New Disclosures on Benghazi

[Mumbles]

Why would they send a cable about Benghazi to Cairo? They aren't even in the same country!

That's my question as well. The natural place to send a warning about Benghazi to would be Tripoli, not Cairo. And while they may have warned Cairo about demonstrations, I really can't see any logical reason why this would be a major warning to Benghazi, unless they also sent out a general warning to the region.

In any case, the emails are an interesting look into office politics, if you're into that sort of thing, but the howls of "SCANDAL!!" Are pretty laughable.

ETA: Frankly, this doesn't even come to the same level as, say, forcing Shirley Sherrod to resign over an edited Andrew Breitbart video.

 

[marplots]

In any case, the emails are an interesting look into office politics, if you're into that sort of thing, but the howls of "SCANDAL!!" Are pretty laughable.

ETA: Frankly, this doesn't even come to the same level as, say, forcing Shirley Sherrod to resign over an edited Andrew Breitbart video.

Ah, but it does surpass the level of manufactured scandal over Obama's birth certificate. I mean, who knew? When did they know it? What can we believe and what should we just make up out of whole cloth?

 

[The Big Dog]

When I speculate, I say I am speculating:

I believe based on best available intelligence that the Cable to Cairo is a cable assessing the security at Benghazi sent over the summer of 2012.

/I checked for a substantive response, but came away with the distinct impression that Benghazi Bad Guy Number 1 is: 16.5.

Well I finally had a chance to review the emails in further detail, and as such am revising my previous speculation. It appear that Petraeus reference to the "cable to Cairo" referred to a September 10 CIA warning sent to all embassies in the area warning of potential unrest. There is a reference on page 26 of he emails to the warning. It is not clear that Libya got the warning before the Ambassador left for Benghazi on the 10th.

I gave it a solid bit of research, and it seems that the cable to Cairo reference makes sense in this context. If anyone has another idea, let me know.

One thing seems pretty clear is after the talking points went through the political ringer, they were laughably useless. No wonder Petraeus said he would not even bother releasing them.

 

[A'isha]

The Embassy in Cairo was quite un-evacuated when it was attacked by protesters angry about The Innocence of Muslims on September 11, 2012. If Embassy Tripoli received this warning on the 10th, why did Stevens travel to Benghazi rather than stay in Tripoli on the 11th?

This "scandal" just gets lamer and lamer as the supposed evidence for malfeasance is shown to be weaker and weaker.

And I see that 16.5 still doesn't want to talk about ABC's blatant lies about Rhodes' email, or what the book he cited actually says.

 

[RandFan]

The Embassy in Cairo was quite un-evacuated when it was attacked by protesters angry about The Innocence of Muslims on September 11, 2012. If Embassy Tripoli received this warning on the 10th, why did Stevens travel to Benghazi rather than stay in Tripoli on the 11th?

This "scandal" just gets lamer and lamer as the supposed evidence for malfeasance is shown to be weaker and weaker.

And I see that 16.5 still doesn't want to talk about ABC's blatant lies about Rhodes' email, or what the book he cited actually says.

QFT, as if that matters to 16.5.

 

[RandFan]

Well I finally had a chance to review the emails in further detail, and as such am revising my previous speculation. It appear that Petraeus reference to the "cable to Cairo" referred to a September 10 CIA warning sent to all embassies in the area warning of potential unrest. There is a reference on page 26 of he emails to the warning. As a result of the warning, diplomatic facilities in Cairo were evacuated. The same obviously did not occur in Libya.

One thing seems pretty clear is after the talking points went through the political ringer, they were laughably useless. No wonder Petraeus said he would not even bother releasing them.

Thanks for the analysis. Do you think you will ever get around to addressing the many questions, arguments, points and facts that you have up to now ignored? Do you really think your strategy is at all compelling to anyone? Why did Stevens travel to Benghazi on the 11th?

 

[The Big Dog]

lolz. Now The Hill is saying that the CIA warning that was scrubbed was 10 days before the attack. I give up.

It doesn't help that the remainder of that line of the Petraeus e-mail is the biggest take away from the e-mail release today.

 

[RandFan]

lolz. Now The Hill is saying that the CIA warning that was scrubbed was 10 days before the attack. I give up.

It doesn't help that the remainder of that line of the Petraeus e-mail is the biggest take away from the e-mail release today.

Hang in there. There's always hope that somewhere there is evidence of ... well, something. You just need to do a little more fishing.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hang in there. There's always hope that somewhere there is evidence of ... well, something. You just need to do a little more fishing.

We need a proper trial. Obama needs some rocks tied to his feet and tossed into a lake. If he's not guilty, he'll drown. If he's guilty, then he'll surface and not die, then we'll know for sure that he's a witch.

 

[The Big Dog]

We need a proper trial. Obama needs some rocks tied to his feet and tossed into a lake. If he's not guilty, he'll drown. If he's guilty, then he'll surface and not die, then we'll know for sure that he's a witch.

Lolz.

I see from the quote in your post that the release of the actual emails engendered much discussion.

About me.

Your Pal, Number One Bad Guy

16.5

 

[A'isha]

I see from the quote in your post that the release of the actual emails engendered much discussion.

Yes, about how this is turning out to be the opposite of a scandal, and how much of a tool ABC's Jon Karl is.

 

[Upchurch]

Your Pal, Number One Bad Guy

16.5

I wouldn't say "bad guy". I've done my best to keep up with this thread, and the topic in general. I would say it that you're just not exercising critical thinking about the issue. Instead, you are fitting cherry-picked facts to your preferred conclusion, rather than the other way around, which is more proper.

 

[A'isha]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ent-squabbling-in-benghazi-emails.php?ref=fpb

The emails vindicate the administration’s claim that White House officials did not partake in defensive wrangling over the framing or content of the talking points. But they do confirm that the State Department and CIA were at odds, at least for a time, over how comprehensive the talking points should be.

That squabbling — which appear to reflect at least in part the two agencies’ desires to insulate themselves from blame for the attacks — is the only remaining aspect of the controversy, perpetuated by Republicans and conservatives, over the administration’s private deliberations and public communications in the days after the attack.

Notably, the officials at the briefing sought to downplay that tension as well. The final talking points, they noted, were edited most thoroughly by CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell, and reflect the modifications the State Department was seeking.

But Morrell’s modifications reflected his own disagreements with early drafts, independent of State Department’s similar objections, the officials stressed in the briefing, suggesting the rift between State and CIA was less severe than first believed.

That view is backed, in part, by sign-off from Morrell’s top terror analyst, who in one email responded to Morrell’s edits, “They are fine with me. But, pretty sure HPSCI [the House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence] won’t like them. ”

Then-CIA Director David Petraeus did raise objections to the final drafts, reflecting both his desire that the talking points contain information about CIA warnings regarding the security situation in the region, and his belief that HSPCI members would not be satisfied with them.

“No mention of the cable to Cairo, either? Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this, then… NSS’s call, to be sure; however, this is certainly not what Vice Chairman Ruppersberger was hoping to get for unclas[sified] use. Regardless, thx for the great work.”

NSS refers to the White House National Security Staff. Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) is the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence.

The emails do not make clear why HSPCI members, including Ruppersberger, would be unhappy with the talking points, but they suggest that it was because the final version of the talking points lacked sufficient detail about the incident.

Can we stick a fork in this "scandal" now? Because it is done.

 

[RandFan]

Lolz.

I see from the quote in your post that the release of the actual emails engendered much discussion.

About me.

Your Pal, Number One Bad Guy
16.5

No one has called you a bad guy. It is true you refuse to respond to reasonable points, facts and arguments. That's bad form and bad faith on your part. That doesn't make you a bad guy just a guy doing some bad things. We have been attacking your ideas not you. You don't need to make this personal or about your. It's not about you. It's about your arguments and utter lack of compelling evidence.

 

[The Big Dog]

I wouldn't say "bad guy". I've done my best to keep up with this thread, and the topic in general. I would say it that you're just not exercising critical thinking about the issue. Instead, you are fitting cherry-picked facts to your preferred conclusion, rather than the other way around, which is more proper.

My preferred conclusion? And what would that be?

That the talking points were grossly inadequate and incorrect? Is there any dispute about that?

