New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

The Hunt for the Terroists goes on

Congress continues to urge the State Department to press for the perpetrators of the terrorist act in Benghazi, by adding the attack to the reward for tips program, and to discover the reasons(s) why it has not yet been added to the program.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/11/republicans-seek-files-on-omission-benghazi-suspects-from-state-dept-tipline/

 

[Unabogie]

As avid readers of this thread are aware the Government leaked a document to expose an alleged hoaxer.

Last night two Government representatives met with the New York Times and confirmed that the interview given to the FBI confirmed in all details the report the hoaxer's employer gave to the government, and therefore the hoaxer appears to have lied.

More importantly, last night two Government representatives met with the New York Times and confirmed that the interview given to the FBI confirmed in all details the report Blue Mountain gave to the government, and therefore the Administration appears to have lied.

The hoaxer will end up in the dustbin of history. The fact that the FBI knew on September 14 that the attack on the facility was a sustained terrorist attack perpetrated by the Sharia brigades is the final dagger in the heart of the the Administration's false talking points.

Avid readers of this thread KNOW that we have been demanding the release of the FBI interview reports for months. The information in the first one that is publicized is DEVASTATING to the administrations fable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/business/media/accounts-differ-to-fbi-and-cbs-on-benghazi.html

Are you going to address this now that the guy has been completely and totally discredited as a liar? Does this change your opinion on anything?

 

[The Big Dog]

Are you going to address this now that the guy has been completely and totally discredited as a liar? Does this change your opinion on anything?

I'd be happy to address it: it is brilliant and insightful.

No, it does not change my opinion. It is my opinion.

Thanks for posting.

 

[SkepticalDrew]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-11-2013/60-minutes--meh-culpa

 

[Robrob]

Are you going to address this now that the guy has been completely and totally discredited as a liar? Does this change your opinion on anything?

I'd be happy to address it: it is brilliant and insightful.

No, it does not change my opinion. It is my opinion.

Thanks for posting.

Given that you continue to hold this opinion in direct contradiction with established facts, one has to question the motivation.

 

[The Big Dog]

Given that you continue to hold this opinion in direct contradiction with established facts, one has to question the motivation.

It is curious, you cite an article and never bother to explain what facts in there contradict my post. In fact, that article neglects to mention that the hoax related only to his personal actions between the time he was unable to get through the barricades until he was confirmed to have visited the consulate on the 12th.

More importantly, the Government CONFIRMED the Blue Mountain report.

Further, the claim that it was just a regular day is grossly false. It was CONFIRMED that someone was taking photos outside the facility, which caused grave concern.

It was also confirmed that there was no protest outside the Consulate, unlike the now discredited lie that there was a spontaneous attack.

Confirmed. It is amusing however, when the press goes after the press with hammer and tongs, and ignores the actual facts.

 

[The Big Dog]

Given that you continue to hold this opinion in direct contradiction with established facts, one has to question the motivation.

”Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.” Sean Smith 9/11/2012.

Not mentioned in Mr. Wemple's blog, why not?

Further, and what is really incredible is that article CONFIRMS that the Administration's fable was false in that there was no protest outside the consulate prior to the attack.

There is really no dispute that this was a well planned terrorist attack and anyone trying to tell you differently because of one hoaxer seeking personal glory should be viewed: skeptically.

 

[A'isha]

”Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.” Sean Smith 9/11/2012.

Not mentioned in Mr. Wemple's blog, why not?

Possibly because "a guy taking pictures" doesn't equate to "military assault".

Further, and what is really incredible is that article CONFIRMS that the Administration's fable was false in that there was no protest outside the consulate prior to the attack.

The CIA's initial assessment, you mean, not "the Administration's fable". You keep trying to pin that solely on Obama and Clinton, when the talking points memo emails clearly show that it was the CIA which originated the "protest over the video" thing, and pressed it throughout the evolution of the memo. CIA director Petraeus himself was concerned about “Cable(s) to [redacted] warning of protests linked to the film and response” during the drafting of the memo.

There is really no dispute that this was a well planned terrorist attack and anyone trying to tell you differently because of one hoaxer seeking personal glory should be viewed: skeptically.

You have the cart before the horse. The issue isn't what we know now, but what we knew at the time. And what was known at the time was not what the hoaxer claimed,claims which you went to some lengths to defend (even accusing the Administration of trying to "smear" him by releasing the documents which proved him to be a liar).

 

[The Big Dog]

Bombshell Report Reveals that the Terrorist warnings were loud and clear

In a significant revelations, reporters reveal a report showing that "the U.S. government knew about al-Qaeda 'pep rally for jihad' in Benghazi that included calls for the murder of American diplomats - just months before terror attack. A report prepared for the government in August 2012 described a massive military presence of Ansar al-Sharia, the group behind the Benghazi attack."

As always, the latest links:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2506545/U-S-government-knew-June-2012-al-Qaeda-pep-rally-jihad-Benghazi-including-calls-murder-American-diplomats.html

Avid readers will probably expect that this vital information will not get 1/100th the attention that the 60 Minutes hoaxer got.

 

[The Big Dog]

Further Confirmation of the use of NDA's

The Weekly Standard has provided timely reporting further confirming what avid readers of this thread already know: Executive Branch agencies are using Non Disclosure Agreements in connection with Congress's Constitutional Oversight investigations.

the details are here in the regularly provided links:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/benghazi-survivors-signed-ndas-cia-memorial-service-woods-doherty_767070.html

Administration apologists may find succor in the opinion that the legally unnecessary and redundant NDA's that were handed out during a Benghazi memorial service were not intended to "intimidate" the witnesses. And if you buy that, I've got several acres of prime Florida real estate to sell ya....

 

[The Big Dog]

Possibly because "a guy taking pictures" doesn't equate to "military assault".

The CIA's initial assessment, you mean, not "the Administration's fable". You keep trying to pin that solely on Obama and Clinton, when the talking points memo emails clearly show that it was the CIA which originated the "protest over the video" thing, and pressed it throughout the evolution of the memo. CIA director Petraeus himself was concerned about “Cable(s) to [redacted] warning of protests linked to the film and response” during the drafting of the memo.

You have the cart before the horse. The issue isn't what we know now, but what we knew at the time. And what was known at the time was not what the hoaxer claimed,claims which you went to some lengths to defend (even accusing the Administration of trying to "smear" him by releasing the documents which proved him to be a liar).

Take that up with Sean Smith.

The State Department knew the talking points were false, and if they want to claim that is because of the CIA, I'm sure they will find lots of unskeptical people to back them up.

Avid readers of this thread know better.

 

[remirol]

In a significant revelations, reporters reveal a report showing that "the U.S. government knew about al-Qaeda 'pep rally for jihad' in Benghazi that included calls for the murder of American diplomats - just months before terror attack. A report prepared for the government in August 2012 described a massive military presence of Ansar al-Sharia, the group behind the Benghazi attack."

As always, the latest links:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ncluding-calls-murder-American-diplomats.html

1. Using the Daily Fail as a source is an automatic DQ for info.
2. We addressed this aspect of your LIHOP fantasy before, and you evaded answering these questions. I'll reproduce them here for simplicity:

That's an incomplete data set though. Where else did they threaten that day? That year? How often do they actually attack the things they threaten to attack?

To this, we can add:

How many threats does the Consulate receive in a given time period?
How many threats do all US foreign embassies receive in a given time period?

The answer is "lots". Of course, it really all comes down to:

If you have a list of 100 threats, which one is real?

Choose wisely. You have a fixed amount of resources and can probably only defend against five threats. The better your intelligence services are, the more threats you can discard as junk or logistically-improbable, but in reality even if you get a hand-delivered, wax-sealed missive from $TERRORIST_LEADER in the Embassy mailbox telling you the day and location of their next attack, you still haven't really learned anything; all you've learned is that $TERRORIST_LEADER wanted to tell you what he told you.

Again, you're just committing the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy -- pointing to evaluations of information made before an event occurred and judging those evaluations by the availability of information _after_ the event occurred. It doesn't wash in 9/11 CT, it won't wash here.

 

[The Big Dog]

1. Using the Daily Fail as a source is an automatic DQ for info.
.

The link to the August 2012 report prepared by by the Library of Congress's federal research arm was in the article. If you do not wish to read that and instead rely on responses like "Daily Fail" so be it.

 

[A'isha]

Questions about ‘60 Minutes’ Benghazi story go beyond Dylan Davies interview; CBS conducting ‘journalistic review’

Logan claimed that “it’s now well established that the Americans were attacked by al Qaida in a well-planned assault.” But al Qaida has never claimed responsibility for the attack, and the FBI, which is leading the U.S. investigation, has never named al Qaida as the sole perpetrator. Rather, it is believed a number of groups were part of the assault, including members and supporters of al Qaida and Ansar al Shariah, as well as attackers angered by a video made by an American that insulted Prophet Muhammad. The video spurred angry protests outside the U.S. embassy in Cairo hours beforehand.

In a Sept. 12, 2012, statement about the attack, Ansar al Shariah suggested its members had participated, though the group said it did not order the assault.

Moreover, questions remain over how far in advance the attack on the U.S. compound had been planned. Rather than a long-planned attack, investigators have told McClatchy it was likely planned hours, rather than days, in advance.

Hmm...

