Benghazi
-
Wait a minute. You just said that Rice talking points didn't come from anyone in the intelligence community. Was that true or false? Was that not bad information? You seemed to have skipped over that. Maybe you didn't know that. Does it change your mind now that you do?
As for your claims.
1) It doesn't seem that way to me.
2) We already know the answer to these questions. And even if we didn't, what happens when you get to the bottom of who claimed it had something to with the video? Look above, friend. There's the CIA, telling Susan Rice to say that it had something to do with the video. And then she went out and basically said what they told her to say. That ended up not being accurate. This is what nobody gets. You act like we're discovering who killed Kennedy, when you're talking about analysts from CIA and State and others putting together a set of generic talking points while working off of incomplete information. What's the fucking issue here?
It happens every Sunday.
3) Yes, we do. the Pentagon has given their answer as to why the help wasn't provided. You just don't like the answer.
4) Yes, that's what Darrell Issa is after - the truth.
As for the "I just want justice" crap, justice is finding the people who killed four Americans. It's making sure the mistakes that were made are corrected. It's not the third go around of a show trial starring Darrell Issa produced by Fox News, designed to wound Hillary's eventual presidential campaign, and to give the base something to scream.
Wait a minute. You just said that Rice talking points didn't come from anyone in the intelligence community. Was that true or false? Was that not bad information? You seemed to have skipped over that. Maybe you didn't know that. Does it change your mind now that you do?
As for your claims.
1) It doesn't seem that way to me.
2) We already know the answer to these questions. And even if we didn't, what happens when you get to the bottom of who claimed it had something to with the video? Look above, friend. There's the CIA, telling Susan Rice to say that it had something to do with the video. And then she went out and basically said what they told her to say. That ended up not being accurate. This is what nobody gets. You act like we're discovering who killed Kennedy, when you're talking about analysts from CIA and State and others putting together a set of generic talking points while working off of incomplete information. What's the fucking issue here?
It happens every Sunday.
3) Yes, we do. the Pentagon has given their answer as to why the help wasn't provided. You just don't like the answer.
4) Yes, that's what Darrell Issa is after - the truth.
As for the "I just want justice" crap, justice is finding the people who killed four Americans. It's making sure the mistakes that were made are corrected. It's not the third go around of a show trial starring Darrell Issa produced by Fox News, designed to wound Hillary's eventual presidential campaign, and to give the base something to scream.
I said "intelligent community", not "intelligence". That wasn't a typo. I was saying no one belonging to the "intelligent community" would honestly believe it was a video. So that's a false. Of course it was bad info, if you think I skipped over than then you simply didn't read what I wrote.
1) I'm not even a republican. I'm an independent who general likes the libertarian philosophy. you can think what you want, but just stop trying to pin me to just trying to destroy Obama.
2) Who from the CIA told her that? That's what we need to know because they were obviously not doing there job. No one it Libya thought it was from a video. Furthermore, Clinton called Hicks, but didn't even bothering asking him who committed the attacks. Assuming it was an honest mistake to not think that was a good question to ask the man, it led to the false narrative of blaming a video being pushed for 2 weeks. These are problems that can't happen the first time. But they did and it needs to be fixed.
3) Really? I said Thompson claimed he wasn't told, and your best response is to blame me for not liking something about the pentagon. This has nothing to do with me being told, Mr. Thompson was never told and he still hasn't been.
4) Again, don't blame me, Cummings is a Democrat who wants to learn more from the whistleblowers.
Did you watch any of the whistleblowers testimony at all? Your responses to 3 and 4 make it hard to believe you will truthfully answer "yes".
Yes, icing on the cake. Accuse my desire for justice as 'crap". Those 2 SEALS gave their lives saving 30 people in one of the most heroic acts a US serviceman has ever done. Yes, what those 2 SEALS did are up there with the must heroic acts in US serviceman history. They were ordered to stand down, but just as a true hero would do, went to battle to save lives anyway. I'm not a Republican and neither of the 3 whistleblowers are there as Republicans. They are there as people who have served this great country for years just trying to get justice for the people who died serving the US.
We can't find those who did it when we are blaming a protestor when it was actually a terrorist. I support an investigation to uncover the full truth to fix the problems and Clinton screams is doesn't really matter.
-
Okay, 1) I don't care what party you belong to. You've got to be right on this and you're not. I appreciate that you've been following this stuff, and it's nice to talk to someone who writes in complete sentences for a change, but that doesn't change the fact that your suppositions are mostly wrong and you're chasing a conspiracy that isn't there.
As for this: "We can't find those who did it when we are blaming a protestor when it was actually a terrorist." It feels like something someone wrote eight months ago. I have no idea what relevance it has now.
As for your calls for "justice" I just thought it was funny coming from a message board poster. A little too much Hollywood speechifying for my tastes. That's all.
2) You're really spinning your wheels here. Unless you're pretending that the CIA and the State Department and the rest of the intelligence community are somehow not part of your "intelligent community" those talking points were signed off on by the entire intelligence community, including by David Petraeus himself. Are you suggesting that he's part of some cover up, too? The entire intelligence community?
The references to terrorism were removed from the talking points for a specific reason, which we learned from Petraeus himself all the way back in November. Are you unaware of this? It seems so. But we know this.
And the reason they were removed, and then given to Rice in the form you see above, was for the CIA's own reasons - to avoid tipping off the groups they suspected were responsible. You keep looking for this individual who changed it as if it's some independent actor that we need to ferret out. It's not. It's the entire fucking agency doing that. And Petraeus explained why.
So you can forget this point you're pushing: "Who from the CIA told her that? That's what we need to know because they were obviously not doing there job. No one it Libya thought it was from a video." Unless you want to suggest that Petraeus is in on this, too, while he testifies to lawmakers that there was no political interference, and the intelligence people did this intentionally. Is that what you're doing?
You said "someone wasn't doing their job." It's quite the contrary - they were making a call on what they wanted to publicly disclose for their own reasons. And it's got nothing to do with what the people on the ground in Libya thought. This isn't about that. There is no conspiracy here. You have people on the ground saying it was a terrorist attack, the CIA putting that in their initial assessment, and then making the call to take that part out of public statements for reasons specific to their hunt for those responsible. Does this answer not suffice for you?
Well, it should.
And from there your huge mistake that needs to be fixed is that Susan Rice when out and said 'we think it started with the video, and then extremist elements took advantage of that and it became something bigger.' That's some sort of huge gaffe mistake and we absolutely positively need to know how that happened? Really?
A) we do know how that happened. It's obvious.
it doesn't really matter to anyone, unless you're proving that this was altered for political reasons, and there's zero proof of that. None. Seriously, go back and read Rice's transcript. Tell me which part is so, so awful that it must never happen again. Because again, I don't get it.
And just let me know: are you willing to look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that there is nothing scandalous here, or are you vested in the notion that something nefarious and conspiratorial happened? Because if you're as into this as you seem to be, you also seem to be willfully overlooking answers to your questions that are already there.
And no, didn't watch the testimony. I read the reports.
-
Also, you do know that initially the intelligence agencies had contradictory information, some saying that it was an Al Qaeda affiliate and some saying it grew out of the protests about the video, right? This was later changed, but initially even Petraeus was telling lawmakers that it might have had something to do with the video. And then they gave Rice talking points saying:
- "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
- This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
And then Rice goes on Face the Nation and says pretty much exactly what's in those two bullet points.
Which is why everyone is wondering where the scandal is, when it's clear people like Sen. McCain, Sen. Graham, and others, who stated at the time that she should have known not to say this, and that it was terrorism, later saw these talking points from the intelligence community that she was working off of and had to eat shit because she repeated them almost verbatim.
Your contention - and correct me if I'm wrong - seems to be that she shouldn't have worked off this interagency draft, the one that clears all the intelligence agencies and is prepared specifically for this purpose, and that she should have freelanced going off the information she received from people on the ground in Libya? Because that's the assessment of the "intelligent community."
Really?
- "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
-
Here, you can even read the article:
Petraeus Says U.S. Tried to Avoid Tipping Off Terrorists After Libya Attack
WASHINGTON — David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.
Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said. -
So we know the answers to your question:
Who from the CIA told her that?
The entire agency did, when they made the decision to remove the names of the AQ-affiliated groups.
That's what we need to know because they were obviously not doing there job.
Yes, they were.
No one it Libya thought it was from a video.
But that's not why they removed it. Additionally, at the time there were multiple intelligence reports that it did have something to do with the video. You're focusing on the specific people who thought it was 100% terrorism and no one else, leaving you with an incomplete picture.
Furthermore, Clinton called Hicks, but didn't even bothering asking him who committed the attacks.
This doesn't strike me as odd. She's talking to him at 2:00 AM on the night of the attacks.
Assuming it was an honest mistake to not think that was a good question to ask the man, it led to the false narrative of blaming a video being pushed for 2 weeks. These are problems that can't happen the first time. But they did and it needs to be fixed.
I really don't share your sense of immediacy, nor imagine that there's not going to be a fair amount of confusion when an embassy comes under attack on a night when there are anti-US protests all over the Muslim world.
You act as if the worst thing to happen here is that someone suggested the video had something to do with it, even while saying that we're still investigating, even while they had information that the video did have something to do with it. So, it's yet another place where most people see the usual amounts of after-action period confusion, with people try to nail down what happened, with lots of different agencies involved, which complicates the narrative. Whereas there's another side that says everyone should have accepted the version certain people had, and right away, and discount all the other information people had, and right away, and deliver that information to the public within days.
This is why the whole affair is such a head scratcher for most of us, until you factor in what everyone assumes is the real reason we're doing this all over again.
-
so let's say the attempt to shelter the Obama campaign from any real scrutiny is just a coincidence. Why then do you suppose the CIA made up such a ridiculous crock of shit to hand the unsuspecting Susan Rice? Especially, if its true like you tell us, the president knew it was a terror attack from the very minute it occurred.
WSS
-
Clapper was the last to testisfy on the validity of the "talking points" coming from the CIA.
CIA maintains that they included language that stated the presence of Al Queda in Libya AND Benghazi area.
Petraeus testified that much as well.
Seems that we need to hear from the CIA about this (yet again...)
To me - James Clapper is the gatekeeper to the propaganda spewed out from the national security advisors....
ya Obama knew.... He watched 4 men die .... he lied.... how much more of your spin do we have to WADE through?
-
This was a miserable failure by the Obama Administration. It took weeks before they even sent the FBI there. It was a crime scene and a reporter from CNN found the Ambassador's diary and other sensitive items. This should have been secured within hours, not weeks. A failure of leadership by Obama and Clinton.
-
so let's say the attempt to shelter the Obama campaign from any real scrutiny is just a coincidence. Why then do you suppose the CIA made up such a ridiculous crock of shit to hand the unsuspecting Susan Rice? Especially, if its true like you tell us, the president knew it was a terror attack from the very minute it occurred.
WSS
so let's say the attempt to shelter the Obama campaign from any real scrutiny is just a coincidence. Why then do you suppose the CIA made up such a ridiculous crock of shit to hand the unsuspecting Susan Rice? Especially, if its true like you tell us, the president knew it was a terror attack from the very minute it occurred.
WSS
We already went over this months ago, when you embarrassed yourself, remember?
The answer to your question comes from what David Petraeus told Congress, and it's right there above. We don't need to suppose anything.
-
Pitiful.
Back in the day, with WMD in Iraq, heckbunker and shep were ALL ABOUT Bush lying.
Never mind that dozens of dems in Congress also said the same thing. They couldn't care less
about the faulty info that everyone was going by.
Now? hahahahaha. It's all about blaming the faulty wording from the CIA.
