Who cares who Petraeus was boning, let's talk Benghazi

[Fez]

Well, you tell me what defines something as "silly" or not, and I will try to work within the confines or your definition. My working definition has always been something like "stretches credulity." I think what we're looking at here regarding the timing of the resignation and any Congressional testimony is more like "not facially implausible," i.e. requires further investigation.

But let me ask a straight out question - who here is in favor of investigative hearings on Benghazi, and who is not? Because that is personally what I want. Full investigative hearings with published findings.

Because there is no law, rule, custom, or tradition preventing private citizens from testifying before Congress if called upon, I find it incredibly unlikely to the point of being farcical that anyone would be ordered to resign to prevent them from testifying.

As for holding hearings, because of Congress' noted inability to multitask at any level, in light of the numerous challenges and decisions that require Congress' immediate attention, and secure in the knowledge that Republicans are only doing this to attack the character of Susan Rice and other members of the Obama administration, I do not support the Republican plan of full hearings.

[Sci-2]

The self-referential aspects of this thread, as related to Gen Chat, are somewhat amusing.

Full investigations into when we posted and why!

Publish conclusions on who is biased and who is fair and balanced!

:-)

[Guest Raidne]

Because there is no law, rule, custom, or tradition preventing private citizens from testifying before Congress if called upon, I find it incredibly unlikely to the point of being farcical that anyone would be ordered to resign to prevent them from testifying.

Well, the procedure is that witnesses are "invited" to testify. Sometimes they refuse. Then a subpoena must be issued. Procedure varies amongst committees - in some, the Chair can issue a subpoena, others require a majority vote. The Senate Intelligence Committee is one of the latter. http://www.fas.org/s...misc/R42361.pdf (see page 8).

So there's one additional barrier to testimony that didn't previously exist. But, now Petreaus has agreed to testify, possibly as soon as Friday (that WaPo article you quoted said Wednesday, and then, further down, Thursday, so later all the time - the administration's position, as noted in that article, is that his testimony is not necessary). Was some kind of agreement reached about the scope of the testimony, preventing the need for a subpoena? No idea. I'm definitely interested to see what happens.

Patreaus has a number of rights as a witness, all summarized in this Forham Law Review article, "The Rights of a Witness Before a Congressional Committee": http://ir.lawnet.for...ional hearings"

These include the right against self-incrimination (which, if there were prisoners, would be applicable) as well as executive privilege, particualrly strong where state secrets are involved. The 5th Amendment defense comes out of the HUAC hearings, while assertions are executive privilege are more rare. There are also limitations regarding "pertinency."

For the layperson, this OIG guide on how to behave as a witness before a Congressional committee is interesting reading: http://www.ignet.gov...dp/sp022730.pdf Plus it's called "Crouching Hearing, Hidden Legislation." Points for style.

So no, back to your original point, I don't think asking these questions are silly. As there are laws, customs, and traditions limiting testimony, and all of them are much more easily available to a private citizen than the acting Director of the CIA, is there another reason you would say this point of view is "silly"?

As for holding hearings, because of Congress' noted inability to multitask at any level, in light of the numerous challenges and decisions that require Congress' immediate attention, and secure in the knowledge that Republicans are only doing this to attack the character of Susan Rice and other members of the Obama administration, I do not support the Republican plan of full hearings.

What does "full hearings" mean? Open hearings? Joint hearings? Or just any investigative hearing? Are you okay with an "oversight" hearing, but not an investigative hearing? What are you saying here? I want an investigative hearing and a report, like the 9/11 commission. I understand the need for hearings to be closed and I don't care if they are joint or not.

