New Disclosures on Benghazi

[JoeTheJuggler]

And I would like to personally thank her for her dedication to her whack-a-mole of the silly accusations and lies.

Americans' Attention to IRS, Benghazi Stories Below Average
Most Americans, however, say both deserve continuing investigation

I realize you were applying the "whack a mole" image to this thread, but I think it's an apt description of what is likely to continue happening with new scandal allegations.

As interest in these non-scandals wanes, the GOP will cook up others.

Sadly, to the point of your other thread, it will probably succeed in swaying public opinion. It's similar to paranormalists' arguments that while not one of their anecdotes, blurry photos, and so on comprises evidence of their claims, the fact that there are so many of them somehow means there's something to it.

 

[RandFan]

So far, reading this thread, I have gathered two points:

1) Some people don’t like the GOP, and never will, no matter what…

2) They like Fox News even less.

Americans died in Benghazi because someone dropped the ball. It makes no difference whether they were Democrat of Republican, and that is unacceptable.

I grew up a Republican. Voted GOP for every president including GWB. I defended GWB for most of this administration. I don't dislike the GOP. I dislike them using dead Americans for politics. I very much want a viable opposition party to the Democrats. I don't think buy the partisan BS. I don't have a home team.

FOX News is a misnomer.

Reading this thread it is clear that some people care more about politicizing the deaths (see constant refrains to the WH) than they are about the deaths of American citizens. I welcomed the hearing. I welcomed the investigation. It's turned up duck eggs and now it's just theater. And many in the Republican party know it and are criticizing Issa for it.

 

[The Big Dog]

Why do you think the FBI, in consultation with the CTD, wanted to change that sentence from the way the CIA originally had it? Why do you think the CIA preferred to use the FBI's suggested changes rather than give Nuland the information she asked for about how the CIA knew?



No, what came out of the talking points Deputies meeting was "There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

And the White House was actually on board with the original "we do know" verbiage.

Whatever happened at the Deputies meeting wasn't because the White House wanted that information removed, because they had been fine with it being in the memo since early in the drafting process.

You sure do speak authoritatively about what happened at the meeting, despite the fact that we don't even know what was said there.

We do know that what came out of the meeting was utterly useless talking points.

I get that you don't think that the White House was to blame for that.

 

[A'isha]

I get that you don't think that the White House was to blame for that.

On what possible basis do you think the White House suddenly demanded changes in that meeting to things that they were perfectly fine with the day before and left completely untouched in the memo even when people like John Brennan were making direct edits?

EDIT: And you didn't answer my questions: Why do you think the FBI, in consultation with the CTD, wanted to change that sentence from the way the CIA originally had it? Why do you think the CIA preferred to use the FBI's suggested changes rather than give Nuland the information she asked for about how the CIA knew?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, it apparently doesn't bother you or most other commenters in this thread that a huge lie was told immediately prior to a highly contested election...

Oh sure it does. Romney's claim that Obama didn't refer to Benghazi as a terrorist attack was a huge lie, and it contributed, I think, to his losing the election.

But that's not what you mean is it? What "huge lie" are you alleging?

Earlier Newtons Bit and 16.5 said that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths at Benghazi, but they both seem utterly unable to defend that claim.

The ongoing investigation is simply trying to establish the TRUTH of the entire matter and hold SOMEONE accountable. Continued evasion for 8 freaking months and a failure to seriously pursue the perpetrators of this attack clearly indicate this is NOT a partisan witch hunt except to biased political hacks.

What evasion? Specifically?

Also, why investigate only this terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities? Are you suggesting there is something unique or different about this one compared to all the others?

Whether you or anyone else accepts it or not the TRUTH does still matter, but obviously not to some who's priority seems to be protecting the Administration regardless of the FACTS, many of which are yet to be established.

Whether anyone likes that or not it will be pursued to determine all of the facts and then the chips can fall where they will regardless of where or who that is..