 

[The Big Dog]

Questions about ‘60 Minutes’ Benghazi story go beyond Dylan Davies interview; CBS conducting ‘journalistic review’

Hmm...

The fantastic part about that article is that it contains virtually no cites other than for the claims that Al Qua'ida and Ansar Al Sharia were involved.

Al Qua'ida wasn't the "sole perpetrator." No, Ansar Al Sharia was involved as well, so that is at least two.

I thought you were of a mind that Ansar Al Sharia was not involved, and therefore the talking points were not COMPLETE fabrications? That link tends to destroy that meme! Thanks for posting it.

 

[A'isha]

The fantastic part about that article is that it contains virtually no cites other than for the claims that Al Qua'ida and Ansar Al Sharia were involved.

Untrue.

I thought you were of a mind that Ansar Al Sharia was not involved, and therefore the talking points were not COMPLETE fabrications? That link tends to destroy that meme! Thanks for posting it.

No, it's always been my position that Ansar al-Sharia members were involved, but so were various members of numerous other militia, terrorist, and civilian groups, some of whom (as on-the-ground witnesses described) were motivated by outrage over the video.

 

[The Big Dog]

As avid readers of this thread will recall, Senator Graham has placed a hold on certain nominations in order to exert leverage on the notoriously unhelpful Administration/State Department to cooperate with the Benghazi investigations. Case in point, the State Department asserted top secret privilege over photographs taken by a contractor and copies of NEWSPAPER articles! I kid you not. Utterly ridiculous and indicative of the sneering contempt that government functionaries can have for citizens (and also demonstrates that Obama's claim that his was going to be the most open administration in history and Kerry's claim that they were going to cooperate were complete falsehoods).

It does appear that the "nuclear option" may also affect the on-going investigation in the Benghazi Terror Attack. Senator Graham stated yesterday:

"The hold I placed on many Obama nominees until Congress was able to speak with the Benghazi survivors has been greatly eroded. I was very pleased my hold resulted in the first Senate interview of a State Department Benghazi survivor yesterday, 14 months after the attack. I, along with several Senate colleagues, spoke at length to this individual who provided new and compelling information about the attacks on our compounds in Benghazi. Unfortunately, Americans who want to get to the truth about what happened in Benghazi were hurt by today’s vote. Without the ability to delay nominations, presidential administrations are likely to be even more successful in their stonewalling efforts."

As always, a link with all the details:

http://www.thestate.com/2013/11/21/3113557/politics-sen-lindsey-graham-reacts.html#storylink=cpy

 

[jj]

So, when are we going to actually deal with the elephant in the room, a comment that is quite ironically accurate in this case.

It is summarized, among other things, by the admittedly political cartoon pointing out that once again, Boehner has cut the budget for embassy security, showing to at least the reasonable person that he is conspiring to cause future Benghazi's.

 

[The Big Dog]

Avid readers of the thread will recall that after Kerry rescinded the sanctions recommended by the ARB, no one in the United states Government received any punishment arising out of the murders in Benghazi (this of course does not count the retaliation against whistle blowers like Greg Hicks, of course).

Compare that to Lara Logan, whose report not only did not kill anyone, but led directly to the release of the documents confirming that the Government knew that the talking points were a lie.

As always, a link:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-60-minutes-correspondent-lara-logan-takes-leave-of-absence-20131126,0,1282021.story

 

[The Big Dog]

So, when are we going to actually deal with the elephant in the room, a comment that is quite ironically accurate in this case.

It is summarized, among other things, by the admittedly political cartoon pointing out that once again, Boehner has cut the budget for embassy security, showing to at least the reasonable person that he is conspiring to cause future Benghazi's.

Cartoon?

Oct. 10, 2012 hearing:

QUESTION: It has been suggested that budget cuts were responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi. And I'd like to ask Ms. Lamb, you made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE CHARLENE LAMB: No, sir.

***

QUESTION: So there's not a budget problem. It's not you all don't have the money to do this?

LAMB: Sir, it's a volatile situation. We will move assets to cover that.

May 8, 2013 hearing:

QUESTION: Mr. Nordstrom, you were on that panel. Do you remember what she [Lamb] said?

REGIONAL SECURITY OFFICER ERIC NORDSTROM: Yes, she said that resources was not an issue. And I think I would also point to the ARB report, if I'm not mistaken, that they talked to our chief financial officer with D.S. [Diplomatic Security], who also said that resources were not an issue.

"Instead, security was hampered because of bureaucratic issues and management failures. In other words, given the internal failures, no amount of money for the State Department likely would have made a difference in this tragedy."

Avid readers will recall that I showed that The Washington Post awarded jj's scenario three Pinocchio's back in May.

As ALWAYS, a link:

Lets indeed talk about that Elephant