I was wrong about Benghazi

[Guest Raidne]

You know, some time ago, the whole incident in Benghazi happened, and Kouran posted about a conversation he'd heard between a couple state department employees, complaining about the treatment State was getting about the incident.

I was frustrated with the liberal response on the Board, which, to my mind, dodged the issue of what actually happened there in favor of buying the "who said what when" media narrative, like this post: "The entire discussion was one of semantics: whether or not he called it a "Terrorist attack". You just want to make it an issue of an "intelligence failure" because that's the more interesting question to you, I suspect. I personally don't think that failing to note a few guys picking up RPG's and guns meeting in the desert in a nation that is largely in chaos really constitutes a meaningful "intelligence failure" of any kind."

At the time, I thought that there was actually a valid national security reason for obfuscating the truth about what happened, and that was the reason we put forth the now indisputably bullshit extremist video story. I said: "The "video" story started with a CIA report to State. A CIA base (in a classified location) was hit. The FBI investigators were sent home. The investigation was delayed. It's all being put out there for national security reasons."

I turned out to be right about the CIA base. And about the CIA's role in providing security for State. From a Washington Post article on the talking points:

State Department officials could not disclose that one of the two U.S. sites attacked in Benghazi was run by the CIA because of its secret designation....Virtually every U.S. official assigned to Benghazi was based in the CIA annex — where the agency, not the State Department, was in charge of security.

But I was woefully wrong about the national security threat it raised. It was all an internal fight between State and CIA on whose fault the whole thing was. So more information was stripped out, and stripped out again, until we were left with the video narrative. In other words, right before an election, we were fed a Big. Fat. Lie. I should have known better. And that conversation K overheard makes more and more sense all the time.

[Seli]

For reference, the mention of the conversation I remember seeing:

http://asoiaf.wester...40#entry3737302

I work next to the State Department building and typically eat next to a lot of the State Department people. Several of them were talking on Thursday next to where I was setting. According to them the idea of the attack on the embassy being anything but a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 911 was beyond ludicrous.

Honestly I have rarely heard a group of people speak so negatively about the president or Sec State. Obviously that's a limited sample of 5 people who happen to work in the same department, but when the employees say things like, "the president got up there and lied on national tv" I tend to listen.

With the follow-up http://asoiaf.wester...80#entry3745934

So looks like those State Department guys knew wtf they were talking about. http://www.cnn.com/2...ml?c=homepage-t

Seems the White House, State Department, Pentagon, and Director of National Intelligence knew that the attack was claimed by Anwar Al-Sharia within 2 hours of the attack being reported. Nope, sure doesn't look like the White House was trying to play down a terrorist attack on 911.

edit: and one of the later Benghazi focussed threads:

[Sci-2]

It's Think Progress, which very pro-Obama, but here's Obama's Response

OBAMA: If this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down — that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later, we end up putting out all the information that in fact has now served as the basis for everybody recognizing that this was a terrorist attack and that it may have included elements that were planned by extremists inside of Libya.

Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down, for three days

? So the whole thing defies logic and the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly has a lot to do with political motivations. We’ve had folks who have challenged Hillary Clinton’s integrity, Susan Rice’s integrity, Mike Mullen and Tom Pickering’s integrity. It’s a given that mine gets challenged by these same folks. they’ve used it for fundraising and frankly, you know, if anybody out there wants to actually focus on how we make sure something like this does not happen again? I am happy to get their advice and information and council.

[Jon Sprunk]

But I was woefully wrong about the national security threat it raised. It was all an internal fight between State and CIA on whose fault the whole thing was. So more information was stripped out, and stripped out again, until we were left with the video narrative. In other words, right before an election, we were fed a Big. Fat. Lie. I should have known better. And that conversation K overheard makes more and more sense all the time.

Assuming your analysis is correct, I have two questions:

(1) who's to blame?

(2) Outside of inter-agency jockeying and a few people possibly losing their jobs, what does it matter? Those men were already dead. The govt was already investigating the attack. The people responsible were being sought. None of the various versions of the official talking points affected those things. It didn't matter which story you believed (CIA, State Dept, or Fox News), all that could be done about the attack was being done.

[All-for-Joffrey]

It's worth mentioning that attacks on US embassies and consulates aren't exactly unheard of. I believe Bush had at least 10 such attacks under his watch while this is Obama's first. While it was undeniably a tragedy, why the hell is Congress still talking about this shit when they can't even pass a budget?

[mcbigski]

While it was undeniably a tragedy, why the hell is Congress still talking about this shit when they can't even pass a budget?

The House has done their job with respect to the budget process, but it's Senator Reid and the Democrats in the Senate, who have the majority there, that haven't passed a budget for 3 years or so. The hearings last week were, if I'm not mistaken, House hearings, which makes your criticism misleading if not outright mendacious.

As to the why, at the least, that the administration blantantly put electoral concerns ahead of sound foreign policy, throwing the Libyan Prime Minister under the bus by contradicting his (true, as they knew) statement about the AQ affiliate's responsibility.

Personally, I find the stand down orders given to the soldiers in Tripoli to be interesting. If that was due to political calculation about 'optics' then that's far more damning still.

And Hillary lying to greiving parents about getting the film maker who was responsible for inciting the demonstration, even if it's not a crime per se, calls for a much better explanation on her part as to why lying was necessary.

My pet theory for blaming the video is that it allowed the Obama campaign and their embedded journolisters in the media to conflate Romney's criticism of the Egyptian Embassy's twitter nonsense with the death of Ambassador Stevens, and thereby go after Romney for politicizing that death, even though he didn't.