That the talking points were not based on the best intelligence? Is that disputed?

I agree with the then head of the CIA:

"No mention of the cable to Cairo, either? Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this, then ... NSS's call, to be sure; however, this is certainly not what Vice Chairman Ruppersberger was hoping to get for unclas use. Regardless, thx for the great work."

That after the President of Libya called the talking points preposterous and far fetched, that there should have been a major reevaluation of the talking points. We know that didn't happen.

That the White House spokesman should have been more forthcoming about the nature of the changes? No doubt.

I was going through the newly released documents and noting my questions and observations in real time. That is a strange definition of cherry picking.

By the way, had anyone other than me exercised "critical thinking" they might have realized that the "cable to Cairo" strengthened the conclusion that the changes were primarily driven by the CIA v. State Department feud.

But instead we learned that Cairo was in another country! Rolls eyes.

 

[RandFan]

My preferred conclusion? And what would that be?

That the talking points were grossly inadequate and incorrect? Is there any dispute about that?

That the talking points were not based on the best intelligence? Is that disputed?

I agree with the then head of the CIA:

"No mention of the cable to Cairo, either? Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this, then ... NSS's call, to be sure; however, this is certainly not what Vice Chairman Ruppersberger was hoping to get for unclas use. Regardless, thx for the great work."

That after the President of Libya called the talking points preposterous and far fetched, that there should have been a major reevaluation of the talking points. We know that didn't happen.

That the White House spokesman should have been more forthcoming about the nature of the changes? No doubt.

I was going through the newly released documents and noting my questions and observations in real time. That is a strange definition of cherry picking.

By the way, had anyone other than me exercised "critical thinking" they might have realized that the "cable to Cairo" strengthened the conclusion that the changes were primarily driven by the CIA v. State Department feud.
But instead we learned that Cairo was in another country! Rolls eyes.

I have said this is an interdepartmental squabble from nearly the start. So has ANTPogo. You refused to listen.

That's ALL it is. Nothing more. And you are still ignoring arguments, points and facts. All I can see in your posts are rhetoric and propaganda. Oh, and lots and lots of JAQing off.

 

[A'isha]

By the way, had anyone other than me exercised "critical thinking" they might have realized that the "cable to Cairo" strengthened the conclusion that the changes were primarily driven by the CIA v. State Department feud.

You mean the conclusion I talked about about back in post 813 of this thread, almost a full week ago?

Where's the scandal here, 16.5? What's worthy of Congressional hearings about the memo, 16.5? Why did ABC's Jon Karl repeat the blatant lie he was told about Rhodes' email, 16.5?

But instead we learned that Cairo was in another country! Rolls eyes.

What does the cable to Cairo have to do with Benghazi, 16.5?

 

[The Big Dog]

More detail on Carney:

Carney, in particular, is likely to face tough questioning about the contents of the emails because he made claims to reporters that were untrue. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two – of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because the word ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” he told reporters on November 28, 2012.

That’s not true. An email sent at 9:15 PM on September 14, from an official in the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs to others at the agency, described the process this way. “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind.”

 

[The Big Dog]

On my review (and others) it does not appear that the You Tube video that was front and center on September 16 was even mentioned in the talking points, or the e-mail string.

Can anyone confirm that it was?

If not why did that become part of the Administration's erroneous story?

 

[A'isha]

More detail on Carney:

Carney, in particular, is likely to face tough questioning about the contents of the emails because he made claims to reporters that were untrue. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two – of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because the word ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” he told reporters on November 28, 2012.

That’s not true. An email sent at 9:15 PM on September 14, from an official in the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs to others at the agency, described the process this way. “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind.”

Yes, the CIA made the changes. Not the State Department.

And if you actually read the email chain, you'll see that the CIA could have addressed those reservations in other ways, and the decision to excise the material that was excised was the CIA's alone. Victoria Nuland was very clear that she was fine with the inclusion of the details about who carried out the attacks, as long as the talking points contained answers to the questions that would arise about that: "the line about 'knowing' there were extremists among the demonstrators will come back to us at podium - how do we know, who were they, etc... So I'll need answers to those if we deploy that line".

The CIA chose to remove the reference rather than add those answers.