[Ser Greguh]

Raidne,

You misinterpreted my statement then and I see that you are continuing to do so. Perhaps it was inartfully phrased, but the underlying point is that comparing an attack that took place on US soil and that killed nearly 3000 people, and an attack that occurred on foreign soil, in the terrorist cell's almost-literal backyard, and that killed 4 people, as though they are obviously comparable from an intelligence standpoint, is a bit absurd. The logistics involved in the 9/11/2001 attack were to move 19 militants, all willing to die for the cause, into the US, to get four of them trained as pilots, and to get tickets on the same four flights, all under the nose of a very capable Intelligence community that is very much concerned with such dealings. It took years of planning.

The logistics involved in the 9/11/2012 attack were, I would bet, more along the lines of what our military does in an average pre-mission briefing. A group of well-armed and apparently competently-trained militants stormed a largely undefended building, took them by surprise, killed four Americans, and chased the remainder to a more secure location where they organized a follow-up attack, engaged in intense fighting for several hours, but inflicted no further casualties. The attack was only really noteworthy because of the target. It wasn't a "spectacular" like 9/11/01 was (to use the terrorist vernacular), it was a far more conventional attack. It wouldn't have required much planning. It wouldn't have occurred with much warning.

They were two very different events.

Your equivocation of the two attacks is actually painful to watch unfolding in real-time. Your argument appears to be, quite literally, that because we were attacked on both 9/11/01 and 9/11/12, and because Americans were killed, that there were obvious equivalencies in the degree of "intelligence failure" in failing to predict those attacks. Worse, you appear incredibly anxious to deride anyone who dismisses your equivocation as doing so in furtherance of your pet theory, of late, that every liberal on these boards but you is somehow in the tank for Obama and thus unwilling to criticize his administration to the degree with which we criticized GWB. This is nothing short of mind-boggling.

[Kouran]

Because there is no law, rule, custom, or tradition preventing private citizens from testifying before Congress if called upon, I find it incredibly unlikely to the point of being farcical that anyone would be ordered to resign to prevent them from testifying.

As for holding hearings, because of Congress' noted inability to multitask at any level, in light of the numerous challenges and decisions that require Congress' immediate attention, and secure in the knowledge that Republicans are only doing this to attack the character of Susan Rice and other members of the Obama administration, I do not support the Republican plan of full hearings.

Yep only Republican wingnuts looking into this matter. No sirree not one pissed off Democratic Chairwoman looking into it at all:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/politics/petraeus-congress/index.html?hpt=po_c2

Lets play quote CNN shall we:

Washington (CNN) -- An angry Dianne Feinstein, the Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman, warned again Monday she would investigate why the FBI did not notify oversight committees about its investigation into CIA Director David Petraeus after the bureau determined he was having a secret and risky extramarital affair.

"... A decision was made somewhere not to brief us, which is atypical," the California Democrat told NBC's Andrea Mitchell about how the top Democrats and Republicans on the House and Senate intelligence committees are usually briefed on key developments. "This is certainly an operationally sensitive matter. But we weren't briefed. I don't know who made that decision."

One specific national security concern deals with whether Paula Broadwell, the woman with whom Petraeus had an affair, was privy to classified information. In a speech at the end of October, Broadwell suggested the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, took place because the U.S. was housing Libyan prisoners there -- a theory, she noted at the time, that had not been vetted yet.

"I do not know how she got that information," Feinstein said. "We should find out." The claim by Broadwell has since been discounted by administration officials.

Yep totally the Republicans on a witch hunt.

[SerMixalot]

The questions you should be asking:

1. Why is the US continuing to utilize black sites?

2. Why is the FBI permitted to search and obtain a private citizens emails without a warrant?

But, carry on.

[Fez]

snip

I'm very familiar with congressional hearing, thanks. In grad school I took a class with a lobbyist who literally wrote the a book on the subject.

And unless you're suggesting the US government is now blackmailing Peteraus in some way, what would stop him from testifying that he was pressured to resign to reduce the functionality of his testimony? That's the sort of announcement that could bring down an administration; seems like a rather imbalanced risk v. reward there. And if you are suggesting the government is blackmailing one of its own former top generals, that's some serious tinfoil fuckery right there.

As for investigations, I'm fine with oversight, that's Congress' job. But anything beyond the usual scope of its duties, for instance a dedicated commission or special investigative hearings, would seem a bit too taxing on their abilities considering how little they can get done as is.

[Guest Raidne]

Once corrected on the timeline she adjusted her position, but not before attacking myself and some others on it rather aggressively.

Oh, I mentioned this in the other thread, but on the information that's been out since the 1st, in that NY Times article that was linked, the timeline has been updated since then. I couldn't find the source that I thought said the annex was under attack at the same at the consulate - it looks like it was all mixed up at first because there were several attacks:

(1) 9:40pm - initial attack on the consulate, several waves, intensifying after the arrival of CIA personnel - Smith is killed, Stevens cannot be found

(2) 11:56pm - attack on the annex with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire - this stops at 1:01am

(3) 5:15-5:26am - attack on annex with mortar fire - Woods and Doherty are killed.

What Senator Feinstein said is that "We have been very proud that over the time from 9/11 the stovepipes have been down, the intelligence has been better analyzed, has been red teamed, it's been passed on. We have a national security branch of the FBI. We have a Counterterrorism Center, and all of the above. Now, the question comes, how does that all really work? This is a live incident. To show something went wrong in the assessment. And, I want to see exactly what it is." And I agree with her.

I also still think it's possible that AlQ had inside information. Not "deep within the CIA." Be real. This is a CIA operation trying to locate weapons. They talk to locals, they have local agents, informants, we all have a general idea of how this stuff works. Some of these agents may have been double agents or just passed along information - not such a stretch, we've had Afghanis who supposed to be on our side, armed and trained by us, shoot at our people. Or maybe they didn't, and they just set up that 5am attack only knowing the location since midnight. That's the question I'm interested in asking.

[Guest Raidne]

Your equivocation of the two attacks is actually painful to watch unfolding in real-time.

I certainly have not equivocated 2001 to 2012. There is nothing similar about them. Show me where I did.

I have compared the Benghazi attack to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole because I believe those attacks were similar in scope and planning and the differences in the aftermath and investigations are revealing. Honestly, I work with people who lost friends at the Pentagon on 9/11 and that motherfucker GWB was handed a damn briefing on the risk posed by bin Laden when he took office and did jack shit. GWB is my vote for the worst President of all time, hands down. 9/11/2012 is an intelligence failure that should be addressed to ensure our continuing safety. Investigative hearings should be done on behalf of the public, the people who pay for all this stuff. A report should be published, and we should get to know what happened and why it won't happen again, as asked by Senator Feinstein.

[Guest Raidne]

I'm very familiar with congressional hearing, thanks. In grad school I took a class with a lobbyist who literally wrote the a book on the subject.

Not be nitpicky, but if your professor was the esteemed author of "A Practical Guide to Testifying Before Congress" (customers who viewed this book also viewed Words that Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear), why did you say something wrong on the subject about which you are such an expert, namely that there is nothing preventing private citizens from testifying at Congressional hearings?

And unless you're suggesting the US government is now blackmailing Peteraus in some way, what would stop him from testifying that he was pressured to resign to reduce the functionality of his testimony? That's the sort of announcement that could bring down an administration; seems like a rather imbalanced risk v. reward there. And if you are suggesting the government is blackmailing one of its own former top generals, that's some serious tinfoil fuckery right there.

I don't think Patreaus is particularly eager to personally testify to the specifics of his own fuck-up, do you? Best thing for him, he gets out of this as a guy who fell on his sword for having an affair that nobody thinks was really that wrong and preserves his chance of running for office in 2016. The pickle for the administration, I think, is how to dismiss the guy responsible without admitting to anyone that anything wrong happened that anyone was responsible for. This is working pretty well so far - we'll see how the hearings progress.

And apologies for the posting in triplicate, just missed responses the first and second time around.

[Fez]

Not be nitpicky, but if your professor was the esteemed author of "A Practical Guide to Testifying Before Congress" (customers who viewed this book also viewed Words that Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear), why did you say something wrong on the subject about which you are such an expert, namely that there is nothing preventing private citizens from testifying at Congressional hearings?

I didn't. There is nothing. And nothing you posted suggested there is. There are different rules to it, but that doesn't prevent anything.

I don't think Patreaus is particularly eager to personally testify to the specifics of his own fuck-up, do you? Best thing for him, he gets out of this as a guy who fell on his sword for having an affair that nobody thinks was really that wrong and preserves his chance of running for office in 2016. The pickle for the administration, I think, is how to dismiss the guy responsible without admitting to anyone that anything wrong happened that anyone was responsible for. This is working pretty well so far - we'll see how the hearings progress.

If you think he was dismissed because of Benghazi, that's one thing. I don't think that's true either, but I have no way of knowing and I wasn't trying to refute it. I was refuting that he was pressured to resign simply to prevent him from testifying (which is a RW meme going around), because, viola, he's testifying.

Again, I have to ask for clarification - what about regular investigative hearings? As far as I can tell, investigative hearings are a normal function of Congress. Is this something you support, or no? Right now, we merely have an "inquiry."

There are 313 million Americans. I think its very sad that 4 of them died due to enemy actions and I think those enemies should be brought to justice. However almost 7,000 Americans die every single day and while plenty of those are not preventable, a fair number of them are. I'd rather Congress focus on them, as well as the issues affecting the 313 million of us hanging around. If those issues were taken care of, or if I trusted Congress to be able to do a lot of different things at once, sure they can indulge in some wankery over Benghazi. As is, its a waste of time and an attempt to distract the media, and by extension the American public, from the important issues of the day. It didn't work during the election and it doesn't seem to be working now (most people like the sex scandal stuff but that's it), but Republicans keep on at it because they are nothing if not persistent.

[Thlayli]

Full investigations into when we posted and why!

To the best of my recollection, I started posting on this topic yesterday in the other thread. I made no reference to a specific conspiracy to my knowledge and concede that I did willfully and repeatedly ignore any warnings about derailing the topic. Any statements I may or may not have made came straight out of my bottom. But I was posting from the heart.

[Ser Greguh]

I certainly have not equivocated 2001 to 2012. There is nothing similar about them. Show me where I did.

It's obvious, to me at least, every time you accuse me or anyone else on the board of being "board partisans" who are apparently giving Obama a free pass on this when we're all-too-eager to attack GWB. That very clearly implies an equivalency between the events in your mind, else that forms a much more obvious reason for the difference in our reaction.

I have compared the Benghazi attack to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole because I believe those attacks were similar in scope and planning and the differences in the aftermath and investigations are revealing.

A bit incorrect, but closer. The attack on the Cole was still all about the planning; the attack in Benghazi obviously spoke more to the level of training.

Honestly, I work with people who lost friends at the Pentagon on 9/11 and that motherfucker GWB was handed a damn briefing on the risk posed by bin Laden when he took office and did jack shit. GWB is my vote for the worst President of all time, hands down.

And I sort of knew Sean Smith, one of the four killed in Benghazi, at least insofar as we both played the MMORPG EVE Online and he was a very well-known figure within the politics of that game, and I interacted with him a few times. The entire community of that game took his loss very hard, and stations within the game were re-named in his honor following the attack (you quite literally can't travel through more than a few sov 0.0 systems in the game without coming across a station renamed as "RIP Vile Rat"). So I don't fucking know where you get the fucking cheek to suggest that I am personally interested in not finding out the truth of what happened in that attack because I'm some kind of fucking Obama partisan, or why you're having such fucking difficult accepting that others are looking at the same fucking evidence that you're looking at and not finding any fucking kind of grand fucking conspiracy or anything that constitutes by any metrics I'm aware of, an "intelligence failure."

9/11/2012 is an intelligence failure that should be addressed to ensure our continuing safety. Investigative hearings should be done on behalf of the public, the people who pay for all this stuff. A report should be published, and we should get to know what happened and why it won't happen again, as asked by Senator Feinstein.

And nobody in this thread has suggested, in any way, shape, or form, that more information as to the nature of the attack as it is made available, would be a bad thing. We're just not into the assumption that it's necessarily a grand conspiracy of some kind without evidence to suggest some kind of grand conspiracy is the best explanation of what appear, at my first and subsequent glances, to suggest nothing of the sort.

It's one thing to suggest that you have evidence for your idea. It's another thing entirely to suggest that people are only rejecting your ideas because we're partisan.

[Sci-2]

To the best of my recollection, I started posting on this topic yesterday in the other thread. I made no reference to a specific conspiracy to my knowledge and concede that I did willfully and repeatedly ignore any warnings about derailing the topic. Any statements I may or may not have made came straight out of my bottom. But I was posting from the heart.

Wow, I can barely remember what I wrote in a post after I hit the "Post" button.

[Maltaran]

2. Why is the FBI permitted to search and obtain a private citizens emails without a warrant?

I thought they had a warrant?

[Kouran]

snip...

5) I think that the delay between the attack on the consulate and the attack on the safe house is perfectly consistent with the safe house being a target of opportunity, and that the attack on the safe house does not represent any particular level of military sophistication. To fire a mortar you basically need a mortar, a guy with a GPS, and something capable of basic euclidean geometry calculations that need not be more powerful than a graphic calculator.

Ok I am going to address this point in some detail. You can skip to the end if you want. The basic point is you're technically correct and yet very wrong on substance.

For example I can say you only need a computer and a million pounds of LOX and H2 to launch a space shuttle, while both of those are preconditions to a successful launch they are certainly not all inclusive.

The US and NATO use the angular mil as a measurement of arc when firing artillery. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_mil in the US military the common phrase is 1 mil = 1m at 1,000m thats a bit of an over simplification but is pretty close to the mark. Thus if you are 1 mil off the target in deflection, angle of fire relative to known azimuth, or off by 1 mil of elevation you will miss the target by 1 meter per thousand meters fired. In the US and NATO countries 1 mil = 1/17.78 of a degree.

Assuming your firing from a safe distance, like 1+ km away that means you need to be fairly tight on your placement of your adjustment round, because you are shooting what we call danger close, right over the heads of friendly forces.

You are correct that you need something capable of euclidean geometry, this of course ignores the fact that every lot of rounds is slightly different, the weight is different the burn time of the powder is different etc. You also just skipped right over weather as well, since humidity, air pressure, wind speed and direction all matter as well. So in fact you need the firing tables of the ammo you are using too if you want to do anything other than wild ass guess where the round is going to land. I dont suppose any ol jihadi is gonna be roaming the desert with his scimitar and a copy of what every country made the mortar rounds proofing tables though.

Here is a decent article that explains most of the effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_ballistics note that this deals a lot with direct fire ballistics but its all important anyway.

[SerMixalot]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/petraeus-fbi-gmail_n_2119319.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

Under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, federal authorities need only a subpoena approved by a federal prosecutor — not a judge — to obtain electronic messages that are six months old or older.

[SerMixalot]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/13/petraeus-surveillance-state-fbi

[The Progressive]

I think the major reason why most of the media and the public at large are scratching our heads at the insanity of the rightwing in their nitpicking about mortar accuracy and other tinfoil conspiracy theories about AQ's double agents in the CIA because American troops die almost everyday in Afghan whenever the Taliban get lucky at striking a NATO compound , but you really don't see the all the dumb bullshit from the rightwing about OMGINTELFAILURE!!!! OMGOBAMACOVERUP!!!! OMGSENATEINQUIRYNOW!!! when that happen in Afghanistan.

[Guest Raidne]

TGU - Can you explain the "price of doing business" thing for me? Do you mean our diplomatic staff was essential to our goals and had to stay, and be in harm's way, or something like that?

If you think he was dismissed because of Benghazi, that's one thing...I was refuting that he was pressured to resign simply to prevent him from testifying (which is a RW meme going around), because, viola, he's testifying.

I do, yes, and the fact that he is scheduled to testify does weigh against any argument that he resigned to prevent him from being subjected to testimony. The remaining question I'd like to resolve is whether there is any difference to the scope of questioning or any other implication of testifying as a private citizen or the current acting director of the CIA, like whether, say, the acting Director cannot plead the 5th for actions taken in the course of his official duties or something like that. This is not a question that I currently know the answer to, but I have a friend who might that I'll try to ask about it later. The other thing that raises issues there is that Feinstein wasn't informed of the investigation and his resignation through the usual channels, etc., which (weakly, yes) suggests something fishy.

There are 313 million Americans. I think its very sad that 4 of them died due to enemy actions and I think those enemies should be brought to justice. However almost 7,000 Americans die every single day and while plenty of those are not preventable, a fair number of them are. I'd rather Congress focus on them, as well as the issues affecting the 313 million of us hanging around.

I can understand that. For me, the Cole attack was a precursor to 9/11, and so I wonder what this may be a precursor to, and what problems need to be resolved to address those concerns. Apparently, Petreaus just wasn't as effective of a CIA director as Panetta, which is kind of surprising since Petreaus is credited with a much more involved management style.

It's obvious, to me at least, every time you accuse me or anyone else on the board of being "board partisans" who are apparently giving Obama a free pass on this when we're all-too-eager to attack GWB. That very clearly implies an equivalency between the events in your mind, else that forms a much more obvious reason for the difference in our reaction.

Honestly, can anyone be too eager to attack GWB?

I think you're misreading me here as I do not think there is any equivalency between the two events. I think many people here are giving Obama a free pass, yes. But that's it. No comparison to Bush or 9/11. You made that comparison in that bit I reposted upthread and explicitly said that it wasn't in response to anything I said. Nobody else has said anything like that either, so I'm guessing that the right-wing media is probably making that argument and you're transferring it over to people saying there was an intelligence failure here. Sound possible?

Just FTR, unlike Kouran, for instance, I generally think Obama is a fantastic President who has made some questionable decisions and has, by necessity, been a bit of a different President than I think he initially planned on being regarding transparency in governance, etc.

And I sort of knew Sean Smith, one of the four killed in Benghazi, at least insofar as we both played the MMORPG EVE Online...So I don't fucking know...why you're having such fucking difficult accepting that others are looking at the same fucking evidence that you're looking at and not finding any fucking kind of grand fucking conspiracy or anything that constitutes by any metrics I'm aware of, an "intelligence failure."

That truly sucks, I'm so sorry. He was killed, it looks like, before the CIA force even arrived. Are you not concerned about their failure to arrive earlier? It took them a half an hour to show up while, at best, two security officers tried to protect both Smith and Stevens. We don't know why, although I expect more details will come out on this with the investigation. At least I hope so. Maybe there was a good reason.

Lastly, an "intelligence failure" is just that - a failure to discover intelligence, like the knowledge that a second attack was coming, just like a security failure is a failure to ensure that people and assets are secure.

Why, and whether any individual is culpable or whether there was some sort of flaw (like the unofficial nature of the security arrangement between the CIA and the consulate, or something like that) remains to be seen. I think you are equating "failure" with "culpability," or at least reading that into my posts when I've tried to take pains to differentiate (see my earlier response to Arth).

We're just not into the assumption that it's necessarily a grand conspiracy of some kind....

Here, we agree.

I personally do not think there is evidence of any grand conspiracy. I think there was a pretty straightforward intelligence and/or security failure. You have said that you do not. But would you like to see a Congressional investigation, or no?