgets were cut by congress. If there has to be blame, let's put the blame where it should be, on the partisan congress that cut the security budget.