New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

No, because that wasn't unilateral, but part of a back-and-forth wrangling between the CIA and the State Department.

That's why Nuland sent an email with her concerns to the drafters of the memo, and didn't just make the edits herself and pass them on to the White House.

EDIT: And in any case, the CIA themselves were pretty wavery on the al-Qaeda thing, having already removed one reference to them before the memo left the CIA, and filling the rest of the memo with a lot of weasel words.

Al qua'ida is a weasel word?

 

[elbe]

No, because that wasn't unilateral, but part of a back-and-forth wrangling between the CIA and the State Department.

That's why Nuland sent an email with her concerns to the drafters of the memo, and didn't just make the edits herself and pass them on to the White House.

And the CIA signed off on them before their release.

 

[Cleon]

So the fact that they were not released until yesterday is the GOP's fault??

Intriguing....

rolls eyes

As someone said upthread...

THE "so" argument. Here is an excellent rule of thumb, if someone starts out an argument with "so" the chances are very, very good that what will follow is a straw man.

 

[The Big Dog]

As someone said upthread...

The chances are very very good, they are not certain.

Hee hee!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

From Susan Rice's Sept 12 Meet the Press interview:

Well, let us-- let me tell you the-- the best information we have at present. First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear--we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

From Face the Nation:

SUSAN RICE: Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and--

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.

SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy---sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

This is what people are upset about? About the reluctance of the administration to make any definitive conclusion early on?

 

[The Big Dog]

From Susan Rice's Sept 12 Meet the Press interview:



From Face the Nation:



This is what people are upset about? About the reluctance of the administration to make any definitive conclusion early on?

Probably the fact that Susan Rice flat out contradicted the President of Libya who just appeared on he same show.

"We do not agree." Holy crap. Thanks for posting that again.

 

[uke2se]

Probably the fact that Susan Rice flat out contradicted the President of Libya who just appeared on he same show.

"We do not agree." Holy crap. Thanks for posting that again.

Is it important to you that US State Department employees always agree with foreign dignitaries?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well we know it wasn't to keep it from the bad guys.

You know no such thing. Your logical flaw is that you draw conclusions based on your inability to consider what may not have occurred to you.

Not only was it on the front page of the nytimes, the Libyan government had identified them

The NY Times and the LIbyan government are not the same thing as the U.S. government, right? You asked why the U.S. government might not have disclosed what they knew. I offered as one possibility that they didn't want the bad guys to know what they knew. The fact that this information might have reached the bad guys through other avenues doesn't remove this possibility.

[ETA: But please, let's get back to my question. What is your evidence that the reason they lied (assuming for sake of argument that they did lie) was to deflect responsibility for the deaths? It's not just your argument from ignorance--that it's the only motivation you can think of--is it?]

And again, it seems your reasoning to conclude that they intentionally lied is your inability to conceive of any other explanation for their statements. It's an argument from ignorance. The fact that you can't think of (or refuse to consider) any other possible explanation doesn't mean it is the only possible explanation. That's why people continue to ask you for evidence for your allegations.

 

[The Big Dog]

Is it important to you that US State Department employees always agree with foreign dignitaries?

It is important that the state department not go out of their way to insult the president of libya based on lies.

Thanks for asking

 

[uke2se]

It is important that the state department not go out of their way to insult the president of libya based on lies.

Thanks for asking

"We do not agree" is insulting to you?

 

[A'isha]

Al qua'ida is a weasel word?

No, but words like "currently available information suggests" and "the investigation is ongoing as to who is responsible for the violence" are.

 

[RandFan]

Rand fan? I understand that you reject the evidence. Your opinion is that he proof is not there.

Here's a great opportunity to demonstrate that I reject the evidence. Provide it. That would really shut me up and it might shut other people up also. Like I said, I've turned 180 degrees in other threads when I was shown the evidence. I came to this forum a staunch conservative, deist, dualist, etc..

I would like to see the evidence and I know others would also. Asserting that there is evidence without providing it is a fallacy.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

The chances are very very good, they are not certain.

Hee hee!

Wouldn't this apply to Joe's argument too, then?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Probably the fact that Susan Rice flat out contradicted the President of Libya who just appeared on he same show.

"We do not agree." Holy crap. Thanks for posting that again.

Did you read it? She carefully emphasized that she is not making any conclusive or definitive assessment. She repeated that we have to wait until the investigation is completed.

And why does she have to agree with the preliminary assessment given by the President of Libya? You assume she's lying (even though she carefully noted that these are preliminary assessments and not yet definitive) to deflect the administration's responsibility for the deaths, but you won't consider that the President of Libya might be mistaken (or intentionally lying) for any number of reasons in his preliminary assessment?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is important that the state department not go out of their way to insult the president of libya

She didn't go out of her way to insult the President of Libya, so the question stands unanswered.

based on lies.

Also, you can't claim this as evidence of lying (and it wasn't a lie since she carefully said it wasn't a definitive assessment yet) by assuming she was lying. That's circular reasoning or question begging.

 

[The Big Dog]

You know no such thing. Your logical flaw is that you draw conclusions based on your inability to consider what may not have occurred to you.


The NY Times and the LIbyan government are not the same thing as the U.S. government, right? You asked why the U.S. government might not have disclosed what they knew. I offered as one possibility that they didn't want the bad guys to know what they knew. The fact that this information might have reached the bad guys through other avenues doesn't remove this possibility.

[ETA: But please, let's get back to my question. What is your evidence that the reason they lied (assuming for sake of argument that they did lie) was to deflect responsibility for the deaths? It's not just your argument from ignorance--that it's the only motivation you can think of--is it?]

And again, it seems your reasoning to conclude that they intentionally lied is your inability to conceive of any other explanation for their statements. It's an argument from ignorance. The fact that you can't think of (or refuse to consider) any other possible explanation doesn't mean it is the only possible explanation. That's why people continue to ask you for evidence for your allegations.

I like when you make up arguments for me and then say they are arguments from ignorance. The reason they lied is stated right in the emails. They didn't want congress asking any pesky questions about why they ignored the threats.

 

[The Big Dog]

She didn't go out of her way to insult the President of Libya, so the question stands unanswered.


Also, you can't claim this as evidence of lying (and it wasn't a lie since she carefully said it wasn't a definitive assessment yet) by assuming she was lying. That's circular reasoning or question begging.

Ok ok, she just insulted the president of Libya.

 

[uke2se]

Ok ok, she just insulted the president of Libya.

How?

 

[The Big Dog]

How?

excellent question!

Greg hicks testified extensively about this very subject this week. I urge you to review that testimony.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I like when you make up arguments for me and then say they are arguments from ignorance.

You're wrong. I'm not making up arguments for you. I've quoted your words several times now. If the plain meaning isn't what they mean, then what is the meaning?
Again, you said, "Some of us feel the government telling overt lies to deflect responsibility about the deaths of 4 Americans is bad."

It's a good rule of thumb that when someone directly quotes your own words (or at least words you quoted without attribution as if they were your own), they're not arguing against a strawman. Since you have failed to answer repeated requests for evidence that the administration was trying to deflect responsibility for these deaths, I can only assume you think there can be no other explanation. I made this assumption as an assumption and asked if that's what you're doing.

Is it? If not, where's your evidence?

The reason they lied is stated right in the emails. They didn't want congress asking any pesky questions about why they ignored the threats.

So you have no evidence that they lied to deflect their responsibility for the deaths? No evidence that they are responsible for the deaths? No evidence that they lied to deflect responsibility from those who were responsible for the deaths?