New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
ANTPogo said:
Republicans are salivating about impeachment.
Click to expand...
From your link.

“Of all the great cover-ups in history — the Pentagon papers, the Iran-Contra, Watergate and all the rest of them — this … is going to go down as the most serious, the most egregious cover-up in American history,” Inhofe said during an appearance on The Rusty Humphries Show.
Click to expand...
I would be interested to know how many people on this forum actually believe that there was a concerted cover up?
 
ANTPogo said:
Or, if they do believe that, that it was actually worse than any of the things Inhofe listed.
Click to expand...
I was going to make that point but then no one died in Watergate. Still, IMO, this would pale in scope of people involved including Nixon and his attorney who served time for lying under oath.

So yeah, that's also fair. Jon Stewart did an admirable job puncturing that bit of pomposity on his The Big Benghazi Theory show.
 
elbe said:
Thank you for your position.

I think right now I feel that, without clearer motivation, the likeliest reprimand could be a reassignment. You know, 'we've got to appear to be doing something, but you're not really in trouble'. I'm not really sure there is much incentive for anyone at foggy bottom to really give much more information than we currently know, but I guess we'll see what else the press may uncover.

And, is it just me or is the press doing a far better job than the hearings?
Click to expand...

It may not have been the intent of Congress, but the ruckus from their hearings got the press interested which is generating the results they want.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
I was going to make that point but then no one died in Watergate. Still, IMO, this would pale in scope of people involved including Nixon and his attorney who served time for lying under oath.

So yeah, that's also fair. Jon Stewart did an admirable job puncturing that bit of pomposity on his The Big Benghazi Theory show.
Click to expand...

Well, Watergate was one thing. But Iran/Contra?

And yes, Jon Stewart's show about this was brilliant.
 
16.5 said:
You think that intentionally deleting Ansar Al Sharia from the talking points memo reflects the best intelligence at the time?

You seem to believe also that the decision to delete that was made by the CIA, instead of the result of the Deputies conference. It also ignores the email we mentioned earlier,
Click to expand...
If you're referring to the email that said "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.", please note that those claims did not originate from Ansar al-Sharia's official channels. And in fact Ansar al-Sharia denied responsibilty as an organization - though they did leave open the possible involment of it's members and referred to the attack as "spontaneous popular uprising".

To better understand the significance of that you'd have to understand what kind of a militia group Ansar al-Sharia is. As a loose organization some of its members may do something on their own account without any central planning or even approval (bit like how Anonymous works).

Therefore the reports of Ansar al-Sharia trucks and members being present during the attack do indicate that its members were involved but do not prove that Ansar al-Sharia was responsible or that it was a planned attact by Ansar al-Sharia.

Besides, there were also other militia men and groups present, for example Martyrs of 17 February Brigade, and from early conflicting reports and accounts it was not clear who were actually involved in the attack as some militia men were attacking and some were defending the compound.

Apparently Martyrs of 17 February Brigade were defending the compound against the attackers, though Greg Hicks opionates that they were actually complicits in the attack.

16.5 said:
the fact that the CIA official time line said that Ansar al Sharia had surrounded the hospital,
Click to expand...
So? "Surrounded" implies a siege. It was not. They were actually asked to be there by the hospital, as Benghazi's Al Jala Hospital had invited them to provide security. At the time Ansar al-Sharia was one of the many militia groups providing security in Benghazi including the hospital.

But because of their ideology they did not enjoy much popular support. Ten days after the attack, when the involment of Ansar al-Sharia members had become apparent, angry residents of Benghazi stormed its compounds and bases in a protest and drove Ansar al-Sharia out of the city among with some other militia groups.

Since February Ansar al-Sharia has been returning to Benghazi to provide security under the pretext of being nice with outreach programmes and all, but not everybody is buying it: Ansar al-Sharia returns to Benghazi.

16.5 said:
the fact that France 24 had detailed quotes of individuals on the ground that identified Ansar al Sharia on the 12, the fact that the New York Times had referenced them on the 14th (kinda hard to give up information on a secret investigation when it is on the front page of the New York Times) and the fact Hicks had specifically identified them on the 12th.
Click to expand...
At the time there were lots of conflicting reports and accounts of the events, the privilege of hindsight makes it possible to pick and choose the parts that seem to fit. Remember how according to early reports ambassador Stevens' body was dragged in the streets and violently assaulted by an angry mob? Yet in reality nothing such took place and actually people rescued him and took him to the hospital.

It is neccessary to have substantial vetted intelligence before providing a hypothesis or establising a conclusion. Conflicting information does not allow that and more is needed. That takes time. Hence the preliminary nature of information was emphasised early on.
 
spin0 said:
That takes time. Hence the preliminary nature of information was emphasised early on.
Click to expand...

We are way past that at this time.

The ABC report regarding the revisions to the talking points have been all over the news all afternoon.
 
So if I'm following this:


  • The CIA initially thought the attack was born out of spontaneous protests originating in Cairo
  • They also suspected Al Qaeda was involved
  • They had that suspicion removed from the talking point possibly to protect a source
  • Ambassador Rice went by the now edited talking point and extrapolated that it started with protests about the video
  • Obama also used those same talking points several days later when he came to the same conclusion
  • Somehow this all enough to impeach Obama?
 
Well, now that this tempest in a teacup finally seems to be over with (it is, right?), what have we learned?

1. We know for absolute certain that the loony wing has taken over the GOP, and allowed to run rampant in congress. I would be embarrassed if I was USAian.

2. Obama can't do anything right in the eyes of right wingers. Even if he is right, he's somehow wrong. It's like a natural law.

3. Some people on these forums who normally present themselves as proper skeptics turn into something quite different when partisan politics become involved. It's quite a painful experience.
 
RandFan said:
I was going to make that point but then no one died in Watergate. Still, IMO, this would pale in scope of people involved including Nixon and his attorney who served time for lying under oath.

So yeah, that's also fair. Jon Stewart did an admirable job puncturing that bit of pomposity on his The Big Benghazi Theory show.
Click to expand...
I should also note that Watergate was a criminal conspiracy and obstruction of justice to cover up a crime. Does anyone in this thread think that Benghazi was a criminal conspiracy or that laws have been broken in order to cover up another crime?

Yes, two people died in Benghazi and that shoudn't be minimized but those people did not die because of criminal activity of Obama, Clinton or the State Department. At least I haven't seen any evidence of that.
 
Travis said:
So if I'm following this:


  • The CIA initially thought the attack was born out of spontaneous protests originating in Cairo
  • They also suspected Al Qaeda was involved
  • They had that suspicion removed from the talking point possibly to protect a source
  • Ambassador Rice went by the now edited talking point and extrapolated that it started with protests about the video
  • Obama also used those same talking points several days later when he came to the same conclusion
  • Somehow this all enough to impeach Obama?
Click to expand...
That's probably one of the best summations I've seen.
 
Travis said:
So if I'm following this:


  • The CIA initially thought the attack was born out of spontaneous protests originating in Cairo
  • They also suspected Al Qaeda was involved
  • They had that suspicion removed from the talking point possibly to protect a source
  • Ambassador Rice went by the now edited talking point and extrapolated that it started with protests about the video
  • Obama also used those same talking points several days later when he came to the same conclusion
  • Somehow this all enough to impeach Obama?
Click to expand...

No, the ABC report demonstrates that number three is absolutely false.

It also ignores the fact that there was major evidence to contradict point one.

The impeach stuff is nonsense

In particular, the CIA timeline identified Ansar al Sariah as mounting the attack on 9/12/12
 
Last edited:
OK, totally overwhelmed.

At least 1000 new articles about the ABC report.

Sunday Morning news programs have scheduled updates.

History as it happens.

In my opinion, the impeachment stuff is nonsense. I get that there is a push for that, but this is jref, we focus on facts!
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
In particular, the CIA timeline identified Ansar al Sariah as mounting the attack on 9/12/12
Click to expand...

The CIA talking points, in all iterations, do not make that claim. Do you have a source for them identifying them explicitly that early?
 
16.5 said:
OK, totally overwhelmed.

At least 1000 new articles about the ABC report.

Sunday Morning news programs have scheduled updates.

History as it happens.
Click to expand...

You are overwhelmed by articles about another article? That seems... unproductive.
 
elbe said:
The CIA talking points, in all iterations, do not make that claim. Do you have a source for them identifying them explicitly that early?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the CIA timeline mentioned in my post.

Sorry if that is Unproductive.

Did you read the *********** timeline????
 
16.5 said:
It also ignores the fact that there was major evidence to contradict point one.
Click to expand...

What major evidence exists that contradicts the fact that the CIA initially thought the attack was born out of spontaneous protests originating in Cairo, and specifically wrote that into the talking points memo right from the very beginning of the drafting process?

And the CIA timeline was from November. It's not an accounting of their knowledge at the time the attacks happened and in the immediate aftermath, but a compilation of what they knew at that later date.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom