New Disclosures on Benghazi

[TellyKNeasuss]

Rolls eyes. Should I bold it for the hoard?

We know that the state department had reviewed videos in almost real time showing no protest.
We know that Hicks and the five surviving security agents were debriefed by the FBI in Germany.
We know that ansar al sharia had been mentioned in the talking points, identified in emails on the 11' and identified by Liz jones to the Libyans on the 12th

I'm just stating the obvious by mentioning that none of this addresses the point of whether the CIA believed that the attack was an outgrowth of a protest over the video. Even if your claims are valid (which is disputable), there's is a difference between "knew" and "should have known". I should have known why my extension to a software package on my workstation would not work without having to ask the software package developer for help but I did not know and I did ask (much to my embarrassment, since my error was trivial and obvious to the developer).

I think that the claim that surveillance videos were reviewed in "almost real time" has been debunked. The point about Ansar al Sharia is meaningless. They denied involvement, and at the time there was no evidence that the organization was involved (even if members of it were). Hicks was not in Benghazi nor was he in touch with those who were (it took 3 attempts to contact him via telephone after the attack began before anyone was able to get in touch with him), which is irrelevant because he testified that he was not interviewed by the FBI.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm just stating the obvious by mentioning that none of this addresses the point of whether the CIA believed that the attack was an outgrowth of a protest over the video. Even if your claims are valid (which is disputable), there's is a difference between "knew" and "should have known". I should have known why my extension to a software package on my workstation would not work without having to ask the software package developer for help but I did not know and I did ask (much to my embarrassment, since my error was trivial and obvious to the developer).

I think that the claim that surveillance videos were reviewed in "almost real time" has been debunked. The point about Ansar al Sharia is meaningless. They denied involvement, and at the time there was no evidence that the organization was involved (even if members of it were). Hicks was not in Benghazi nor was he in touch with those who were (it took 3 attempts to contact him via telephone after the attack began before anyone was able to get in touch with him), which is irrelevant because he testified that he was not interviewed by the FBI.

gee, assuming that your objections were correct, that leaves us with:

testimony of the five agents that were evacuated from Benghazi, v. nothing.

Video: It hasn't been debunked, someone cited an article that did not mention the fact that the state department said "we saw on the cameras."

they denied involvement? C'mon, they in fact ADMITTED they were involved

/by the way, I think your response demonstrates quite clearly that I had cited evidence about what was known (whether you agree with it or not), doesn't it? Make sure you take that into account when reading the posts of prolific posters who baselessly called me a liar. It also shows that the administrations' claims that they relied upon the best intelligence available was bull ****.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

gee, assuming that your objections were correct, that leaves us with:

testimony of the five agents that were evacuated from Benghazi, v. nothing.

When were the interviews with these agents conducted? When did the interviewers' reports reach the level of the people who were drafting the talking points? Are the interviews with the agents the only piece of intelligence that was evaluated? Could have the CIA's conclusion have been based on additional information? Does the CIA ever make mistakes (did the CIA think that there were WMDs in Iraq?)?

Video: It hasn't been debunked, someone cited an article that did not mention the fact that the state department said "we saw on the cameras."

Who was it that was watching the cameras? What did they see on the cameras? Did they see that there was no protest? Did they see that the attackers were all members of a terrorist organization? Did they see that the attackers were not motivated by protests in other countries? Did they see that the attackers had planned the attack in advance? What did they see?

they denied involvement? C'mon, they in fact ADMITTED they were involved

Completely wrong. They stated that the organization was not involved but that some of their members participated.

/by the way, I think your response demonstrates quite clearly that I had cited evidence about what was known (whether you agree with it or not), doesn't it? Make sure you take that into account when reading the posts of prolific posters who baselessly called me a liar. It also shows that the administrations' claims that they relied upon the best intelligence available was bull ****.

You just claimed that Ansar al Sharia claimed credit for the attack when in fact they denied it.

Again, none of this leads to the conclusion that there was an intentional effort to mislead the American public for political reasons.

 

[Unabogie]

I think this discussion is a great example of why the BENGHAZI!! nothingburger hasn't taken hold with the public. The entire conspiracy depends on a pedantic parsing of minutiae. And that's the hallmark of conspiracy theories, isn't it? There's no crime being alleged, just coverup of...something...for some unknown reason which is never spelled out. And the evidence consists of nothing more than pedantic misreadings of snippets of statements. It's just 9/11 Trutherism revamped.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

I'm asking you. Almost everything that you bring up has been explained in this thread. So without knowing what claim you're trying to defend I, or he or she, wouldn't be able to help you.

You keep throwing out 'fact's and 'questions' and then daring people to prove otherwise. Any given point has already been shown to be false/mischaracterized (that'd be the 'dishonest' part I stated before), or not even related (incoherent).

Calling it CT isn't a dodge. You're not even making sense. You're like a man at a party who told his date that they'll see the host's cat. The host has told you that they don't have a cat, but you decide they must be lying because you found a hair on the carpet, the host says is his. But that doesn't explain it because the angry neighbor who hates the host complains about the cat all the time, so it must exist. And another guest mentioned a water dish! But that was for their dog and has nothing to do with the host. You aren't satisfied because the host won't let you check the bedroom and crawl space, where there must be evidence that there's a cat. Why else would that woman in the corner have red, ichy eyes and where oh where are the mice! Plus you heard about the cat on Thursday, and the party is Saturday. Why didn't he say there was no cat for all those days? His wife says there isn't a cat either, she must be in on it. They're probably hiding it because cat's aren't allowed in the building, so they have every reason to hide it...even though you've been shown that cats are allowed in the building.

There is no cat. There is no conspiracy.

That was wonderful, and very, very fitting... thanks

 

[rustypouch]

Rolls eyes. Should I bold it for the hoard?

We know that the state department had reviewed videos in almost real time showing no protest.
We know that Hicks and the five surviving security agents were debriefed by the FBI in Germany.
We know that ansar al sharia had been mentioned in the talking points, identified in emails on the 11' and identified by Liz jones to the Libyans on the 12th

Oh... large font and bolded. I'm convinced.

So when will Obama be impeached? Care to place a bet on it?

 

[daredelvis]

I think this discussion is a great example of why the BENGHAZI!! nothingburger hasn't taken hold with the public. The entire conspiracy depends on a pedantic parsing of minutiae. And that's the hallmark of conspiracy theories, isn't it? There's no crime being alleged, just coverup of...something...for some unknown reason which is never spelled out. And the evidence consists of nothing more than pedantic misreadings of snippets of statements. It's just 9/11 Trutherism revamped.

Yep, yep, and double yep. Sums it up this whole CT nicely.

Daredelvis

 

[The Big Dog]

!. hen were the interviews with these agents conducted? When did the interviewers' reports reach the level of the people who were drafting the talking points? Are the interviews with the agents the only piece of intelligence that was evaluated? Could have the CIA's conclusion have been based on additional information? Does the CIA ever make mistakes (did the CIA think that there were WMDs in Iraq?)?


2.Who was it that was watching the cameras? What did they see on the cameras? Did they see that there was no protest? Did they see that the attackers were all members of a terrorist organization? Did they see that the attackers were not motivated by protests in other countries? Did they see that the attackers had planned the attack in advance? What did they see?



3.Completely wrong. They stated that the organization was not involved but that some of their members participated.



4. You just claimed that Ansar al Sharia claimed credit for the attack when in fact they denied it.

5. Again, none of this leads to the conclusion that there was an intentional effort to mislead the American public for political reasons.

1. September 12-13. FBI interviews of State Department employees/evacuaees from Benghazi. Both State Departments and FBI personnel participated in drafting the talking points. Best intelligence available right?

2. State Department. "That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened. The Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on the street at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we saw on the cameras the – a large number of armed men assaulting the compound."

3. The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)

4. 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; rather, it was a spontaneous popular uprising in response to what happened by the West.
4.a CIA timeline states that the Ansar al Sharia militia responsible for carrying out the attack is surrounding the hospital where the Ambassador's body was taken.

 

[RandFan]

I'm just stating the obvious by mentioning that none of this addresses the point of whether the CIA believed that the attack was an outgrowth of a protest over the video. Even if your claims are valid (which is disputable), there's is a difference between "knew" and "should have known". I should have known why my extension to a software package on my workstation would not work without having to ask the software package developer for help but I did not know and I did ask (much to my embarrassment, since my error was trivial and obvious to the developer).

I think that the claim that surveillance videos were reviewed in "almost real time" has been debunked. The point about Ansar al Sharia is meaningless. They denied involvement, and at the time there was no evidence that the organization was involved (even if members of it were). Hicks was not in Benghazi nor was he in touch with those who were (it took 3 attempts to contact him via telephone after the attack began before anyone was able to get in touch with him), which is irrelevant because he testified that he was not interviewed by the FBI.

But if one relies on hindsight we can deduce what they should have known and we add personal bias it's easy to know what they knew.

