New Disclosures on Benghazi

[Lowpro]

holy crap Carter's administration had lower attacks?

My preconceptions are shattered.

 

[RandFan]

Cheney: Benghazi ‘one of the worst incidents that I can recall’

He's got a point. I'm hard pressed to think of anything worse. Katrina and the lie by Bush that such an event could not be anticipated even though a direct hit on New Orleans by a hurricane was at the top of FEMA's list. Rice ignoring warnings about 9/11, the attacks on diplomatic targets that resulted in the death of 64 people. These all pale compared to Benghazi.

The man who was vice president during the Sept. 11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in 2001 says that last year’s attack in Benghazi was “one of the worst incidences, frankly, that I can recall in my career.”

 

[marplots]

Cheney: Benghazi ‘one of the worst incidents that I can recall’

He's got a point. I'm hard pressed to think of anything worse. Katrina and the lie by Bush that such an event could not be anticipated even though a direct hit on New Orleans by a hurricane was at the top of FEMA's list. Rice ignoring warnings about 9/11, the attacks on diplomatic targets that resulted in the death of 64 people. These all pale compared to Benghazi.

I think you missed the important part of the statement: "that I can recall."

 

[RandFan]

I think you missed the important part of the statement: "that I can recall."

Touché.

 

[RandFan]

Speaking of glossed over...

...perhaps simply ignored is a better word.

Where are our resident Issa apologists? What happened to the historical Sunday talk shows? Will someone who thinks this is a scandal comment on the comments of Robert Gates, Admiral Pickering, Bill Kristol, etc., etc..

 

[The Big Dog]

holy crap Carter's administration had lower attacks?

My preconceptions are shattered.

Much has been made about previous attacks. While there are several good explanations showing that such references are tu quoque fallacies, perhaps it is worth analyzing why those arguments are at best fallacious and at their worst an attempt to subvert the discussion.

People have asserted that under Bush 12 attacks resulted in 62 deaths. However, “under Obama's watch” and applying the the same analysis the Benghazi attack shows that attacks alone accounted for in excess of 100 deaths.

That makes Benghazi the most deadly attack since the African Embassy Bombings in 1998 under Clinton.

Further, Benghazi represents the first time that US Diplomatic facility was over run since the Embassies in Iran, Libya and Pakistan under President Carter in 1979.

In addition, the Death of the Ambassador was the first since Adolph Dubs in 1979, also under the Carter Administration.

So the next time someone brings up this “argument” you will have the facts.

By the way, I thought the BBC had an interesting analysis:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22483768

 

[A'isha]

People have asserted that under Bush 12 attacks resulted in 62 deaths. However, “under Obama's watch” and applying the the same analysis the Benghazi attack shows that attacks alone accounted for in excess of 100 deaths.

Wait, are you counting the deaths of the attackers in the Benghazi tally?

That makes Benghazi the most deadly attack since the African Embassy Bombings in 1998 under Clinton.

How many of the people who died in those bombings were terrorists, and how many were staff and civilian bystanders?

Further, Benghazi represents the first time that US Diplomatic facility was over run since the Embassies in Iran, Libya and Pakistan under President Carter in 1979.

No, it doesn't.

 

[RandFan]

People have asserted that under Bush 12 attacks resulted in 62 deaths. However, “under Obama's watch” and applying the the same analysis the Benghazi attack shows that attacks alone accounted for in excess of 100 deaths.

That makes Benghazi the most deadly attack since the African Embassy Bombings in 1998 under Clinton.

Further, Benghazi represents the first time that US Diplomatic facility was over run since the Embassies in Iran, Libya and Pakistan under President Carter in 1979.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22483768

Ooooh, special pleading. All those other attacks and deaths were special circumstances. Nothing to see there.

And how do you respond to Kristol, Gates and other Republicans who say there is no "there" there?

Thanks for coming back. At least someone has the cajones to carry the water for Issa.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Ooooh, special pleading. All those other attacks and deaths were special circumstances. Nothing to see there.

And how do you respond to Kristol, Gates and other Republicans who say there is no "there" there?

Thanks for coming back. At least someone has the cajones to carry the water for Issa.

That's not special pleading. Its actually "correct reasoning". The Benghazi attacks are different than other recent attacks because:
a) An Ambassador died.
b) The entire facility was overrun.

 

[A'isha]

That's not special pleading. Its actually "correct reasoning". The Benghazi attacks are different than other recent attacks because:
a) An Ambassador died.
b) The entire facility was overrun.

You're ignoring the fact that a) Under Bush, an Embassy was just as "overrun" as two of the times 16.5 listed for Carter, and b) the "facility" in Benghazi wasn't a fully-staffed and protected Embassy, but a small remote foreign mission outpost that had zero permanent State Department staff assigned to it, and of the seven people in it total at the time the attacks occurred, every single one of them was someone who Stevens brought with him when he traveled to Benghazi.

 

[RandFan]

That's not special pleading. Its actually "correct reasoning". The Benghazi attacks are different than other recent attacks because:
a) An Ambassador died.
b) The entire facility was overrun.

We call these special circumstances. It's a form of special pleading when you pick and choose in an ad hoc fashion which circumstances justify your claim. That's textbook special pleading.

 

[The Big Dog]

In an effort to tamp down the scandals riddling the Administration, President Obama claimed:

"If this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened... that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later ended up putting out all the information that now serves as the basis for everybody recognizing this was a terrorist attack," Mr. Obama said. "Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days? The whole thing defies logic."

I agree that does defy logic, because the facts are absolutely clear that the Administration clung to the "spontaneous attack out of a protest" theory for one hell of a lot longer than three days.

In fact, Obama was asked about the video as late as the 25th on the View. Rice did acknowledge the information was "incorrect" until two weeks after the election, and Carney was erroneously claiming that only a single word had been changed by the Administration as late as this year.

Three Days?

 

[The Big Dog]

Interestingly, the Washington Post gave Obama's Benghazi performance yesterday Four Pinocchios.

 

[A'isha]

I agree that does defy logic, because the facts are absolutely clear that the Administration clung to the "spontaneous attack out of a protest" theory for one hell of a lot longer than three days.

Because that's what the CIA said it was.

And Obama's argument is not that the "cover up" was the thing about the video, but about supposedly hiding the presence and responsibility of known terrorist groups in the attack. And, as he said, that information was not hidden at all.

 

[A'isha]

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/

CNN has obtained an e-mail sent by a top aide to President Barack Obama about White House reaction to the deadly attack last September 11 on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that apparently differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.

The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department's desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.

[...]

ABC News reported that Rhodes wrote: “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.” The Weekly Standard reported that Rhodes "responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning."

Whoever provided those quotes seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. While Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment, Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his e-mail on the State Department's concerns.

The context of the e-mail chain is important. Different officials from different agencies were going through iterations of talking points for Congress. But Nuland, sources who have seen the e-mails say, was not the only one expressing concerns. There were internal disagreements within the CIA about a number of issues, including whether the attack was a pre-planned act of terrorism, or the result of spontaneous demonstrations in Benghazi because of demonstrations in Cairo against an anti-Muslim video (a demonstration that, it turns out, never happened in Benghazi). FBI officials were also expressing concerns about how much to say about the investigation, and how much information should be shared at that time.

Previous reporting also misquoted Rhodes as saying the group would work through the talking points at the deputies meeting on Saturday, September 15, when the talking points to Congress were finalized. While the previously written subject line of the e-mail mentions talking points, Rhodes only addresses misinformation in a general sense.

Imagine my surprise.

 

[A'isha]

Interestingly, the Washington Post gave Obama's Benghazi performance yesterday Four Pinocchios.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

Seriously? Four pinocchios because although he said he called it an "act of terrorism", he really only called it an "act of terror"?

That's not splitting hairs, that's disassembling hairs on a molecular level! Especially since, as Kessler himself writes,

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”

She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.

 

[The Big Dog]

Having received Four Pinocchios, it appears that the White House goes on its own tack of leaking emails!

ABC news has quoted emails from Rhodes, dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m, that say, “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

CNN today was leaked one from Ben Rhodes, dated Friday, September 14, 2012 9:34 PM, that says "Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."?

Still left with this one:

The one from Victoria Nuland that abc news released saying “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 …”

 

[marplots]

Still left with this one:

The one from Victoria Nuland that abc news released saying “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 …”

That's just what happened. Maybe she's psychic.

 

[A'isha]

I guess 16.5 still has me on ignore. Oh, well.

 

[The Big Dog]

Jonathan Karl, the ABC News reporter who broke the original story, has checked with his sources and found the CNN scoop to be consistent with his original reporting.

"The differences in the two versions are being taken by some as evidence that my source sought to intentionally mislead about the extent of State Department involvement in changing the talking points. The version I obtained makes specific reference to the State Department, while the version reported by CNN references only “all of the relevant equities” and does not single out State."

“The White House could still clear up this confusion by releasing the full e-mail transcripts that were provided for brief review by a select number of members of Congress earlier this year,” Karl writes. “If there’s “no ‘there’ there,” as President Obama himself claimed yesterday, a full release should help his case.”