And so it goes. Whatever is politically expedient, that's the method of emotional venting for the day.
Even when it directly contradicts the method they use from the day before. It's all about advantage of argument.
-
So we know the answers to your question:
Who from the CIA told her that?
The entire agency did, when they made the decision to remove the names of the AQ-affiliated groups.
That's what we need to know because they were obviously not doing there job.
Yes, they were.
No one it Libya thought it was from a video.
But that's not why they removed it. Additionally, at the time there were multiple intelligence reports that it did have something to do with the video. You're focusing on the specific people who thought it was 100% terrorism and no one else, leaving you with an incomplete picture.
Furthermore, Clinton called Hicks, but didn't even bothering asking him who committed the attacks.
This doesn't strike me as odd. She's talking to him at 2:00 AM on the night of the attacks.
Assuming it was an honest mistake to not think that was a good question to ask the man, it led to the false narrative of blaming a video being pushed for 2 weeks. These are problems that can't happen the first time. But they did and it needs to be fixed.
I really don't share your sense of immediacy, nor imagine that there's not going to be a fair amount of confusion when an embassy comes under attack on a night when there are anti-US protests all over the Muslim world.
You act as if the worst thing to happen here is that someone suggested the video had something to do with it, even while saying that we're still investigating, even while they had information that the video did have something to do with it. So, it's yet another place where most people see the usual amounts of after-action period confusion, with people try to nail down what happened, with lots of different agencies involved, which complicates the narrative. Whereas there's another side that says everyone should have accepted the version certain people had, and right away, and discount all the other information people had, and right away, and deliver that information to the public within days.
This is why the whole affair is such a head scratcher for most of us, until you factor in what everyone assumes is the real reason we're doing this all over again.
So we know the answers to your question:
Who from the CIA told her that?
The entire agency did, when they made the decision to remove the names of the AQ-affiliated groups.
That's what we need to know because they were obviously not doing there job.
Yes, they were.
No one it Libya thought it was from a video.
But that's not why they removed it. Additionally, at the time there were multiple intelligence reports that it did have something to do with the video. You're focusing on the specific people who thought it was 100% terrorism and no one else, leaving you with an incomplete picture.
Furthermore, Clinton called Hicks, but didn't even bothering asking him who committed the attacks.
This doesn't strike me as odd. She's talking to him at 2:00 AM on the night of the attacks.
Assuming it was an honest mistake to not think that was a good question to ask the man, it led to the false narrative of blaming a video being pushed for 2 weeks. These are problems that can't happen the first time. But they did and it needs to be fixed.
I really don't share your sense of immediacy, nor imagine that there's not going to be a fair amount of confusion when an embassy comes under attack on a night when there are anti-US protests all over the Muslim world.
You act as if the worst thing to happen here is that someone suggested the video had something to do with it, even while saying that we're still investigating, even while they had information that the video did have something to do with it. So, it's yet another place where most people see the usual amounts of after-action period confusion, with people try to nail down what happened, with lots of different agencies involved, which complicates the narrative. Whereas there's another side that says everyone should have accepted the version certain people had, and right away, and discount all the other information people had, and right away, and deliver that information to the public within days.
This is why the whole affair is such a head scratcher for most of us, until you factor in what everyone assumes is the real reason we're doing this all over again.
1) The CIA is made up of individuals with individual responsibilities. They are just a bunch of sheep who learn all their information from being herded together and set in front of a giant projector. Individuals wrote the report based on the work of other individuals. The whole thing was messed up and individuals can be to blame.
2) The fire department tells you, the police and the news crew that your house burned down because you didn't take care of faulty electrical wiring. Of course, the fire started on your back porch and accelerants were clearly used, making the electrical wiring claim completely illogical. (just like protestors used mortars). Witnesses who were their say there was a 100% chance it was arson, but the fire department doesn't bother to ask them that. You thing the fire department/ arson investigators did their job?
3) What was the point of calling him if she didn't find out valuable information? And why wouldn't she follow up to get more information? That would have been more reasonable then just making up that it was a video without knowing at all. Although I guess Hilary already answered those last two questions. She doesn't think it makes a difference.
4) The first time it was investigated Clinton just told us getting the truthful answers as to what really happened don't make a difference and that she can't remember anything else. The only reason the investigations continued is because 3 whistleblowers still haven't been asked by anyone about what happened that night. Unless these 3 witnesses took up their respective positions decades ago knowing they could help the GOP plot to bring down a Democrat President by making the administration look bad, I'm not really buying into your conspiracy that it's being drummed up to make Obama or Clinton look bad.
Hicks saying that Clinton never asked him about what happened is rather serious. His claim about the defense department lawyers is also very concerning.
Thompson says he was never given an answer as to why he calls for help were denied.
The 3rd whistleblower requested to be interviewed to help the investigation and his offer was declined.
I don't care what Republicans have to say, the fact that these statements came from the non-partisan whistleblowers is what matters. From no security increases at the building despite the fact that their were violent anti-US protest all over the Muslim world, to the denied request for reinforcements, to the disaster of an investigation, and so on. The administration sends out Rice to blame some video producer who put his work on Youtube over 3 months earlier, when that claim didn't even make sense at the time. With mounds of evidence making it clear it was an attack and nothing more than a guess that a video could have been involved, the administration had no business claiming it was a video. Any evidence of a terrorist attack was ignored in favor of blaming a video. And when they got caught telling something that wasn't true at all, they sent Clinton out to tell people it doesn't make a difference. And why this matters is a head scratcher to you?
-
I think you've answered my question, and it's that you're really invested in this being a conspiracy to mislead America, when it really was an interagency decision to not say anything definitive until all the facts were in, and to not tip off the groups who did it while we tracked them. You've completed ignored all of this evidence because it doesn't fit into your narrative, presumably so that you can keep your narrative.
You're perfectly free to be upset that certain people in the chain weren't asked or told certain things, but the fact that they weren't asked or told certain things does not strike me as a huge scandal, or even odd. Neither does the fact that they sent out Susan Rice to say basically, "We think this is how it happened, but we don't know yet" is a huge attempt to mislead and dammit, we need answers! That is the headscratcher, yes.
I find the whole episode entirely typical, much like any unfolding situation where the information isn't immediately clear. You're assuming that it was immediately clear because certain people said it was, while completely ignoring all of the other people who said that it wasn't clear. That's the only way you can say things like "Any evidence of a terrorist attack was ignored in favor of blaming a video." That's not what happened, and doesn't square with the reality the decision-makers were faced with at the time.
What's more, you still want to find out who in the CIA screwed up when what you're upset about is that not everyone immediately held the position you wanted them to hold, which is that it was a terrorist attack. The fact that some of the information they gathered suggested that it had something to do with the video, and that information was considered, is apparently what's bothering you. This is also a headscratcher.
Even more, you're upset that the intelligence community then made a judgment call about what to tell the public so they would maximize their chances of finding those responsible. Again, a headscratcher. This happens all the time.
In short, you're upset because everyone didn't immediately hold the opinion that this was a terrorist attack. Only in retroactive world does this make a lick of sense. You're trying to make this a willful attempt to mislead when it clearly isn't.
It's somewhat akin to demanding that the administration immediately call the Boston Marathon bombings Islamic terrorism the moment they discovered that the bombers were of Chechen origin. That ended up being the case, and that was some of the initial information they had, but they don't go out and say it definitively until they know, as there's a lot of information coming in at once.
-
And I'd ask you the same question Hillary asked, because I'd like to know: what difference does it make?
The biggest headscratcher in all of this is the notion, created out of whole cloth, that there was some vested interest in keeping the terrorism aspect of it from the public, even though the president is in the Rose Garden calling it an act of terror a day later. From there one the questions they're trying to figure out is whether it sprung out of the protests we saw all over the Muslim world or if it was something that was independent of the protests. That's what they were trying to determine, and we know they had conflicting evidence on this count.
Eventually it's determined that these were independent actors and it did not follow from the protests.
What difference does it make if we were told "we don't know" when we didn't know, and then told it was terrorism when we did know it was terrorism versus your version, where we call certain people and take their word for it, ignore the other information, and call it terrorism a few days earlier?
What difference does it make? And why are the intervening days of fact-finding a huge scandal? You're literally saying, "They should have said terrorism on Monday, when they said it on Friday!!"
Really. And this is why I used the Plame and US Attorneys examples up top. You guys have created this scenario where suggesting that perhaps they should have known it was terrorism earlier, and disclosed this to the public earlier, is a huge scandal. Well, perhaps they should have. But what difference does it make? What you're doing is setting up a means to have scandal where there isn't one to have.You feel if you can go back and point out who knew it was terrorism earliest - Hicks, etc. - then you can prove they were acting maliciously by not telling us what the people on the ground believed. This ignores that the fact that there are loads of people in the government who are also going to weigh in on this.
You've set the goalposts at "not a scandal" but think if you get to the goalposts you've proved we have a huge scandal.
-
'It might have been terrorism that grew out of the video protests. It might have been a pre-planned attack. We don't know yet. We're investigating.'
What difference does it make, in terms of a scandal, if it was terrorism that grew out of the protest or terrorism that was pre-planned? Why is their job to call it pre-planned terrorism as soon as they're told by some people on the ground that this is their opinion of what happened, and if they don't it's a scandal?
What difference does that make in the days after the attack? Tell me.
-
No. The president lied a week later. At least try to be honest about all this.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/05/08/obama-letterman-video-benghaz/
-
"I am veteran White House reporter Keith Koffler. I write White House Dossierbecause power requires accountability."
Come on, Heck. The spins stops here.
-
Cal, let's take a look at the track record of you and the rest of the board Republicans. These are some of the recent claims you've made. And this is just off the top of my head.
Obama actually born in Kenya. (Not true.)
Obama planning FEMA concentration camps. (Not true.)
Obama amassing civilian security force equal to the military. (Not true.)
Homeland Security buying up all the bullets to prepare for civil unrest. (Not true.)
Homeland Security buying up all the bullets to cause bullet shortage (Not true.)
Obama's books written by Bill Ayers. (Not true.)
Obamacare includes death panels. (Not true.)
Obama is a Muslim. (Not true.)
ACORN stole the election. (Not true.)
Obama ordered Labor Department to fudge jobs numbers before election. (Not true.)
Obama wants to confiscate your guns. (Not true.)
Obama DOJ quashed Black Panther case. (Not true.)
Obama/someone in the Oval Office ordered talking points on Benghazi changed to protect president/election effort. (Not true.)
Obama and Democrats engaged in widespread voter fraud. (Not true.)
Obama responsible for Monsanto Protection Act. (Not true.)
Obama White House threatened Bob Woodward. (Not true.)
I wish you luck this time.
-
no embarrassment at all, she lied. She lied because she repeated a lie.over and over and over and everyone, I mean everyone, knew it was bullshit. Even the guys on the left don't believe it, just you.
and I don't think you really believe it it's just that you have to defend did ministration no matter what.
if you want to explain it by saying she's just a stooge, fine I'll buy that.
they probably headed that script to Hillary and she told them to get bent.
WSS
-
Steve, last time this came up you said she's a liar or a fool or both, and that the talking points were changed by one of Obama's handlers. Of course, then we found out the talking points came from the intelligence agencies, were not touched by the White House, and that she worked off of those. So, you were dead wrong on both counts.
I see that none of this information sunk in. You're back to the same point - she's an idiot or a liar.
"Sticking to the intelligence community's cleared talking points = lying" in your world. I'm glad I don't live in your world.
-
bud fool stooge or liar are the only options. That's all there is to it.
there's not even one MSNBC analyst willing to say that it was true.
do you think it was the truth?
I don't and nobody but you does if you really do. Let's hear it.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login