And have you even considered the possibility that the "TRUTH" is just what it appears to be now? That the attack was committed by the bad guys. That no one in the Obama administration, the CIA or the State Department wanted it to happen or is in any way responsible for it happening. In fact, they were (as are we all indirectly) the victims here. Are you at all open to the possibility that no one is attempting to cover up responsibility for the attacks?

It sounds like you've made up your mind that something scandalous has happened even though you can't say exactly what, much less provide evidence to support any specific claim.

As an aside, capitalizing the words "TRUTH" and "FACTS" doesn't support the case that this isn't just a baseless conspiracy theory.

 

[RandFan]

Well, it apparently doesn't bother you or most other commenters in this thread that a huge lie was told immediately prior to a highly contested election...

What lie? The CIA was unsure as to the events and included both the riot scenario and terrorism. Obama called it an act of terror.

The ongoing investigation is simply trying to establish the TRUTH of the entire matter and hold SOMEONE accountable.

The investigation was conducted a long time ago. 3 hearings have been held. All the white house and admin emails on Benghazi have been released.

Continued evasion for 8 freaking months and a failure to seriously pursue the perpetrators of this attack clearly indicate this is NOT a partisan witch hunt except to biased political hacks.

Who has refused to cooperate? Weren't the emails released? Didn't Hillary cooperate? What evasion? You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Whether you or anyone else accepts it or not the TRUTH does still matter, but obviously not to some who's priority seems to be protecting the Administration regardless of the FACTS, many of which are yet to be established.

No one I know of has said there should be no investigation or hearings. Thing is we have known months now the extent of what happened. It has not clearly turned into a political witch hunt. The opportunity to capitalize on dead Americans.

Whether anyone likes that or not it will be pursued to determine all of the facts and then the chips can fall where they will regardless of where or who that is..

What can be known is known. We know who said what and who did what. Issa admits there will be no impeachment and claims that Hillary isn't a target. So what is it that you think is left to be found out? Why shouldn't people see this as a political witch hunt after all of this time?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

But Obama ordered the rescue mission to stand down. I know it's true because it was all over Facebook!



(I wonder what portion of the opinion polls you cited above might be attributed to this particular bit of misinformation!)

 

[The Big Dog]

Why do you think the White House suddenly demanded changes in that meeting to things that they were perfectly fine with the day before and left completely untouched in the memo even when people like John Brennan were making direct edits?

Of course the White House is responsible, which is why you are COMPLETELY missing the big picture.

What went into the meeting was at least somewhat informative, even if it had a major error, it did have the references to Al Qua'ida and the previous surveillance (which of course had been left in would have raised IMMEDIATE red flags about the veracity of the claim that it spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest).

What came out was absolutely useless whitewashing, pure boilerplate and nonsense, and then to later LIE and say it was based on the best intelligence? You didn't forget that did you, which is a much more serious problem than the talking points themselves.

And yet you have engaged in recounting some idiotic intramural finger pointing in some bizarre effort to absolve the White House by blaming it on their subordinates in the Executive Wing, while your own actions and words are piling up a mountain of information that the Administration's subsequent conduct was actively deceitful.

And every time you quibble about the infighting between State and CIA and etc, you make it worse and worse.

They knew it wasn't the best intelligence and they lied about it.

That was what this was all about ANTPogo.

 

[RandFan]

They knew it wasn't the best intelligence and they lied about it.

They didn't know what was the best intelligence at the time. There was conflicting information coming out of the CIA and State.

This has been the crux of the matter since the first page of this thread and you refuse to acknowledge it.

So, are you know dreaming of impeachment?

 

[A'isha]

Of course the White House is responsible, which is why you are COMPLETELY missing the big picture.

I didn't ask you to repeat your unsupported assertion, I asked you to explain on what basis you think the White House suddenly demanded changes in that meeting to things that they were perfectly fine with the day before and left completely untouched in the memo even when people like John Brennan were making direct edits.

What came out was absolutely useless whitewashing, pure boilerplate and nonsense, and then to later LIE and say it was based on the best intelligence? You didn't forget that did you, which is a much more serious problem than the talking points themselves.

And yet, it was the CIA that said the attacks evolved out of demonstrations, not the White House. It was the CIA's own intelligence that was in the memo from the start, not the White House's, and it was the FBI that wanted the references to how "we do know" that extremists participated in the demonstrations watered down, not the White House.

And yet you have engaged in recounting some idiotic intramural finger pointing in some bizarre effort to absolve the White House by blaming it on their subordinates in the Executive Wing,

Again, the White House cleared an early version of the memo that contained all the things you claim they wanted removed. Why did they clear that early version of the memo if they didn't want that information in the memo?

You, so far, refuse to explain that gaping hole in the logic of your claims.

They knew it wasn't the best intelligence and they lied about it.

That was what this was all about ANTPogo.

They knew no such thing, because that intelligence came straight from the CIA themselves.

 

[Reheat]

Oh sure it does. Romney's claim that Obama didn't refer to Benghazi as a terrorist attack was a huge lie, and it contributed, I think, to his losing the election.

You may continue to delude yourself at your desire... Most folks know better.

Earlier Newtons Bit and 16.5 said that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths at Benghazi, but they both seem utterly unable to defend that claim.

And I will echo those same sentiments. Further, I am not interested in this continued bickering. I've had my say and the investigation and further probing will eventually prove who is to blame or at fault in this...

Also, why investigate only this terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities? Are you suggesting there is something unique or different about this one compared to all the others?

Well, you do need to be more specific in which ones you think were not investigated...

And have you even considered the possibility that the "TRUTH" is just what it appears to be now? That the attack was committed by the bad guys. That no one in the Obama administration, the CIA or the State Department wanted it to happen or is in any way responsible for it happening. In fact, they were (as are we all indirectly) the victims here. Are you at all open to the possibility that no one is attempting to cover up responsibility for the attacks?

Sure, that's quite possible, but in view of what has been said it appears to be unlikely.

As an aside, capitalizing the words "TRUTH" and "FACTS" doesn't support the case that this isn't just a baseless conspiracy theory.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I guess... It seems odd that you appear not to want further probing into this series of events. Is there something you wish not to be revealed?

 

[The Big Dog]

They didn't know what was the best intelligence at the time. There was conflicting information coming out of the CIA and State.

Unbelievable. They knew it wasn't the best intelligence because they knew that the references to Ansar Al Sharia, Al Qua'ida, surveillance and previous attacks had been omitted from the talking points.

There was no conflicting information whatsoever.

 

[A'isha]

Unbelievable. They knew it wasn't the best intelligence because they knew that the references to Ansar Al Sharia, Al Qua'ida, surveillance and previous attacks had been omitted from the talking points.

There was no conflicting information whatsoever.

The reference to Ansar al-Sharia merely repeated that they were identified in press accounts and that they denied responsibility, and weren't related to any intelligence about the group. The first reference to al-Qaeda was removed by the CIA before anyone outside that agency saw the drafts, and it was the FBI that wanted the definitive "we know" changed to the weaker "there are indications" that appeared in the final memo. The references to previous attacks were originally added by the CIA to shift blame away from themselves instead of making the memo about "here's what we know about the attacks" (which even the FBI called them out on), and it was the CIA's assessment from the beginning that the attacks arose spontaneously out of the anti-video protests in Cairo.

That you keep saying the White House actually orchestrated all that in order to deflect their own responsibility, and ignore everything else that the other agencies, especially the CIA, did to the memo, shows that you're uninterested in what actually happened and are merely looking for ways to confirm your preconceived conclusion.

 

[RandFan]

Unbelievable. They knew it wasn't the best intelligence because they knew that the references to Ansar Al Sharia, Al Qua'ida, surveillance and previous attacks had been omitted from the talking points.

There was no conflicting information whatsoever.

Unbelievable, you DON'T know what anyone KNEW as to whether this attack was the result of a riot, coordinated attack or both.

