New Disclosures on Benghazi

[RandFan]

In keeping with the spirit and purpose of the thread, the latest:

Fans of this thread know that we have been talking about the fact that the Ambassador was taken to the hospital that was surrounded by hostile militia. Jones identified them as Ansar al Sharia, as did the CIA. Jones and the CIA identified Ansar Al Sharia as "mounting" or "conducting" the attack. We know that the team that flew from Tripoli to Benghazi made the tactical decision not to go to the hospital.

Tonight we have learned additional details confirming this story, this time from another source.

"The hospital was known to be under the influence of hostile militia and Embassy officials sensed a possible trap, so they opted not to attempt to send a U.S. rescue team now waiting at Benghazi's airport."

The story deals with the retrieval of the Ambassador's body, and contains vivid descriptions of the steps non-extremist Libyans took to assist.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...enghazi-hospital-to-list-stevens-as-john-doe/

Is there a smoking gun here?

 

[A'isha]

In keeping with the spirit and purpose of the thread, the latest:

Why does "the latest" always involve things we already know about, and have known for some time?

Fans of this thread know that we have been talking about the fact that the Ambassador was taken to the hospital that was surrounded by hostile militia. Jones identified them as Ansar al Sharia,

No, she didn't.

Tonight we have learned additional details confirming this story, this time from another source.

No, we haven't. That article doesn't say a single thing about Ansar al-Sharia, and the fact that the reports of Stevens in the hospital were thought to be trap was mentioned as far back as the State Department's ARB report. The ARB report also noted that " the Benghazi Medical Center (BMC) [was] believed to be dangerous for American personnel due to the possibility
attackers were being treated there", and even includes the information mentioned in the article about how a local Libyan contact went to the hospital and confirmed Stevens' death.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57586952/officials-instructed-benghazi-hospital-to-list-stevens-as-john-doe/

I find it interesting that virtually every single one of these CBS news articles that 16.5 finds so shocking and containing new important information is written by Sharyl Attkisson. For some reason, she seems really determined to dig up "scandalous" dirt on Benghazi, to the point of writing a whole article about essentially nothing (the gist of the article, and the only "new" information is that some anonymous official supposedly told her that US officials wanted the Benghazi hospital to use a pseudonym for Stevens on his death certificate to avoid drawing attention to who he really was).

There is, quite literally, nothing of note in this article, and absolutely nothing relevant to the ostensible purpose of this thread. It doesn't even contain the details 16.5 claims it does.

 

[RandFan]

Is there a smoking gun here?

Why does "the latest" always involve things we already know about, and have known for some time?

...

There is, quite literally, nothing of note in this article, and absolutely nothing relevant to the ostensible purpose of this thread. It doesn't even contain the details 16.5 claims it does.

I didn't think so.

THIS is CT behavior. Go to any CT thread and you will find people posting the same addressed points over and over. If you have a new disclosure then post it. Re-writes of the same argument for 50+ pages is poor form. What have you done for us lately?

16.5, you are arguing ad nauseam. That's a fallacy.

Argumentum ad nauseam - RationalWiki

 

[The Big Dog]

In keeping with the spirit and purpose of the thread, the latest:

Fans of this thread know that we have been talking about the fact that the Ambassador was taken to the hospital that was surrounded by hostile militia. Jones identified them as Ansar al Sharia, as did the CIA. Jones and the CIA identified Ansar Al Sharia as "mounting" or "conducting" the attack. We know that the team that flew from Tripoli to Benghazi made the tactical decision not to go to the hospital.

Tonight we have learned additional details confirming this story, this time from another source.

"The hospital was known to be under the influence of hostile militia and Embassy officials sensed a possible trap, so they opted not to attempt to send a U.S. rescue team now waiting at Benghazi's airport."

The story deals with the retrieval of the Ambassador's body, and contains vivid descriptions of the steps non-extremist Libyans took to assist.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57586952/officials-instructed-benghazi-hospital-to-list-stevens-as-john-doe/

So lets take a look at the article and what we already know:

"The hospital was known to be under the influence of hostile militia and Embassy officials sensed a possible trap, so they opted not to attempt to send a U.S. rescue team now waiting at Benghazi's airport."

lets compare it to what we already KNOW:

CIA timeline "The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is already dead. (Also killed was a State Department communication specialist.) But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militia that mounted the consulate attack."

Elizabeth Jones Describing a conversation she had with then-Libyan ambassador Ali Aujali, Jones wrote in the previously undisclosed email that 'I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic [extremists].'

On 9/14 of course, the FBI advised that "AQ (Al Qua'ida) not AQIM ( Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb ) was involved."

Hicks testimony: "David McFarland, if I recall correctly, is the individual who began to receive that news from his contacts in Benghazi. We began to hear also that the ambassador has been taken to a hospital. We don't know initially which hospital it is, but we -- through David's reports we learned that it is in a hospital which is controlled by Ansar Sharia, the group that Twitter feeds had identified as leading the attack on the consulate."

Who was the hostile militia? Ansar al Sharia. Who mounted the attack? Ansar al Sharia.

By the way, hat off to CBS for doing a bang up job in reporting. CBS of course broke the story about Hicks testimony that got this thread off to such a rousing start, was one of the news organizations that the White House leaked the Cohen email to, had the sit down with the White House insiders who admitted they acted like idiots, and know have confirmed the militia at the hospital as the reason the CIA rerouted to the annex.

Some might say that CBS is being used by the White House here, but I say that we are all smart enough to see through the White House spin, and we appreciate the evidence like any good skeptic.

On tap: Pickering interview 6/3; State Department records release 6/7.

 

[A'isha]

"The hospital was known to be under the influence of hostile militia and Embassy officials sensed a possible trap, so they opted not to attempt to send a U.S. rescue team now waiting at Benghazi's airport."

Which, again, are all things that were in the ARB report. It describes the situation with the various hostile militias in the city (ostensibly banded together under the Supreme Security Council, but in reality "a diverse group of local Islamist militias, each of whose strength ebbed and flowed depending on the ever-shifting alliances and loyalties of various members"), and it describes the fears if a trap at the hospital.

lets compare it to what we already KNOW:

Yes, because all that was in the ARB report.

CIA timeline "The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they rightly suspect is already dead. (Also killed was a State Department communication specialist.) But the hospital is surrounded by the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia militia that mounted the consulate attack."

Contains information gained in the month and a half between the attacks and when the timeline was released, and is not (and is not intended to be) an accounting of what was known at the time.

Elizabeth Jones Describing a conversation she had with then-Libyan ambassador Ali Aujali, Jones wrote in the previously undisclosed email that 'I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic [extremists].'

Which she almost certainly did based on the mistaken initial claims of responsibility on social media, and does not support your claims that intelligence at the time was strong enough for the CIA to make definitive statements in the talking points memo.

Who was the hostile militia? Ansar al Sharia. Who mounted the attack? Ansar al Sharia.

Thanks for your hindsight. But that has nothing to do with what was known at the time of the attacks or what was known during the drafting of the memo.

By the way, hat off to CBS for doing a bang up job in reporting. CBS of course broke the story about Hicks testimony that got this thread off to such a rousing start,

How do you "break" information about public hearings?

had the sit down with the White House insiders who admitted they acted like idiots,

Yes, more anonymous officials who spoke with only Attkisson.

and know have confirmed the militia at the hospital as the reason the CIA rerouted to the annex.

How do you "confirm" something that has long since been known? And the article didn't say it was Ansar al-Sharia. Why didn't Attkisson make that explicit, leaving you to try and fill in the gaps all on your lonesome, do you think?

On tap: Pickering interview 6/3; State Department records release 6/7.

Have you thought about, I don't know, waiting until you have some actual "new disclosures" to post here, rather than breathlessly reporting on every Attkisson article that pops up on Google News, regardless of its actual content or relevance?

 

[Unabogie]

Perhaps we should back up and explain what the scandal actually is, and what the accusation actually is, and why we should care, before diving into 70 pages of argument over minutiae?

Just a thought.

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps we should back up and explain what the scandal actually is, and what the accusation actually is, and why we should care, before diving into 70 pages of argument over minutiae?

Just a thought.

Agreed. That would be productive.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Perhaps we should back up and explain what the scandal actually is, and what the accusation actually is, and why we should care, before diving into 70 pages of argument over minutiae?

Just a thought.

The only clear allegations I've heard here have been blatant falsehoods.

One is that over 100 people were killed in the Benghazi attack.

The other is that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths at Benghazi.

Care to defend either of these claims that you have made, 16.5? These are really big deals. If they were true, it would indicate a huge and serious conspiracy. It would also make a case for the crime of treason committed by someone (or more than one person) in the Obama administration.

All the petty little crap you want to talk about (what Unabogie rightly calls "minutiae") pales to utter insignificance compared to these two explicit allegations you have made.

 

[Unabogie]

The only clear allegations I've heard here have been blatant falsehoods.

One is that over 100 people were killed in the Benghazi attack.

The other is that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths at Benghazi.

Care to defend either of these claims that you have made, 16.5? These are really big deals. If they were true, it would indicate a huge and serious conspiracy. It would also make a case for the crime of treason committed by someone (or more than one person) in the Obama administration.

All the petty little crap you want to talk about (what Unabogie rightly calls "minutiae") pales to utter insignificance compared to these two explicit allegations you have made.

The reason I call it minutiae is because it's all centering on a set of talking points that were used in the immediate aftermath. But why is that even important? IIRC, we got more details soon afterwards. So what if the initial story got some details wrong. Why would this be a scandal? It didn't take years to get corrections, it took days or weeks. That's not in any way out of the ordinary and unlike, say, the Jessica Lynch fake narrative, the initial narrative here has no upside for Obama and is indistinguishable from the later narrative. Why should I care if it were an attack based on anger over a video vs. an attack based on anger over something else? Why would the difference between those two matter and why would anyone cover up one in preference to the other? If you can't tell me what was to gain, why should I believe it was a conspiracy?

 

[The Big Dog]

Perhaps we should back up and explain what the scandal actually is, and what the accusation actually is, and why we should care, before diving into 70 pages of argument over minutiae?

Just a thought.

I have really been trying to focus on the facts, but because the answers are simple to your dismissive and exaggerated post, I will briefly say:

No one is forcing you to care.
no one is forcing you to read.
No one is forcing you to post.

There are lots of other threads. Heck, start you own!

Thanks.

 

[RandFan]

The only clear allegations I've heard here have been blatant falsehoods.

One is that over 100 people were killed in the Benghazi attack.

The other is that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths at Benghazi.

Care to defend either of these claims that you have made, 16.5? These are really big deals. If they were true, it would indicate a huge and serious conspiracy. It would also make a case for the crime of treason committed by someone (or more than one person) in the Obama administration.

All the petty little crap you want to talk about (what Unabogie rightly calls "minutiae") pales to utter insignificance compared to these two explicit allegations you have made.

Exactly! Minutiae repeated over and over. If we are going to simply repeat claims then how about repeating a little perspective?

Did we ever get to the bottom of all of the other attacks? What makes this one special? No, this is not an attempt to deflect blame from Obama. This is an attempt to understand the outrage given that so many diplomatic attacks.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The reason I call it minutiae is because it's all centering on a set of talking points that were used in the immediate aftermath. But why is that even important? IIRC, we got more details soon afterwards. So what if the initial story got some details wrong. Why would this be a scandal? It didn't take years to get corrections, it took days or weeks.

Yep.

And, as noted repeatedly here, the "talking points" were issued with caveats that they were in fact only a preliminary assessment, and a definitive statement would have to wait until the investigation has been conducted.

But meanwhile, 16.5 has alleged that there 100 people killed in the Benghazi attack, and that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths.

The former would involve a huge cover-up--requiring the large and fiercely competitive media to cooperate in this conspiracy to tell the world there were only 4 deaths.

The latter would require either that the Obama administration was responsible for the deaths (itself treason) or that it was protecting those who are responsible for the deaths (also treason).

These are really big allegations, as yet wholly unsubstantiated in this thread. Why bother with petty questions over the talking points--who knew what when, whether it was a "terrorist attack" or an "act of terror", etc.--if there is any evidence to support these monstrous CTs?

 

[RandFan]

I have really been trying to focus on the facts, but because the answers are simple to your dismissive and exaggerated post, I will briefly say:

No one is forcing you to care.
no one is forcing you to read.
No one is forcing you to post.

There are lots of other threads. Heck, start you own!

Thanks.

This is a skeptics site. It's not your forum to spread anything you like. If you don't like being questioned then you are in the wrong forum.

This thread is over 50 pages long. Are you really so ignorant of the subject you can't tell us exactly what the scandal is? Why is this subject important enough to put on a skeptics site?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have really been trying to focus on the facts, but because the answers are simple to your dismissive and exaggerated post, I will briefly say:

No one is forcing you to care.
no one is forcing you to read.
No one is forcing you to post.

There are lots of other threads. Heck, start you own!

Thanks.

I note your continued unwillingness or inability to substantiate your earlier claims.

Unsubstantiated claim #1: Over 100 people were killed in the Benghazi attack

Unsubstantiated claim #2: The Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths.

It's been 50 pages and some weeks now.

I challenge you to substantiate or retract these claims.

 

[A'isha]

But meanwhile, 16.5 has alleged that there 100 people killed in the Benghazi attack, and that the Obama administration overtly lied to deflect responsibility for the deaths.

The former would involve a huge cover-up--requiring the large and fiercely competitive media to cooperate in this conspiracy to tell the world there were only 4 deaths.

To be fair to 16.5, the "100 deaths" he cited includes the number of casualties among the attackers.

 

[The Big Dog]

In keeping with the spirit and purpose of the thread, the latest:

Fans of this thread know that we have been talking about the fact that the Embassy in Libya made repeated requests for additional security, but were turned down due to the Clinton insistence on a "soft footprint."

Here is the New terror report that tracks deterioration in Benghazi:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/30/new_terror_report_tracks_deterioration_of_libya_ahead_of_benghazi_attack

Note the previous attack on the very consulate.

Recall the tu quoque argument about attacks during other administrations? You have this new data to use to remind people what in fact we are talking about

 

[A'isha]

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/30/new_terror_report_tracks_deterioration_of_libya_ahead_of_benghazi_attack

Note the previous attack on the very consulate.

You mean the same previous attack (along with a lot more attacks than were detailed at your link) that was also mentioned in the ARB report?

Come on, 16.5. Post some new disclosures already.

EDIT: The ARB report notes,

It is worth noting that the events above took place against a general backdrop of political violence, assassinations targeting former regime officials, lawlessnes s, and an overarching absence of central government authority in eastern Libya. While the June 6 IED at the SMC and the May ICRC attack were claimed by the same group, none of the remaining attacks were viewed in Tripoli and Benghazi as linked or having common perpetrators, which were not viewed as linked or having common perpetrators. This also tempered reactions in Washington. Furthermore, the Board believes that the longer a post is exposed to continuing high levels of violence the more it comes to consider security incidents which might otherwise provoke a reaction as normal, thus raising the threshold for an incident to cause a reassessment of risk and mission continuation. This was true for both people on the ground serving in Libya and in Washington.

And that previous attack on the consulate? Wasn't carried out by Ansar al-Sharia, but by the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades.

2nd EDIT: Here, in fact, is a CNN news article from September 13, 2012, showing that at least at one point and by some people during the first week after the attacks (and, you'll note, just the day before the CIA started drafting the memo), the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades and not Ansar al-Sharia was being fingered as the perpetrators of the September 11 consulate attack.

 

[The Big Dog]

You mean the same previous attack (along with a lot more attacks than were detailed at your link) that was also mentioned in the ARB report?

Come on, 16.5. Post some new disclosures already.

EDIT: The ARB report notes,



And that previous attack on the consulate? Wasn't carried out by Ansar al-Sharia, but by the Omar Abdurrahman group.

Too bad ARB did not feel it was necessary to talk to the people in charge, huh?

And can you imagine that people still trot out that grossly misleading piece of partisan slop published by Mother Jones that ends in 2010!

I cannot imagine having that kind of sneering disdain for the facts.

Yikes.

It is good to have the comprehensive data, which was released yesterday and is included in my links.

 

[A'isha]

Too bad ARB did not feel it was necessary to talk to the people in charge, huh?

They talked to everyone in charge. Including Hicks.

 

[RandFan]

And can you imagine that people still trot out that grossly misleading piece of partisan slop published by Mother Jones that ends in 2010!

How is it misleading?

I cannot imagine having that kind of sneering disdain for the facts.

What "facts"?

Yikes.

Rhetoric.

It is good to have the comprehensive data, which was released yesterday and is included in my links.

Is - there - anything - new? Can you bullet what the scandal is and then tie in the "new" facts released yesterday?