 

[RandFan]

1. September 12-13. FBI interviews of State Department employees/evacuaees from Benghazi. Both State Departments and FBI personnel participated in drafting the talking points. Best intelligence available right?

2. State Department. "That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened. The Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on the street at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we saw on the cameras the – a large number of armed men assaulting the compound."

3. The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)

4. 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; rather, it was a spontaneous popular uprising in response to what happened by the West.
4.a CIA timeline states that the Ansar al Sharia militia responsible for carrying out the attack is surrounding the hospital where the Ambassador's body was taken.

The origninal draft mentions the riot. If they knew there was no riot why did they put it into the draft. The revisions and final memo contain the riot scenario. Using powers of hindsight you can now tell us what was the best intelligence. If you were honest you admit that they were not certain.

 

[The Big Dog]

That was wonderful, and very, very fitting... thanks

lolz!

and then after the condo board building election, they come out and admit, yeah, the host actually had a cat the whole time.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

1. September 12-13. FBI interviews of State Department employees/evacuaees from Benghazi. Both State Departments and FBI personnel participated in drafting the talking points. Best intelligence available right?

When were the interviews conducted? When were the reports submitted? Did the personnel from Benghazi know whether the attack was spontaneous or planned?

2. State Department. "That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened. The Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on the street at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we saw on the cameras the – a large number of armed men assaulting the compound."

Who is "we"? Do you actually believe they were senior DoS personnel who just happened to be watching a video feed from security cameras at the Benghazi facility at the exact time that the attack began?

3. The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)

The subject of Ansar al-Sharia was discussed in the talking points. Mention of Ansar al-Sharia was dropped because Ansar al-Sharia DENIED (and continues to deny) that they were behind the attack.

4. 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; rather, it was a spontaneous popular uprising in response to what happened by the West.
4.a CIA timeline states that the Ansar al Sharia militia responsible for carrying out the attack is surrounding the hospital where the Ambassador's body was taken.

Was this known at the time the talking points were drafted?

 

[The Big Dog]

1. When were the interviews conducted? When were the reports submitted? Did the personnel from Benghazi know whether the attack was spontaneous or planned?



2. Who is "we"? Do you actually believe they were senior DoS personnel who just happened to be watching a video feed from security cameras at the Benghazi facility at the exact time that the attack began?



3. The subject of Ansar al-Sharia was discussed in the talking points. Mention of Ansar al-Sharia was dropped because Ansar al-Sharia DENIED (and continues to deny) that they were behind the attack.



4.Was this known at the time the talking points were drafted?

1. I already answered the first part, and the people from Benghazi said there was no protest outside the consulate.

2. they were not watching at the time of the attack, they reviewed the tape after they were informed of the attack on 9/11-12.

3. That is wrong, and since when do we listen to terrorists denials. Al Qua'ida and and Ansar al Sharia were removed at the directive of NSS. Obama wasn't too troubled with Osama's denials.

4. yes

 

[RandFan]

1. I already answered the first part, and the people from Benghazi said there was no protest outside the consulate.

2. they were not watching at the time of the attack, they reviewed the tape after they were informed of the attack.

3. That is wrong, and since when do we listen to terrorists denials. Obama wasn't too troubled with Osama's denials

4. yes

A.) Demonstrate what was known. B.) Demonstrate the CIA was trying to mislead the State Department. C.) Demonstrate that the State Department knew the riot information was wrong.

Until you can demonstrate those three premises you have nothing but speculation.

 

[jj]

A.) Demonstrate what was known. B.) Demonstrate the CIA was trying to mislead the State Department. C.) Demonstrate that the State Department knew the riot information was wrong.

Until you can demonstrate those three premises you have nothing but speculation.

You'll never see it, because he has nothing to offer beyond insinuation and attacks on the presidency.

The problem here is not Benghazi, and never was Benghazi, it was that the thread starter thinks we have the wrong president, and wants to usurp the lawfully elected president via insinuation and defamation.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

1. I already answered the first part, and the people from Benghazi said there was no protest outside the consulate.

Was any information besides what their reports used by the CIA to reach its conclusion? Or did the CIA say "These guys said that the attack was not related to any protest over the video. And they said that it was clearly a planned and rehearsed operation. Therefore, we will conclude that it was a protest that got out of control."?

What is your source for when the interviews took place? We know that they were flown to Germany on the 13th. Nor do we know when the FBI gave the information to the DoS. We don't even know if the FBI agents filed a report after the briefings or just collected the information for future use. The FBI was interested in finding out who did the attack, not in getting information for a briefing that it wasn't even a part of. When investigating a crime, witness reports are only a part of the evidence collection.