[The Anti-Targ]

So refresh my memory, what was the Big. Fat. Lie?

[Jon Sprunk]

and thereby go after Romney for politicizing that death, even though he didn't.

Uh, yes he did. This story was a "massive scandal" in the eyes of the Romney campaign (and some other repubs, too) from the moment it first hit the news media. For all the hoopla about Team Obama playing politics with Benghazi, let's not forget who actually tried to do it.

Romney overplayed his hand and it was one of the nails in the coffin of his campaign.

[Baitac]

I was one of the idiots who thought that the whole thing was a spontaneous reaction to the video. Idiot, idiot me.

[All-for-Joffrey]

I was one of the idiots who thought that the whole thing was a spontaneous reaction to the video. Idiot, idiot me.

Everyone (myself included) all over the world thought that for the first several days, unless I'm mis-remebering??

[The Great Walrus]

Personally, i think It's a distraction, to keep up the blood pressure of their base, trying to take attention from new highs in the stock market and continued reports about the idiocy of tax cuts and austerity.

Then there's the little problem of the future President Clinton. They're desperate for anything to attack her with.

[Phaing]

Everyone (myself included) all over the world thought that for the first several days, unless I'm mis-remebering??

Well, that was the meme' at the time, they even put the guy that made that video in prison. The pretext was that as a condition of his parole, this Christian Egyptian was supposed to stop making videos... which sounds kinda weird in the first place. The fact that he's still there is even nastier.

Anyway, the film itself was seem by less than 20 people at its one showing, and yet the story was sold, with the full backing of the White House (but hey, that's not Obama's fault, he's only the President when everythings A-OK) and further riots were inspired by the slew of apologies that followed this made-up story.

Meanwhile, the trail went cold... were any of the people who made the attack ever found, dead or alive?

Yes, embassies were attacked during the Bush years. IIRC, there were no White-house coverups regarding the motives behind them.

[Tears of Lys]

Well, seeing as how the stock market takes a dive if there's any big issue over there (but promptly recovers), that could be one reason for a cover-up. The economy is the thing, y'know. That's awfully weak, though, I know.

I've never understood clearly what the hell went on over there anyway. Still don't.

[Darzin]

The Daily Beast has an article saying that the republicans will try to impeach Obama over this, or perhaps over the new IRS thing, and that if they re-take the Senate that it might actually pass. I don't think the House Leadership is crazy enough to have a vote on this, or that the Republicans will take the Senate, but if this does happen then we have officially entered Banana Republic territory where you can impeach someone simply for not liking them.

[Samalander]

Do they need some kind of special majority to impeach?

[Prosesskrift]

Not being well informed on this issue, what is the big lie? I didn't quite understand the original post I think.

[Darzin]

Do they need some kind of special majority to impeach?

To pass articles of impeachment it requires a simple majority in the House, however to try and convict requires two thirds of the Senate so its not a realistic prospect that Obama would bee ejected from office. Still even the chance that a majority of the legislature might vote for impeachment on grounds of well nothing, is rather farcical and hopefully won't happen.

[Shryke]

It would also be an absolute shitstorm if the House even passed it. And almost all the shit would likely fall on the GOP's head, given the experience of the Clinton impeachment (on multiple levels).

There's no way it passes the Senate. Not unless there's a HUGE shift in it ... somehow. No Democrat is gonna slit his own throat that way.

[The Anti-Targ]

Oh I too must admit to having bought into the "it was a spontaneous reaction to the video" story. But I have an excuse: in my part of the world 9/11 pased without incident and this embassy attack took place on 9/12 without me thinking about the fact that it was still 9/11 in Benghazi until several days later, basically when it was pointed out that the attack occurred on 9/11..

On a positive note: we are probably immune to any 9/11 anniversary attacks as our 9/11 is the USA's 9/10, so any attack here wouldn't resonate in the country where anniversary attacks are supposed to get people all worked up. So, next 9/11 come on over for a visit.

[All-for-Joffrey]

Well, that was the meme' at the time, they even put the guy that made that video in prison. The pretext was that as a condition of his parole, this Christian Egyptian was supposed to stop making videos... which sounds kinda weird in the first place. The fact that he's still there is even nastier.

No part of his parole prohibited him from " making videos." The man was a fraud, con artist and identity thief. He was not allowed any internet access as part of the terms of his parole. He used the internet. He broke his parole. He's now back in prison where he belongs. Claiming he was put in prison for making the video is pure, unadulterated bullshit. He's an identity thief who swindled people out of billions, not some martyr whose first amendment rights are being repressed.

Anyway, the film itself was seem by less than 20 people at its one showing, and yet the story was sold, with the full backing of the White House (but hey, that's not Obama's fault, he's only the President when everythings A-OK) and further riots were inspired by the slew of apologies that followed this made-up story.

Meanwhile, the trail went cold... were any of the people who made the attack ever found, dead or alive?

Yes, embassies were attacked during the Bush years. IIRC, there were no White-house coverups regarding the motives behind them.

Christ your version of events is incredibly skewed. There's this thing called the internet that makes things go viral without large screenings. Mr. identity thief's video went viral in the Muslim world sparking riots all over the place. You seem to have a case of selective amnesia so let me correct your memory. The protests and riots were happening for at least a week before the Benghazi incident (which IIRC, at the time people like you were trying to sell as "Muslim rage"), hence why pretty much everyone, including the government, believed that it was rioters as embassies were also targeted in places like Egypt. The video, the protests, and Obama's remarks on it (which were not an apology but a common sense statement addressing a stupid video that sparked widespread outrage) did nothing to spur further protests.