New Disclosures on Benghazi

[A'isha]

I have highlighted the important word in the above SPECULATION...

Then it's a good thing the CIA included verbiage like "currently available information" and "This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated", isn't it?

The BEST intelligence indicated there was NONE from Stevens himself...

Stevens' information could not be used to determine whether there was a protest or not.

If Obama had not been hooting his own horn about how AQ had been defeated and how his foreign policy had been so effective this might not have been an issue at all.

Can you quote an example of Obama saying any of this?

Another issue that I have not seen discussed is WHY did Stevens go to Benghazi likely knowing that it was not safe there? I wonder who ordered him to do that? Don't you?

Begging the question. Show the evidence that he was ordered to go to Benghazi.

 

[A'isha]

Maybe someone in Congress can persuade DOJ to obtain all of the phone records of the conversations on the evening of the 11th and a few days afterward between the relevant parties. They seem to be pretty good at that!

What do you think that the same kind of phone records that the DOJ obtained from the AP would show in this case?

 

[The Big Dog]

But you seem so certain about what they knew to be the truth?

"They." You seem obsessed with the CIA, presumably because the CIA was the scape goat for the failures in the talking points.

Don't fall into that trap. To assess the Intelligence situation you must evaluate all information available to the National Security Staff, including from State and the FBI and DoD.

More importantly, by the time they were drafting those talking points the FBI and not the CIA were in charge: Nuland: “It is now something that you need to talk to the FBI about, not to us about, because it’s their investigation.”

That is why NSS told the CIA not to state who was responsible "even internally" because the FBI was supposed to be running the show.

And the FBI knew there was no protests.

QED

/I just remembered that the CIA said that the Ansar al Sharia militia responsible for the attacks was surrounding the hospital where the Ambassador's body was and therefore its team from Cairo decided to go to the annex to shore up the defenses. So we do know that the CIA knew it was Ansar al Sharia.

 

[A'isha]

"They." You seem obsessed with the CIA, presumably because the CIA was the scape goat for the failures in the talking points.

No, because the CIA wrote the talking points, and included the information about the protests from the very beginning.

Don't fall into that trap. To assess the Intelligence situation you must evaluate all information available to the National Security Staff, including from State and the FBI and DoD.

Why, since it was the CIA that responsible for collecting and disseminating the intelligence information, and they're the ones that wrote the memo?

More importantly, by the time they were drafting those talking points the FBI and not the CIA were in charge: Nuland: “It is now something that you need to talk to the FBI about, not to us about, because it’s their investigation.”

That is why NSS told the CIA not to state who was responsible "even internally" because the FBI was supposed to be running the show.

Why are you claiming that this was an NSS directive to the CIA? The emails about that say that request came from NSS/FBI/DOJ - all three agencies, not just one agency.

And the NSS explicitly cleared all of the CIA's mentions of al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia.

And the FBI knew there was no protests.

How did the FBI know that? Was their investigation supposed to start and stop with interviews of the evacuated Benghazi staff?

EDIT:

/I just remembered that the CIA said that the Ansar al Sharia militia responsible for the attacks was surrounding the hospital where the Ambassador's body was and therefore its team from Cairo decided to go to the annex to shore up the defenses. So we do know that the CIA knew it was Ansar al Sharia.

We've been over this. You have nothing to support your claim that the CIA knew this at the time the memo was being drafted, since the CIA didn't say the above until November 1st.

 

[The Big Dog]

* and Ansar al Sharia was only mentioned in speculation as they had denied official involvement at the time (members acting independently mean nothing), and the Al-Qaeda mention was unconnected to the attack, just CYA by the CIA by attempting to pin the blame on State. Bureaucracy isn't useful, but it's not criminal.

Actually, that is not accurate. They did not deny involvement. In fact they said that:

Ansar al-Shariah Brigade didn't participate in this popular uprising as a separate entity, but it was carrying out its duties in al-Jala'a hospital and other places where it was entrusted with some duties. The Brigade didn't participate as a sole entity;

In other words, they claimed they were not alone.

 

[elbe]

"They." You seem obsessed with the CIA, presumably because the CIA was the scape goat for the failures in the talking points.

Don't fall into that trap. To assess the Intelligence situation you must evaluate all information available to the National Security Staff, including from State and the FBI and DoD.

I'm only "obsessed" with them as far as that all this entire subtopic is based on the CIA's talking points. I haven't been discarding the other agencies, but you haven't mentioned anything substantial about them so I've had no reason to mention them.

More importantly, by the time they were drafting those talking points the FBI and not the CIA were in charge: Nuland: “It is now something that you need to talk to the FBI about, not to us about, because it’s their investigation.”

That is why NSS told the CIA not to state who was responsible "even internally" because the FBI was supposed to be running the show.

And the FBI knew there was no protests.

And you've once again unilaterally declared what our intelligence agencies knew.

/I just remembered that the CIA said that the Ansar al Sharia militia responsible for the attacks was surrounding the hospital where the Ambassador's body was and therefore its team from Cairo decided to go to the annex to shore up the defenses. So we do know that the CIA knew it was Ansar al Sharia.

I seem to recall someone saying Ansar al Sharia were acting as guards for the hospital so it wasn't surprising that they would have been there. I'll try and find that link.

 

[RandFan]

Actually I've addressed that a dozen times, what the terrorists claim was their motivation (subjective) does not at all impact the objective fact that there was no protest outside the Consulate.

Captain hindsight to the rescue.

 

[A'isha]

I seem to recall someone saying Ansar al Sharia were acting as guards for the hospital so it wasn't surprising that they would have been there. I'll try and find that link.

Here.