2. they were not watching at the time of the attack, they reviewed the tape after they were informed of the attack on 9/11-12.

But your quote said that "we watched" and you keep calling it in "almost real time". Now you're saying it was reviewed sometime later? And you still haven't addressed what the video showed. It is not in dispute that a bunch of armed men attacked the diplomatic mission. So talking about a video of a bunch of armed men attacking the diplomatic mission adds nothing to the debate. Did the video show whether it was a hastily thrown together attack or a pre-planned, rehearsed attack?

3. That is wrong, and since when do we listen to terrorists denials. Al Qua'ida and and Ansar al Sharia were removed at the directive of NSS. Obama wasn't too troubled with Osama's denials.

When do we credit terrorists with an attack before we are sure that they committed the attack? Do not terrorists frequently claim credit for things that they actually did not do?

4. yes

Source for this?

 

[RandFan]

What was known and when was it known. If it was known that the riot scenario was a lie why did the CIA include it? Demonstrate that the State Department knew that the CIA was wrong to include the riot scenario? If it was a CIA operation why shouldn't the CIA be held accountable?

 

[A'isha]

2. they were not watching at the time of the attack, they reviewed the tape after they were informed of the attack on 9/11-12.

No, they didn't. The consulate security camera footage wasn't recovered until several weeks after the attack.

3. That is wrong, and since when do we listen to terrorists denials.

It's entirely correct - they explicitly stated the attack was not ordered by the organization's leadership, but was the result of a spontaneous uprising based on anger over the video.

You were perfectly happy to take them at their word when you thought what the said supported your claims. Now that it turns out that what they said contradicts your claim, you think they're untrustworthy.

Al Qua'ida and and Ansar al Sharia were removed at the directive of NSS.

No, they weren't. NSS was perfectly happy with the memo when it contained those mentions, and explicitly cleared the version that contained them.

Obama wasn't too troubled with Osama's denials.

Obama also had lots of other CIA intelligence that he relied on.

4. yes

The timeline you quote wasn't released until November, and therefore gives no indication whatsoever about what the CIA knew during the first week after the attacks.

 

[The Big Dog]

1 Was any information besides what their reports used by the CIA to reach its conclusion? Or did the CIA say "These guys said that the attack was not related to any protest over the video. And they said that it was clearly a planned and rehearsed operation. Therefore, we will conclude that it was a protest that got out of control."?

2 What is your source for when the interviews took place? We know that they were flown to Germany on the 13th. Nor do we know when the FBI gave the information to the DoS. We don't even know if the FBI agents filed a report after the briefings or just collected the information for future use. The FBI was interested in finding out who did the attack, not in getting information for a briefing that it wasn't even a part of. When investigating a crime, witness reports are only a part of the evidence collection.



3. But your quote said that "we watched" and you keep calling it in "almost real time". Now you're saying it was reviewed sometime later? And you still haven't addressed what the video showed. It is not in dispute that a bunch of armed men attacked the diplomatic mission. So talking about a video of a bunch of armed men attacking the diplomatic mission adds nothing to the debate. Did the video show whether it was a hastily thrown together attack or a pre-planned, rehearsed attack?


4. Source for this?

1. FBI and State participated in drafting the talking points.
2. Hicks and State Department
3. "almost real time" is different than later?
4. The dates of the release, which was the 12-13th. The fact that the team didn't go to the hospital because it was surrounded by Ansar Al ASharia was of course known immediately.

Virtually all of this has already been explored at length in this thread. This has GOT to be the first time in History that this much time has been spent on proving something that we all agree never happened never happened!

As I mentioned above, the on-going Congressional investigation has scheduled several additional interviews/testimony in the next few weeks, including the security people mentioned in point one above.

 

[RandFan]

1. FBI and State participated in drafting the talking points.
2. Hicks and State Department
3. "almost real time" is different than later?
4. The dates of the release, which was the 12-13th. The fact that the team didn't go to the hospital because it was surrounded by Ansar Al ASharia was of course known immediately.

Virtually all of this has already been explored at length in this thread. This has GOT to be the first time in History that this much time has been spent on proving something that we all agree never happened never happened!

As I mentioned above, the on-going Congressional investigation has scheduled several additional interviews/testimony in the next few weeks, including the security people mentioned in point one above.

None of which explains why the original draft and subsequent revision of the CIA memo included the riot scenario.

Nothing you've posted proves what the CIA or State Department new. I've said it before, I'll say it again, until you can demonstrate what people knew at the time then you are using hindsight and speculation.