 

[The Big Dog]

The reference to Ansar al-Sharia merely repeated that they were identified in press accounts and that they denied responsibility, and weren't related to any intelligence about the group. The first reference to al-Qaeda was removed by the CIA before anyone outside that agency saw the drafts, and it was the FBI that wanted the definitive "we know" changed to the weaker "there are indications" that appeared in the final memo. The references to previous attacks were originally added by the CIA to shift blame away from themselves instead of making the memo about "here's what we know about the attacks" (which even the FBI called them out on), and it was the CIA's assessment from the beginning that the attacks arose spontaneously out of the anti-video protests in Cairo.

That you keep saying the White House actually orchestrated all that in order to deflect their own responsibility, and ignore everything else that the other agencies, especially the CIA, did to the memo, shows that you're uninterested in what actually happened and are merely looking for ways to confirm your preconceived conclusion.

You are correct in one respect: I don't care about your attempt to absolve the White House by blaming the talking points on the Departments reporting to them, not in the slightest, other than to point out in doing so you are in fact damaging your case.

Further, you have been making a major mistake, major. This claim:

The first reference to al-Qaeda was removed by the CIA before anyone outside that agency saw the drafts,

Is false, the first draft mentioning Ansar al Sharia was sent to Rhodes, Tommy Vietor, NSS Press and White House Press at 3:04 pm. Email page 12.

Any other questions?

 

[RandFan]

The reference to Ansar al-Sharia merely repeated that they were identified in press accounts and that they denied responsibility, and weren't related to any intelligence about the group. The first reference to al-Qaeda was removed by the CIA before anyone outside that agency saw the drafts, and it was the FBI that wanted the definitive "we know" changed to the weaker "there are indications" that appeared in the final memo. The references to previous attacks were originally added by the CIA to shift blame away from themselves instead of making the memo about "here's what we know about the attacks" (which even the FBI called them out on), and it was the CIA's assessment from the beginning that the attacks arose spontaneously out of the anti-video protests in Cairo.

That you keep saying the White House actually orchestrated all that in order to deflect their own responsibility, and ignore everything else that the other agencies, especially the CIA, did to the memo, shows that you're uninterested in what actually happened and are merely looking for ways to confirm your preconceived conclusion.

If it quacks like conspiracy theory....

 

[RandFan]

You are correct in one respect: I don't care about your attempt to absolve the White House by blaming the talking points on the Departments reporting to them, not in the slightest, other than to point out in doing so you are in fact damaging your case.

Further, you have been making a major mistake, major. This claim:

The first reference to al-Qaeda was removed by the CIA before anyone outside that agency saw the drafts,

Is false, the first draft mentioning Ansar al Sharia was sent to Rhodes, Tommy Vietor, NSS Press and White House Press at 3:04 pm. Email page 12.

Any other questions?

They did not know if this attack was the result of a riot, coordinated attack or both. You refuse to acknowledge that fact.

 

[RandFan]

Is there a single GOP poster who believes that the White House lied and people died because of that lie? Does anyone believe that a crime was committed and the White House covered up that crime?

 

[Reheat]

Unbelievable, you DON'T know what anyone KNEW as to whether this attack was the result of a riot, coordinated attack or both.

BS. Stevens himself indicated there was no demonstration outside of the facility in the hours prior to the attack.

Who breached the wall before the attack...protestors?

Since when do protestors have heavy weapons and mortars?

The Libyan President indicated it was a Terrorists Attack. What evidence existed that it wasn't?

 

[elbe]

BS. Stevens himself indicated there was no demonstration outside of the facility in the hours prior to the attack.

Who breached the wall before the attack...protestors?

Since when do protestors have heavy weapons and mortars?

The Libyan President indicated it was a Terrorists Attack. What evidence existed that it wasn't?

The CIA seemed to believe that it arose from the demonstrations in Cairo. You want to argue that it was a failure of intelligence, that's fair, but that's not the same as deliberately lying.