 

[RandFan]

No, because the CIA wrote the talking points, and included the information about the protests from the very beginning.

Well yes, however, in hindsight....

 

[elbe]

Actually, that is not accurate. They did not deny involvement. In fact they said that:

Ansar al-Shariah Brigade didn't participate in this popular uprising as a separate entity, but it was carrying out its duties in al-Jala'a hospital and other places where it was entrusted with some duties. The Brigade didn't participate as a sole entity;

In other words, they claimed they were not alone.

It's what the talking points said. Do you deny that?

 

[Reheat]

Then it's a good thing the CIA included verbiage like "currently available information" and "This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated", isn't it?

How long did that take?

Stevens' information could not be used to determine whether there was a protest or not.

Why not? Hicks talked with Hitlery, so the State Dept knew on the night of the attack.

Can you quote an example of Obama saying any of this?

You must be joking. Why do you seem to be well informed on some issues, but not others? Selective memory lapses?

Begging the question. Show the evidence that he was ordered to go to Benghazi.

Why did he go? Must have been something important as he knew the security was deficient. Yes, where there are strong indications of numerous things suspicious I'm guilty... So, do those in Congress who are investigating it to an in-depth degree.

 

[The Big Dog]

And you've once again unilaterally declared what our intelligence agencies knew.

What a strange comment. There is absolutely no dispute that the FBI interviewed Hicks and the survivors from Benghazi in Germany no later than September 13. Hicks has testified that there was no protest, and the administration admitted there was no protest.

Clapper told Congress the facts on September 20.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's what the talking points said. Do you deny that?

Of course I do, the final draft of the talking points did not mention them at all.

 

[elbe]

What a strange comment. There is absolutely no dispute that the FBI interviewed Hicks and the survivors from Benghazi in Germany no later than September 13. Hicks has testified that there was no protest, and the administration admitted there was no protest.

Clapper told Congress the facts on September 20.

Not strange. You've unilaterally declared that one source is their only source so they knew what he said was the truth. If you can't see where you've gone wrong I can't help you.

Of course I do, the final draft of the talking points did not mention them at all.

You didn't read the earlier ones? Or are you just moving the goal posts?

 

[A'isha]

How long did that take?

A while. Into at least October things were still unclear.

Why not? Hicks talked with Hitlery, so the State Dept knew on the night of the attack.

Hicks was in

You must be joking. Why do you seem to be well informed on some issues, but not others? Selective memory lapses?

Are you going to back up that claim, or aren't you?

Why did he go? Must have been something important as he knew the security was deficient.

Stevens loved Benghazi, and according to his last report Stevens was there to, among other things, open an American cultural center.

Why do you think he went?

Yes, where there are strong indications of numerous things suspicious I'm guilty... So, do those in Congress who are investigating it to an in-depth degree.

They are? Then why are they not actually talking about that, and instead making all kinds of nonsense noise about the drafting of the talking points memo?

 

[The Big Dog]

Not strange. You've unilaterally declared that one source is their only source so they knew what he said was the truth. If you can't see where you've gone wrong I can't help you.

You didn't read the earlier ones? Or are you just moving the goal posts?

10. 9. 8..... ahhhh.

elbe, rather than insisting that I am unilaterally deciding what the intelligence services knew, if you believe that I am overlooking something, by all means CITE IT. Link it. Don't suggest that they might have known something else. That is not an argument. Do you understand that?

I read the earlier ones, elbe. The final draft of the talking points did not mention them. The references to the Ansar al Sharia were removed due to the directive from NSS/DoJ/FBI not to state who was responsible.

Ansar al Sharia said this:

Ansar al-Shariah Brigade didn't participate in this popular uprising as a separate entity, but it was carrying out its duties in al-Jala'a hospital and other places where it was entrusted with some duties. The Brigade didn't participate as a sole entity;

That was not mentioned in ANY OF THE DRAFTS. If it was, link it.

 

[A'isha]

I read the earlier ones, elbe. The final draft of the talking points did not mention them. The references to the CIA were removed due to the directive from NSS/DoJ/FBI not to state who was responsible.

Yes, because of the ongoing investigation. And we know the NSS and FBI, at least, didn't have any problems with the inclusion of the Ansar al-Sharia mention or think that mention violated that directive that they issues.

That was not mentioned in ANY OF THE DRAFTS. If it was, link it.

"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."

 

[RandFan]

No, of course not. Hell, I'll go a step further and say that I recall that there were protests in Tunisia.

I asked you whether believe that there were protest outside the Consulate in Benghazi on the evening of 9/11/12.

We don't believe that now Captain Hindsight. Thank you for that brilliant bit of looking back to determine the truth.

 

[RandFan]

elbe, rather than insisting that I am unilaterally deciding what the intelligence services knew, if you believe that I am overlooking something, by all means CITE IT.

Captain, you are the one claiming to know what they knew. You are claiming that there is no plausible explanation that includes conflicting information and contradictory data from the CIA.

What we don't know is what the CIA new and what the State Department knew at the time. We only have evidence for what they believed and a plausible parsimonious explanation for why they acted as they did.

Your powers of hindsight are strong captain. I grant you that.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, because of the ongoing investigation. And we know the NSS and FBI, at least, didn't have any problems with the inclusion of the Ansar al-Sharia mention or think that mention violated that directive that they issues.

The ability to look back at what happened to determine what happened as opposed to what was known is wonderful thing. Is there a material fact demonstrating what was known as opposed to what was believed?

"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."

Is there any conclusive evidence of exactly all of the variables that precipitated the attacks? Do we know for a fact that the video played no part? I'm not sure that even captain hindsights powers are that strong.