New Disclosures on Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
marplots said:
At this juncture it's pretty clear we need to see Issa's emails.
Click to expand...

There appears to be some misinformation here. Congress has issued a "deposition" subpoena, which is pre-hearing interview, on the record and under oath.

Pickering will then testify in an open hearing before the entire Committee.

There does appear to be some unnecessary acrimony between Issa and Pickering. As noted in this thread, Pickering was asked to testify in March, and did not.

He then pulled what I have called a "stunt" by claiming that he was prepared to voluntarily appear and testify on the same day the whistleblowers were already scheduled to testify.
 
In a major breakthrough, CBS is reporting tonight that the Administration Officials have acknowledged that errors were made:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584921/officials-on-benghazi-we-made-mistakes-but-without-malice/?tag=socsh

"We're portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots," said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. "It's actually closer to us being idiots."

The list of mea culpas by Obama administration officials involved in the Benghazi response and aftermath include: standing down the counterterrorism Foreign Emergency Support Team, failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, failing to release the disputed Benghazi "talking points" when Congress asked for them, and using the word "spontaneous" while avoiding the word "terrorism."

/sounds like issues that have been raised in this thread.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
There appears to be some misinformation here. Congress has issued a "deposition" subpoena, which is pre-hearing interview, on the record and under oath.
Click to expand...
Why?

Pickering will then testify in an open hearing before the entire Committee.
Click to expand...
Evidence?

There does appear to be some unnecessary acrimony between Issa and Pickering. As noted in this thread, Pickering was asked to testify in March, and did not.
Click to expand...
Pickering says that's a lie and Issa has produced no evidence to contradict him.

He then pulled what I have called a "stunt" by claiming that he was prepared to voluntarily appear and testify on the same day the whistleblowers were already scheduled to testify.
Click to expand...
You call it a stunt. Pickering has said over and over he will testify. Show me where Issa is calling for him to testify in an open hearing? When is it scheduled? Or is this CYA. Claim you will call him in an open hearing and then never get around to it.
 
16.5 said:
In a major breakthrough, CBS is reporting tonight that the Administration Officials have acknowledged that errors were made:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584921/officials-on-benghazi-we-made-mistakes-but-without-malice/?tag=socsh

"We're portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots," said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. "It's actually closer to us being idiots."

The list of mea culpas by Obama administration officials involved in the Benghazi response and aftermath include: standing down the counterterrorism Foreign Emergency Support Team, failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, failing to release the disputed Benghazi "talking points" when Congress asked for them, and using the word "spontaneous" while avoiding the word "terrorism."

/sounds like issues that have been raised in this thread.
Click to expand...
No one has said that mistakes were not made. We know what the mistakes were. The mistakes have been outlined over and over and over.

I realize that you are breathless in your vindication but you have not been vindicated of anything. This was a squabble between the CIA and State Department.
 
16.5 said:
In a major breakthrough, CBS is reporting tonight that the Administration Officials have acknowledged that errors were made:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584921/officials-on-benghazi-we-made-mistakes-but-without-malice/?tag=socsh

"We're portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots," said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. "It's actually closer to us being idiots."

The list of mea culpas by Obama administration officials involved in the Benghazi response and aftermath include: standing down the counterterrorism Foreign Emergency Support Team, failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, failing to release the disputed Benghazi "talking points" when Congress asked for them, and using the word "spontaneous" while avoiding the word "terrorism."

/sounds like issues that have been raised in this thread.
Click to expand...

I had not previously focused on the reasons behind why the FEST was not released to respond.

That is really interesting.

The reaction to the Clapper testimony about Rice is remarkable.

This is a really well done piece.

/I assume that we have heard the last of the Conspiracy Theory accusations?
 
16.5 said:
I had not previously focused on the reasons behind why the FEST was not released to respond.

That is really interesting.

The reaction to the Clapper testimony about Rice is remarkable.

This is a really well done piece.

/I assume that we have heard the last of the Conspiracy Theory accusations?
Click to expand...
When you stop throwing mud against the wall hoping some of it will stick then it will stop. When you acknowledge substantive responses to your claims then it will stop.
 
I Video on the CBS link above has some really insightful extra analysis, well worth a few minutes of your time.
 
Last edited:
Some really interesting new disclosures about the talking points:

Even today, nobody will say on the record, or even off the record to CBS News, who was at the Deputies meeting on the morning of Sept. 15, where the talking points were drastically pared down for Rice's use. The approved version called the attacks "demonstrations" that "evolved" after being "spontaneously inspired" by protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. All mentions of terrorism, al Qaeda and previous warnings given by the CIA had been excised.

It is amazing how far we've come since the press started the drum beat to get the facts released.
 
This is how far we have come.

There is nothing new to add to Admiral Pickering's report that is actionable. We now know that the view of lay people are inferior to the experts like Robert Gates who said that some people have a cartoonish view of the military.

If anything, every day it is confirmed more and more that there is nothing substantive beyond the fact that there was some initial uncertainty and a difference of opinion about the memos between the CIA and State Department.

We have learned that the Heritage Foundation advised the GOP to scandalize the Obama administration as a political ploy.

In response to that letter we've learned that Issa has decided to hold many more hearings.

We learned that Issa was caught in a lie on national TV when he claimed that Admiral Pickering refused to testify. Issa has not produced any evidence to counter Pickering's claim that he was not asked to testify (this was prior to the recent request for closed door hearings).
 
And we learned that the Republicans flat-out lied about what the emails said before they were released, and an ABC reporter went along with those lies.
 
16.5 said:
“Ambassador Pickering initially told the Committee he was not available on that date,” Hill tells ABC News. “When asked about a different date, he said he was not inclined to testify.”

This MORNING he volunteered to testify TODAY. The Committee still has not received Pickering’s offer to testify and, even if it comes now, the Committee has a “three-day rule” that requires witnesses be locked in three days in advance to give Committee members adequate time to prepare.

I notice that the blog on which the Kos article contains a major false statment:

"In fact, Hill has released letters dated February 22 inviting Pickering (read them here), and the other co-chairman of the investigation, former Joint Chiefs Chair retired Adm. Michael Mullen, to testify at today’s hearing."

That is false, the invitation was for March.

Great find Tony, way to expose this ridiculous stunt.

I look forward to Hutchinson's testimony in the near future.
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
There appears to be some misinformation here. Congress has issued a "deposition" subpoena, which is pre-hearing interview, on the record and under oath.

Pickering will then testify in an open hearing before the entire Committee.

There does appear to be some unnecessary acrimony between Issa and Pickering. As noted in this thread, Pickering was asked to testify in March, and did not.

He then pulled what I have called a "stunt" by claiming that he was prepared to voluntarily appear and testify on the same day the whistleblowers were already scheduled to testify.
Click to expand...

Found the reference I was referring to earlier. Note the fact that Pickering was invited to come in March and declined.

I thought we put this Pickering nonsense away a week ago.

Anyway, I took a minute to find this, even though the record was clear, IMHO.

Helpful hint, if you hit the little arrow in a post, it takes you to the post, where there was a link to a Daily Kos article which in turn contains a link to the original article, which contains the false statement that I quoted in my post. It takes a bit of work, I know!
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
“Ambassador Pickering initially told the Committee he was not available on that date,” Hill tells ABC News. “When asked about a different date, he said he was not inclined to testify.”

This MORNING he volunteered to testify TODAY. The Committee still has not received Pickering’s offer to testify and, even if it comes now, the Committee has a “three-day rule” that requires witnesses be locked in three days in advance to give Committee members adequate time to prepare.

I notice that the blog on which the Kos article contains a major false statment:

"In fact, Hill has released letters dated February 22 inviting Pickering (read them here), and the other co-chairman of the investigation, former Joint Chiefs Chair retired Adm. Michael Mullen, to testify at today’s hearing."

That is false, the invitation was for March.

Great find Tony, way to expose this ridiculous stunt.

I look forward to Hutchinson's testimony in the near future.
Click to expand...
[sources missing]
 
Issa accuses Benghazi commission chairman of refusing to testify, then refuses to let him testify

Apparently, Pickering declined an earlier invitation to testify at a March hearing, but according to the State Department, wanted to appear in today's hearing. Asked by ABC about Pickering's offer, Hill said he could not testify:

“If Ambassador Pickering has reversed himself and wants to testify, we would welcome him at a future date,” Hill said.

How about today?

Hill said it is too late.

In other words, that thing Hill said was "100 percent untrue" ... was in fact 100 percent accurate.
Click to expand...
 
Some new revelations:

"We should have released them six months ago," said the source, adding that the various federal agencies had agreed to do so but the White House counsel's office was against it.

They released one of course, when it was politically expedient. And now it looks like the only guy who might lose his job is the very guy who lied about Pickering being invited to the hearing on the day of the Hicks' hearing.

Ironic?

Probably. You don't think those Chicago guys play hard ball did you? lolz

It is funny how the bad guys are Karl, Hicks, and (oh yeah) 16.5. hee hee!
 
Last edited:
"Politically expedient" is certainly an odd way to say "showing that the Republican description of the emails given to Jon Karl and that he reported on was shown to be utterly, utterly false".
 
16.5 said:
Some new revelations:

"We should have released them six months ago," said the source, adding that the various federal agencies had agreed to do so but the White House counsel's office was against it.

They released one of course, when it was politically expedient. And now it looks like the only guy who might lose his job is the very guy who lied about Pickering being invited to the hearing on the day of the Hicks' hearing.

Ironic?

Probably. You don't think those Chicago guys play hard ball did you? lolz
Click to expand...
Given the politicization of this it's not ironic at all. When your opponents are on a witch hunt it's often best to ignore it.

What's interesting is the releasing the emails exposed the lies made about those email.

Once the witch hunt gets rolling it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. People will simply lie and make stuff up if you don't release them. If you do release them folks will tear through them looking for a "gotcha".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom