New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

I mean, I am all for it, I would love to do that! Absolueteely, because that puts the Obama Administration directly in the cross hairs of a cover up!

I see you're so determined to find something to pin on Obama that you missed the point entirely.

And even the books authors aren't alleging a "cover-up":

From Oliver North to John Brennan, this is just the way the system works regardless of the administration.

 

[A'isha]

Damn you ANTPogo. This was like buying a lottery ticket. The odds of it panning it were virtually zero but it was a reason to hope. Couldn't you have given it a day before you stepped all over the dream?

Ooops.

 

[The Big Dog]

I see you're so determined to find something to pin on Obama that you missed the point entirely.

I see you're so determined to absolve Obama that you missed the point entirely.

Your own point! Obama's own guy was running his own running his own private war out of the White House.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention!

And comparing it to Ollie North? WOW, that has got to sting!

This ANT has claws!

 

[A'isha]

Here's some more about what the book has to say:

This is the reality of the modern state. The bureaucratic machinery is as extensive and sprawling as it is expensive. Various governmental agencies act under their own authority and make their own decisions. Mid- and high-level officials make decisions and latch on to the levers of power. With the Department of Defense running highly complex operations all over the globe, twenty four hours a day, there is no way for American power to be projected effectively if every bureaucrat is waiting for the President to bless his actions. The power to act has to be delegated down the chain of command; that is a crucial - and cautionary - aspect of this story.

The book's authors are critical of Obama for being "aloof and rather ineffectual" at changing this status quo that has been in place at least as far back as the Reagan Administration "[T]his story, the 9/11 Benghazi attack, really doesn't involve the President all that much one way or the other", they write.

 

[A'isha]

Your own point!

No, not my point at all. The "private war" was the anti-terrorist efforts using DOD (JSOC) personnel (the book's authors specifically state that Admiral McRaven was "no doubt happy to be along for the ride"), and the problem with that as identified by the book's authors is that because of the DOD/CIA animosity, they aren't sharing intelligence with each other about the various operations going on in the "War on Terror", which causes screwups.

EDIT: As the authors note, Obama had delegated the day-to-day (and hour-to-hour) operations of the DOD and CIA to subordinates. Those subordinates don't get along, and do their own thing as they see fit to do, because that's what they're for - the President simply can't micromanage the War on Terror. For the broad policy decisions and in special cases (like the Bin Laden raid), Obama's input and authorization is necessary, but for the most part the White House does not concern itself about the details of what the CIA is doing in Benghazi or what specific raids DOD is having SEALs carry out in Afghanistan. But because those delegated subordinates do not get along, they don't talk to each other like they should, which is why things like Benghazi happen. Not because of Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or Administration stand-down orders, or cover-ups, or any of that nonsense.

 

[Cleon]

The book's authors are critical of Obama for being "aloof and rather ineffectual" at changing this status quo that has been in place at least as far back as the Reagan Administration "[T]his story, the 9/11 Benghazi attack, really doesn't involve the President all that much one way or the other", they write.

I don't think Obama is their end game - they know the public isn't really buying it, and articles of impeachment have even less of a chance of passing than Boehner's ridiculous attempts to repeal Obamacare.

I think they're just laying the groundwork for Hillary's 2016 run.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, not my point at all. The "private war" was the anti-terrorist efforts using DOD (JSOC) personnel (the book's authors specifically state that Admiral McRaven was "no doubt happy to be along for the ride"), and the problem with that as identified by the book's authors is that because of the DOD/CIA animosity, they aren't sharing intelligence with each other about the various operations going on in the "War on Terror", which causes screwups.

Ohhh.... I love your point! Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President's John Brennan's private war!

I wholeheartedly agree that there were screw ups too!

"He was kept in the dark and ultimately killed in a retaliation he could never have seen coming. Likewise, the CIA never knew what hit them."

Why the hell didn't Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President's John Brennan keep them in the loop??

Great stuff!

 

[A'isha]

Why the hell didn't Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President's John Brennan keep them in the loop??

Did you even read the book? Or are you just that determined to do exactly what the book's authors warn against doing?

EDIT: And, again, you seem to be so eager to seize on any perceived wrongdoing by the Obama White House that you blissfully ignore the fact that the book contradicts your narrative so far in this thread about who is responsible and what they did regarding Benghazi, and all but makes a mockery of your narrow-minded focus on the evolution of the talking points memo and Rice's comments on TV being in any way relevant.

 

[The Big Dog]

Did you even read the book? Or are you just that determined to do exactly what the book's authors warn against doing?

EDIT: And, again, you seem to be so eager to seize on any perceived wrongdoing by the Obama White House that you blissfully ignore the fact that the book contradicts your narrative so far in this thread about who is responsible and what they did regarding Benghazi, and all but makes a mockery of your narrow-minded focus on the evolution of the talking points memo and Rice's comments on TV being in any way relevant.

It makes it a mockery only so far as it makes the talking points screw up look like a pimple on the back of an elephant!

Perceived wrongdoing?

Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President was running a private war in Benghazi that lead to 4 deaths?

And then he went on and scrubbed the talking points!

Further A Sept. 14 high-level email conveys: "FYI, Brennan will have edits." Another reads: "John's edits below."

On Saturday, Sept. 15, Brennan led a White House meeting with security aides and senior State Department officials. There, they crafted the final version of the talking points fed to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.

EXPLOSIVE! Thanks for dragging my attention back to these points.

I expect a new version of the book coming out shortly.

"The White House Private War." Got a nice ring to it.

Thanks again.

 

[RandFan]

EXPLOSIVE! Thanks for dragging my attention back to these points.

I expect a new version of the book coming out shortly.

"The White House Private War." Got a nice ring to it.

Thanks again.

Obama impeachment?

 

[A'isha]

It makes it a mockery only so far as it makes the talking points screw up look like a pimple on the back of an elephant!

A) It does no such thing, and B) if it "makes the talking points screw up look like a pimple on the back of an elephant", then why have you been only talking about the memo all this time? Didn't you read this book before you cited it?

And what makes the focus on the emails about the memo even more of an obvious partisan witchhunt unconcerned with the truth is the fact that the books authors doubt that Brennan would ever be named CIA director because he would have too much trouble getting through the nomination process...when the Republicans traded their agreement to his nomination for access to these very emails that they (and you) are trying so desperately to make hay out of!

So, no, I don't think you or the Republicans care about Brennan one bit.

Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President was running a private war in Benghazi that lead to 4 deaths?

"Private" in that it was uncoordinated with non-military agencies. He was fighting the War on Terror militarily, with the full cooperation of JSOC and DOD, but without the direct authorization or knowledge of the President for specific operations.

And then he went on and scrubbed the talking points!

Further A Sept. 14 high-level email conveys: "FYI, Brennan will have edits." Another reads: "John's edits below."

And the version of the memo that included Brennan's own edits was as follows:

• The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations 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. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated. On 10 September we notified Embassy Cairo of social media reports calling for a demonstration and encouraging jihadists to break into the Embassy.

• The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. The investigation is ongoing as to who is responsible for the violence, although the crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals. That being said, wWe do know that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

• Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved. Ansar al-Sharia's Facebook page aims to spread Sharia in Libya and emphasizes the need for jihad to counter what it views as false interpretations of Islam, according to an open source study.

• The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contribute to the lethality of the attacks.

• The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.

• The U.S. Government is working w/ Libyan authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.

Wow, he really scrubbed the hell out of that memo and removed all references to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, didn't he? Oh, wait...he didn't do that.

How odd.

And you keep ignoring the fact that the White House cleared a version of the memo that had all the things you keep asserting they wanted "scrubbed" from the memo (as the fact that Brennan left all that in the memo when he made his edits only confirms).

On Saturday, Sept. 15, Brennan led a White House meeting with security aides and senior State Department officials. There, they crafted the final version of the talking points fed to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.

Brennan led? Funny, a few days ago you had fingered Rhodes as the primary villain at that meeting demanding changes to the memo on behalf of the White House that they were just fine keeping in the memo only the day before.

And if Brennan wanted those references scrubbed from the memo, why didn't he do that when he made his previous edits? Or is that fated to forever remain an inexplicable mystery?

I expect a new version of the book coming out shortly.

"The White House Private War." Got a nice ring to it.

It'd be a decidedly odd version, since the core of the book's criticisms of Obama are that it wasn't a "White House" war at all.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Ohhh.... I love your point! Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President's John Brennan's private war!

I wholeheartedly agree that there were screw ups too!

"He was kept in the dark and ultimately killed in a retaliation he could never have seen coming. Likewise, the CIA never knew what hit them."

Why the hell didn't Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President's John Brennan keep them in the loop??

Great stuff!

This is known as an "Appeal to Authority", though in this case it's more like an "Appeal to Conspiracy Theorist". Of course, even IF it was true it points to neither Obama nor Clinton.

Why wouldn't have Brennan told Stevens (in the highly unlikely event that your scenario is true)? Why would someone running a clandestine, highly dangerous operation that could have serious personal consequences if discovered and taken without the knowledge or permission of his superiors tell ANYONE who wasn't directly involved in the operation?

 

[The Big Dog]

A) It does no such thing, and B) if it "makes the talking points screw up look like a pimple on the back of an elephant", then why have you been only talking about the memo all this time? Didn't you read this book before you cited it?


"Private" in that it was uncoordinated with non-military agencies. He was fighting the War on Terror militarily, with the full cooperation of JSOC and DOD, but without the direct authorization or knowledge of the President for specific operations.

.

Because TIME! I didn't have time, ANTPogo, I didn't have the time to go back and put the pieces together. But you did, and you weaved the web. I raised this issue months ago, but I didn't have all the facts, then.

Now we know that Brennan was running a private war out of the White House, without the knowledge of State and the CIA, who were running their own operations in Benghazi, and were unknowingly put at risk by Brennan.

Unbelievable. I knew Rhodes was involved, but this thing went all the way to Brennan!

You have presented the number one question: where was Brennan's JSOC private army on September 11?

Great stuff ANTPogo.

 

[A'isha]

I weaved the web? Do you think I'm one of the authors of the book you originally cited?

I'll just leave you to your conspiracy theorizing, then.

EDIT: Hey, maybe that's the reason Ernst Stavro Brennan didn't notice that when he "scrubbed" the talking points memo at the behest of his Dark Lord and Master Obama he actually forgot to take out all mentions of al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia like he was supposed to: he was too busy stroking his pet white cat and cackling madly as he gave orders to his secret private army to stand down instead of protecting Stevens.

 

[elbe]

EDIT: Hey, maybe that's the reason Ernst Stavro Brennan didn't notice that when he "scrubbed" the talking points memo at the behest of his Dark Lord and Master Obama he actually forgot to take out all mentions of al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia like he was supposed to: he was too busy stroking his pet white cat and cackling madly as he gave orders to his secret private army to stand down instead of protecting Stevens.

I seems, Mr. Pogo, that you know a little too much.

 

[The Big Dog]

I weaved the web? Do you think I'm one of the authors of the book you originally cited?

I'll just leave you to your conspiracy theorizing, then.

EDIT: Hey, maybe that's the reason Ernst Stavro Brennan didn't notice that when he "scrubbed" the talking points memo at the behest of his Dark Lord and Master Obama he actually forgot to take out all mentions of al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia like he was supposed to: he was too busy stroking his pet white cat and cackling madly as he gave orders to his secret private army to stand down instead of protecting Stevens.

But you brought up the Brennan Private Army stuff!

The credit belongs to you.

Confidentially, I might have had you on ignore when you first posted it. I probably never would have seen it until you posted it. My bad, this stuff is pure nitro!

 

[A'isha]

I seems, Mr. Pogo, that you know a little too much.

Do you expect me to talk?

 

[A'isha]

But you brought up the Brennan Private Army stuff!

No, I never said a single thing about anything remotely resembling "the Brennan Private Army stuff".

That's all you.

 

[The Big Dog]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9223559#post9223559

No, I never said a single thing about anything remotely resembling "the Brennan Private Army stuff".

That's all you.

Da Heck???

Oh.... a wink's as good as a nod to a blind bat.

Say no more....

wink.

 

[A'isha]

Da Heck???

Oh.... a wink's as good as a nod to a blind bat.

Say no more....

wink.

Don't blame me because you haven't read the book you yourself cited and so have no clue whatsoever as to what the book's authors meant when they described Brennan as "running his own private war".