New Disclosures on Benghazi

[RandFan]

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?

Have you ever heard of a term known as "the fog of war"? Saying BS and telling us what we now know in hindsight does not tell us what the CIA "knew". It doesn't tell us what the FBI "knew" or what the state "knew" during and following the attack. Which is why Rice said it was "preliminary".

Our intelligence at the time consisted of what people believed and that was contradictory.

Now, let's assume your premises, answer my questions,

• Do you believe that the White House lied and people died because of that lie?
• Do you believe that a crime was committed and the White House covered up that crime?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

And further, I don't think anyone ever claimed to know. Much of this "scandal" is about Susan Rice's Sunday morning talk show comments, where she carefully said that this was only a preliminary assessment and not a definitive assessment.

This "scandal" seems to be about the outrageous fact that no one in the Obama administration is clairvoyant or precognitive, nor claims to be!

 

[A'isha]

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.

So, the White House was fine with the early drafts of the talking points, but other departments (including the FBI) had issues with them, and from that you conclude that the White House is solely to blame and to do otherwise is "absolv[ing] the White House" and "damaging [my] case"?

Okay...

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.

You're right, one draft was sent out at 3:04 PM. However, not even half an hour later, the CIA sent an email to all the same non-CIA people saying "wait, don't use that draft...we're still working on the memo" (the email on page 13):

We still have a number of components coordinating here on these points and we will have further edits. We are multi-tasking due to the time constraints.

I'll send you an updated version around 1600 today.

It was those internal CIA components which changed "That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qa'ida participated in the attack" to "That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

That was all internal to the CIA, and was specifically done before the CIA's own final draft was distributed for comment, and without any input from anyone outside the CIA.

 

[daredelvis]

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...

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.

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..

Can we just start holding SOMEBODY accountable for these matters in chronological order? We can start with investigations of the marine barracks bombing in Lebanon. Once that is complete, we can move on to the 10,000 other similar events that were not of note to republicans in congress until a democrat was in office.

Exploiting the four deaths for partisan hackery, it exactly what this is.

Daredelvis

 

[RandFan]

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.

There was good reason for the CIA to believe that. The video had caused one hell of a lot of unrest among Muslims. It's still plausible that the riot precipitated the attack along with 9/11.

Those who act as if we knew exactly what was happening at the time simply don't understand the nature of conflict and the chaos involved.

 

[RandFan]

Can we just start holding SOMEBODY accountable for these matters in chronological order? We can start with investigations of the marine barracks bombing in Lebanon. Once that is complete, we can move on to the 10,000 other similar events that were not of note to republicans in congress until a democrat was in office.

Exploiting the four deaths for partisan hackery, it exactly what this is.

Daredelvis

That would be nice.

 

[Dancing David]

Can we just start holding SOMEBODY accountable for these matters in chronological order? We can start with investigations of the marine barracks bombing in Lebanon. Once that is complete, we can move on to the 10,000 other similar events that were not of note to republicans in congress until a democrat was in office.

Exploiting the four deaths for partisan hackery, it exactly what this is.

Daredelvis

Yuppers

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Since when do protestors have heavy weapons and mortars?

Leading questions are not evidence of anything. It doesn't matter how many questions you ask.

Was there anything preventing protesters from bringing heavy weapons? Isn't it possible too that someone vaguely planning an attack could have taken advantage of the diversion and chaos caused by protests?

Is there any evidence that the protests were faked to provide cover for an attack? If so, I haven't seen it.

But again, going to the big picture, what about Benghazi is unique in warranting deeper investigation compared to all the other terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities?

The truth is, the world can be a dangerous place. There are people with weapons who don't like us or who are motivated by religious zealotry or other kinds of mental illness. Being a CIA operative or even staying in a CIA facility in a relatively unstable country in a relatively unstable region can be extremely dangerous.

We are the victims. The only ones responsible for these deaths are the bad guys--those who planned, carried out or provided material support for the attacks. I promise you no one in the Obama administration was responsible, and no one wanted to cover for those who were responsible.

Similarly, as much as the 9/11 attacks benefited Bush politically, neither Bush nor anyone in his administration was responsible for the attacks or wanted them to happen. Such extraordinary allegations would require extraordinary evidence.

Asking leading and insinuating questions is not evidence of anything.

 

[elbe]

There was good reason for the CIA to believe that. The video had caused one hell of a lot of unrest among Muslims. It's still plausible that the riot precipitated the attack along with 9/11.

An argument I'm glad I haven't seen recently, but I remember seeing back when the story was newer, was that certain people couldn't believe that a pesky little internet video could get people that upset, but it did. It didn't cause Benghazi, but there were other protests that seemed to just be casually ignored.

I'm unsure if I believe people were just being partisan or if they were projecting our culture on the middle eastern ones and couldn't honestly believe they could get that upset.

Those who act as if we knew exactly what was happening at the time simply don't understand the nature of conflict and the chaos involved.

Sometimes I think some people just aren't able to think abstractly and try to understand how our understanding of the facts differed greatly than they do now.


Of course psychiatric speculation isn't particularly useful, it just seems like it would be nice to understand.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can we just start holding SOMEBODY accountable for these matters in chronological order? We can start with investigations of the marine barracks bombing in Lebanon. Once that is complete, we can move on to the 10,000 other similar events that were not of note to republicans in congress until a democrat was in office.

Exploiting the four deaths for partisan hackery, it exactly what this is.

Amen.

And again, this is not a tu quoque argument. It is observing that the premise this fake scandal is based on --that there is something unique about the Benghazi attack--is false.

I'll go even further. I suspect if we did get into these other attacks to the extent we've looked at this one, you'll find examples of altered memos, changed "talking points" (that is, it's not uncommon for a preliminary assessment to change as a clearer picture emerges), and bickering over who is willing to cooperate with investigations.

ETA: You'd also almost certainly have different parties (especially foreign heads of state) disagreeing with our preliminary assessment in some of these cases.

 

[The Big Dog]

Can we just start holding SOMEBODY accountable for these matters in chronological order? We can start with investigations of the marine barracks bombing in Lebanon. Once that is complete, we can move on to the 10,000 other similar events that were not of note to republicans in congress until a democrat was in office.

Exploiting the four deaths for partisan hackery, it exactly what this is.

Daredelvis

Why don't you go back to the murder of the Ambassador and the Iran Hostage Crisis under for your tu quoque thread jack?

Oh right, partisan hackery.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There was good reason for the CIA to believe that. The video had caused one hell of a lot of unrest among Muslims. It's still plausible that the riot precipitated the attack along with 9/11.

Yep.

Or as I said, somewhere in between. (A vaguely planned attacked operationalized to take advantage of spontaneous protests.) It's not necessarily an all-or-nothing thing anyway.

But not getting it exactly 100% right in a preliminary assessment is not a scandal. Nor is disagreeing with other preliminary assessments.

 

[daredelvis]

Why don't you go back to the murder of the Ambassador and the Iran Hostage Crisis under for your tu quoque thread jack pointing out the obvious?

Oh right, partisan hackery.

Fine.

Daredelvis

 

[The Big Dog]

So, the White House was fine with the early drafts of the talking points, but other departments (including the FBI) had issues with them, and from that you conclude that the White House is solely to blame and to do otherwise is "absolv[ing] the White House" and "damaging [my] case"?

Okay...
You're right, one draft was sent out at 3:04 PM. However, not even half an hour later, the CIA sent an email to all the same non-CIA people saying "wait, don't use that draft...we're still working on the memo" (the email on page 13):

It was those internal CIA components which changed "That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qa'ida participated in the attack" to "That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

That was all internal to the CIA, and was specifically done before the CIA's own final draft was distributed for comment, and without any input from anyone outside the CIA.

