New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

Hee hee! I'm sorry, you misunderstood.

I meant that it wasn't what I thought (i mean who cares what i think?), it is what Hicks ANd the President of Libya thought.

If you care, I think that Rice was totally out of line. Completely and totally.

That's not true. You claimed it was an insult. If you don't think that, then you made a claim contrary to what you think.

You even claimed she went out of her way to insult him.

You further claimed that it was an insult based on a lie, even though as I've pointed out there are two problems with this reasoning: 1) she didn't lie since she carefully said that none of this was a definitive assessment at that point, and 2) you're using the assumption that she lied as part of an argument to prove that she lied.

and I think she totally insulted him to boot!

I am flattered about how much you care what I think.

 

[uke2se]

I am flattered about how much you care what I think.

You shouldn't be. You're the one defending these witch hunts in this thread. Therefore, your opinions become relevant to this thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

Why should she have taken that into account over and above what the State Department and the CIA said? In what way was she answerable to the President of Libya?

The CIA said it was Ansar al Sharia, remember?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

When the President of Libya comes out and completely contradicts what she was about to say, she ought to take that into account.

But it really didn't contradict what she said, since she acknowledged that she was only giving a preliminary assessment and a definitive assessment would have to wait until the investigation was concluded.

Why do you continue to ignore this point?

Similarly, preliminary reports about the factory explosion and fire in Texas turned out to be wrong. At first, it was thought to have been an accident. Now it seems to have been an intentional criminal act.

 

[uke2se]

Similarly, preliminary reports about the factory explosion and fire in Texas turned out to be wrong. At first, it was thought to have been an accident. Now it seems to have been an intentional criminal act.

We need congressional hearings!

 

[A'isha]

The CIA said it was Ansar al Sharia, remember?

The CIA also said it was because of demonstrations that spontaneously arose after the protests against the video in Cairo, demonstrations which evolved into an attack on the consulate.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

and I think she totally insulted him to boot!

Then why on earth did you say "I think? No." when uke asked you if you think disagreeing with someone is the same as insulting them?

I am flattered about how much you care what I think.

You're flattered that I'm pointing out that you're contradicting yourself? How perverse!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

We need congressional hearings!

Worse yet, people who said it appeared to be an accident prior to the completion of the investigation were trying to deflect responsibility for the deaths!

 

[RandFan]

The CIA said it was Ansar al Sharia, remember?

A.) That was preliminary. B.) The CIA also mentioned the video.

 

[RandFan]

But it really didn't contradict what she said, since she acknowledged that she was only giving a preliminary assessment and a definitive assessment would have to wait until the investigation was concluded.
Why do you continue to ignore this point?
Similarly, preliminary reports about the factory explosion and fire in Texas turned out to be wrong. At first, it was thought to have been an accident. Now it seems to have been an intentional criminal act.

Inquiring minds would like to know.

 

[Newtons Bit]

That's a strange way to call for oversight of actions and events that happened last year.

You are in fact demanding something be done about what happened in the past.

No.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I haven't tried to justify anything so it's not a tu quoque. How do we as a country respond to situations like this? How should we respond? I think for context it's very important. Are we making a special case just because the president is Obama?

It's not special. It's different.

So, in your opinion do you think it significantly probable that Obama could be impeached because of this incident.

No.

16.5 says impeachment is nonsense and attacks anyone who says so and claims they are "jacking the thread". What's your opinion?

Seems legit.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

B.) The CIA also mentioned the video.

In fact, it was mentioned in the very first sentence.

 

[Newtons Bit]

In fact, it was mentioned in the very first sentence.

The original statement mentioned the protests as inspiration for the attacks.

We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex.

The final statement said that the attacks weren't an attack, but rather a protest.

The original statement got it right. The final statement, after being edited by State and White House, was incorrect: it was never a demonstration.

 

[elbe]

The original statement mentioned the protests as inspiration for the attacks.

The final statement said that the attacks weren't an attack, but rather a protest.

The original statement got it right. The final statement, after being edited by State and White House, was incorrect: it was never a demonstration.

Attack was changed to demonstrations in the 3rd revision, before it was given to State.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Attack was changed to demonstrations in the 3rd revision, before it was given to State.

Where do you see that?

 

[elbe]

Where do you see that?

Here. In the atlantic wire version you can see where the first state requests are requested.

 

[A'isha]

Where do you see that?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/benghazi-memo-drafts/65089/

It was changed from "attacks" to "demonstrations" in the third draft, at 4:42 PM on September 14.

The seventh draft, at 6:52 PM on September 14, was the first one that was sent to the State Department.

 

[RandFan]

The original statement mentioned the protests as inspiration for the attacks.

The final statement said that the attacks weren't an attack, but rather a protest.

The original statement got it right. The final statement, after being edited by State and White House, was incorrect: it was never a demonstration.

That it turned out to be right doesn't mean that the CIA and/or the State Department knew what was right.

 

[A'isha]

Glenn Kessler points out that the reason the State Department was not exactly happy with the CIA's attempts to dump all the blame on them was the fact that the "consulate" (which wasn't even actually a consulate, much less an embassy) and the Annex in Benghazi were almost entirely a CIA operation (only seven of the thirty people evacuated from Benghazi were State Department personnel...and that includes the additional State people sent with the first rescue mission).

State's reaction to the early drafts of the memo appears to have been "Wait, why are you including all this stuff about warnings you gave us? Benghazi was your show, and you knew about all these warning signs, so why weren't you better prepared for what happened?"