Wow, talk about missing the point:

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

That was what this was all about ANTPogo.

 

[RandFan]

Why don't you go back to the murder of the Ambassador and the Iran Hostage Crisis under for your tu quoque thread jack?

Oh right, partisan hackery.

No one is saying we shouldn't investigate Benghazi because of other attacks. We are asking why can't we investigate those attacks. We would like to know why this one is so serious given a complete lack of crime or anyone dying because of mistakes by the White House. Why is this so important when other events aren't?

 

[RandFan]

Yep.

Or as I said, somewhere in between. (A vaguely planned attacked operationalized to take advantage of spontaneous protests.) It's not necessarily an all-or-nothing thing anyway.

But not getting it exactly 100% right in a preliminary assessment is not a scandal. Nor is disagreeing with other preliminary assessments.

And since day 1 of this thread that has been true and since day 1 of this thread that has been obvious.

Not a single material fact has emerged to accuse the White House of malfeasance or lying. Nothing like Katrina. Nothing like Iraq.

Nothing.

 

[A'isha]

Here's how little the White House/NSS was concerned with removing information about al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, and trying to blame the attacks on protests in Benghazi specifically.

The final CIA draft of the talking points memo, as distributed at 5:09 PM, 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 warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy and that jihadists were threatening 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. That being said, we 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.

Here's the version that Tommy Vietor, Obama's spokesperson for the National Security Council, edited and sent back at 6:21 PM:

• 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 warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy Cairo and that jihadists were threatening 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. That being said, we 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.

The only change was to make it clear that the calls for demonstrations were specifically about demonstrations in Cairo. That's it. Everything else, all the mentions of Ansar al-Sharia, the previous warnings, everything, was left entirely untouched.

And here's the version of the memo that John Brennan, Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, edited and sent out at 6:52 PM:

• 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 investigation is ongoing as to who is responsible for the violence, although the crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals. We 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.

Brennan also left in everything about al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia, and the previous warnings. His only edits were to rearrange the second paragraph a bit, but not change any of the information in it (including leaving in the "we do know" verbiage).

And that's the sum total of changes that White House staffers made to the CIA's final draft of the memo.

So...please point out to me where the White House wanted to cover anything up or change anything about al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia, previous warnings, or anything else.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

for your tu quoque thread jack?

I have at least twice now rebutted your "tu quoque" accusation. You have merely re-asserted it without answering my rebuttal at all.

To elaborate, a tu quoque fallacy is a type of irrelevant fallacy. That is, it's fallacious because it's irrelevant. Observing that these cries of scandal are dependent on the false assumption that this attack was unique is not a tu quoque fallacy.

If I were making a tu quoque fallacy on this topic, I would not be attacking the claim that the Obama administration did something wrong. I would irrelevantly observe that other administrations have committed the same wrong. Tu quoque is Latin for "you also". Its intention is to distract from the actual question and cause an arguer to defend himself. That's not what pointing to all the other terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities is doing.

None of us are claiming that some scandalous or improper behavior on the part of U.S. officials led to all of them also. We're simply pointing out, again, that one of the tacit premises of your scandal argument--that there is something unique about the Benghazi attack that warrants further investigation than any of these other attacks--is false.

Pointing to a false premise (even when that premise is tacit) is a perfectly valid form of argumentation.

 

[The Big Dog]

Sometimes I think some people just aren't able to think abstractly and try to understand how our understanding of the facts differed greatly than they do now.

Actually they don't they knew it was Ansar al Sharia, they knew there was no protest, they knew the attack wasn't spontaneous and they knew it was led by islamic militants with ties to Al Qua'ida. Hell all they had to do was ask Greg hicks or the other evacuees from Libya.

 

[A'isha]

Wow, talk about missing the point:

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

Except you keep ignoring who wanted the information about who actually wanted those changes.

It wasn't the White House.