I was wrong about Benghazi

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

Folks, stay off the personal references and comments and stick to the points, please.

[/mod hat]

[Usotsuki]

Clever. Were it not said at the services for those killed in Benghazi I might agree.

That post took me about 8 seconds to write.

And almost every one of them shows, but it doesn't refute the point.

Hillary Clinton's statement was then, and is still, entirely factual. If you're going to demonstrate that she intended to deceive through context you are going to have to spend a little more time on your reply.

This took about eleven minutes by the way but that was mainly because I was trying to buy a jacket on eBay. (I failed).

[Shryke]

Of course, Susan Rice on Sept. 16:

And also, Hillary Clinton, at the transfer of remains ceremony on Sept. 14:

If Obama gave an accurate account during the "act of terror" Rose Garden speech, why weren't the family members of the deceased entitled to the same "accurate" version? Or at least a version that was equally inaccurate? Or at least didn't contain unreliable "preliminary" information?

Wait, what's the lie here? That's all consistent with the talking points chain we have. The Rice bit is even consistent with the bits that were edited out, since she mentions "extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution."

The administration suppressed "preliminary" assessments that were more credible than the "preliminary" assessments they released - and likely over the objections of the State Department.

Right, but you have to actually show this if this is, in your mind, the scandal here.

I think I've linked this article a few times now, but on page 2, Jen Psaki, the State Department's Chief Spokesperson says that Victoria Nuland - State's Chief Spokesperson at the time - raised concerns not only about the certainty of information and the ongoing investigation, but also "that the points were inconsistent with the public language the administration had used to date — meaning members of Congress would be providing more guidance to the public than the administration."

You didn't link an article here btw.

Also, I'm not sure what you think the problem is here.

Then there is the email chain ending with the response from Ben Rhodes on 9/14/2012. This information is taken from an article that was published less than 24 hours ago, so I could not have linked it previously.

Jonathan Karl reported the story from a source who quoted it from notes and could not obtain a copy of the original email chain. In it, Karl reported, Nuland wrote that information regarding prior threats in Libya:

The Rhodes response was reported by Karl as follows:

The version of the Rhodes response published by Jake Tapper of CNN reads like this:

That email shows Rhodes' response in entirety, but all the earlier email exchanges Rhodes was responding to are deleted.

Karl's source says:

Wonder what the State Department was upset about? Well, early on, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy said that "the attack appeared to be planned because it was so extensive and because of the “proliferation” of small and medium weapons at the scene," contradicting the later-released talking points.

Recall the conversation Kouran overheard between State employees back then also - nobody's going to ask you to take that on its face, but the protest that the video story is bullshit and unfair to State is consistent with the other evidence.

Furthermore, on the same program as Rice, the President of Libya's General National Congress said:

A September 14, 2012, CNN article also reported:

I think the administration was "aware" of the information the president of Libya's General National Congress had. From the 50+ related arrests he had made. And so on.

All of that information is available in sources already linked in this thread in posts specifically referencing this information.

Yes, but none of it actually shows anything except that there were disagreements about what exactly happened.

I mean, if your contention here is that they lied, you actually have to show that they knew the facts and then didn't release them.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Was Bush Jr responsible for 9/11? Hell, was Roosevelt responsible for Pearl Harbor? Sheesh. Get a grip.

You're focusing on the wrong word. The critical word is "unpredictable". If you follow the communications in the months leading up to 9/11, it was absolutely clear to everyone that Benghazi was an incredibly dangerous place for western diplomats. It was so bad that the British withdrew after their consul's car was subjected to a rocket attack. There were written reports from Stevens saying that order in the city was breaking down, that the militia who were supposed to protect our consulate were unreliable and infiltrated, and that the security staff assigned to the facility was not adequate to protect it. Put all that in a place where there are known anti-western radicals, heavily armed, who had previously attacked western diplomats, and an attack on our consulate that resulted in dead Americans is hardly something that came out of nowhere. Yet, the spin was that everything there would have been perfectly fine except for this video that couldn't be blamed on the Administration. That's just bullshit -- everything there was not fine, and everyone knew it.

Facing that known, highly dangerous situation, we had some options:

1) pull them out, like the Brits, and instead operate out of Tripoli. After all, that facility has been abandoned since 9/12, and the universe hasn't ended;

2) strengthen our security presence there to make it more able to resist attacks;

3) Move quick response assets closer to Libya (Sigonella), and keep them on a heightened state of alert in the event of an attack;

We did none of that. We just left them sitting there until an attack that, if not inevitable, was probably likely, overwhelmed our defenses and killed our people.

[Shryke]

I don't get that either. The "correct" email is supposedly better because it mentioned "equities" rather than "agency equities". But wtf kind of bureaucratic mumbo jumbo is that anyway? Maybe they were concerned about the investigation. But that input isn't coming from the FBI that is going to be conducting the investigation. It's coming from the White House.

That's not the whole change though. It's from:

We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.

To:

We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

The change in emphasis here is rather obvious I would think. The initial phrasing made it sound like this was about the State Department (and hence why people jumped on it). The later version makes it much more general and emphasizes the investigation, not the State Department.

Karl is saying the rest of the email chain makes the context obvious, but the email itself is still much broader in language then the original report.

Karl's source claims this as the sort of smoking gun:

The official who provided this e-mail to CNN removed the other e-mail exchanges from other principals. That includes anything written by Nuland, who – as I reported – objected to a paragraph in the draft talking points that referenced prior threats against US and other foreign interests in Libya.

In that e-mail, according to source, Nuland wrote that such information “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph Nuland was “concerned” about was removed in its entirety. That e-mail has not been disputed by the administration.

The specific warnings in the talking points, however, are in reference to the Cairo Embassy. The references to Libya are rather more vague ("The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to AQ in Benghazi and Eastern Libya"). We don't know what those pieces consisted of though.

And as you pointed out with respect ot the CIA willing to make those talking points public, claims of a need for secrecy as to those particular statements didn't exist. There was nothing removed from that initial CIA talking points memo that could possibly have compromised an investigation:

1) the fact that there had been previous attacks in Benghazi against diplomats was widely known, and not controversial. Including that in talking points could not possibly have compromised the investigation when everyone in the area already knew that.

2) the fact that there were large numbers of weapons and fighter in Benghazi also was public knowledge, and could not have compromised the investigation.

3) Ansar Al-Sharia had publicly claimed responsibility on Facebook shortly after the attack, so stating that they were a subject of the investigation would have been based on publicly-available information. And that's ignoring that by that time --before the memo had even been drafted the first time -- that TV interviews with locals had them saying that trucks with the Ansar Al-Aharia logo were unloading fighters who were participating in the attack. So again, there's no conceivable argument that mentioning this publicly available information -- commonly known in the region -- could have compromised the investigation in any respect because it's all based on publicly available information..

ETA: Not to mention all the stuff coming from Libya itself assigning blame to terrorists, which just further demonstrates that no valuable intelligence would have been disclosed by the initial draft. So why delete the language?

When talking about what could compromise the investigation and the reasons for editing stuff, jumping on an initial assumption about the motives of the attack could well be seen as prejudicing the investigation.

The editing seems to have been done in 3 spots:

1) Remove references to threats against the Cairo embassy

2) Remove references to the possible participation of Islamic extremists and their general presence in the region (ie - not saying "there's a bunch of people running around Libya who are extremists and have weapons")

The second part is the one in contention it seems and would seem to be easily related to not jumping to conclusions. And that is, btw, consistent with statements from the administration, including the above mentioned Nuland.

Also, the talking points say that the leaders of Ansar Al-Sharia denied planning the attacks. That was removed at an earlier time too.

[Shryke]

You're focusing on the wrong word. The critical word is "unpredictable". If you follow the communications in the months leading up to 9/11, it was absolutely clear to everyone that Benghazi was an incredibly dangerous place for western diplomats. It was so bad that the British withdrew after their consul's car was subjected to a rocket attack. There were written reports from Stevens saying that order in the city was breaking down, that the militia who were supposed to protect our consulate were unreliable and infiltrated, and that the security staff assigned to the facility was not adequate to protect it. Put all that in a place where there are known anti-western radicals, heavily armed, who had previously attacked western diplomats, and an attack on our consulate that resulted in dead Americans is hardly something that came out of nowhere. Yet, the spin was that everything there would have been perfectly fine except for this video that couldn't be blamed on the Administration. That's just bullshit -- everything there was not fine, and everyone knew it.

Facing that known, highly dangerous situation, we had some options:

1) pull them out, like the Brits, and instead operate out of Tripoli. After all, that facility has been abandoned since 9/12, and the universe hasn't ended;

2) strengthen our security presence there to make it more able to resist attacks;

3) Move quick response assets closer to Libya (Sigonella), and keep them on a heightened state of alert in the event of an attack;

We did none of that. We just left them sitting there until an attack that, if not inevitable, was probably likely, overwhelmed our defenses and killed our people.

Except that wasn't the spin. That's your extremely hard spin on what was said. Because at no point can I find anyone saying that the area was totally safe and no one would have been hurt if it weren't for those meddling kids that damn video.

The video is referenced in that at the time, the attack was believed to have arisen as a spontaneous response to the protests in Cairo over the video. And that's it. (Notably, this part of the talking points is in from the very start and never changes. Apparently everyone agreed on that front.)

[Shryke]

What is the evidence of that? Charlene Lamb, the State Department official responsible for embassy security who personally made the decision to turn down the Benghazi request for more security, testified that budget cuts or a lack of funds had nothing to do with her decision. State even had over $1B in unspent funds in other accounts that it could have used if it determined the situation was that risky. It didn't, until after the attacks. No additional money was authorized by Congress.

Do you have a link for this? I can't find anything about unspent funds that could have gone to security.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

google it yourself

[Shryke]

google it yourself

I did. Nothing came up.

Like, what in the heck do you think that second sentence meant?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Don't know what to tell you. Google benghazi security unspent funds. Bunch of stories about State making the request to use unspent funds only in December 2012.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And of course,there's Lamb's direct testimony on this exact point about poor security not being due to a lack of funds. I assume you found that.

[Jon Sprunk]

You're focusing on the wrong word. The critical word is "unpredictable". [...]

And Bush Jr's administration had a lot of warnings about a possible terrorist attack. And there are theories that Roosevelt's admin had more than an inkling that the Japanese might attack. So I ask you again. Are these presidents responsible for those attacks if their admins had some idea that an attack might, possibly, happen?

(Hint: The answer is no. Just as a woman in a tight dress is not responsible for rape. The fault of the attack falls completely on the attacker(s).)

Now, it sounds like you'd like to debate the merits of having a diplomatic presence in Benghazi. Fine. Everyone knew it was a dangerous spot before and after the fall of Khadaffi. Stevens and the other men knew it was dangerous. But if you're insinuating that the State Dept. knowingly sent them to their deaths, you're way off base. This was a breakdown in intelligence. It was horrible, and yet at the same time it's bound to happen from time to time when our country is involved in a guerilla war against "terror."

If Obama has "sinned" in this area, it's in continuing to prosecute a global war against ideas that cannot ever be "won" and only serves to drain blood and treasury from the U.S.. If you want to claim that, I'll back you to the hilt.

[Sci-2]

If Obama has "sinned" in this area, it's in continuing to prosecute a global war against ideas that cannot ever be "won" and only serves to drain blood and treasury from the U.S.. If you want to claim that, I'll back you to the hilt.

That's one way to look at it.

There's also the argument is that the mistake lies in thinking that fundamentalists can be won over via soft power, or at least the point that demonstrations of soft power should not come before ensuring the security of our own citizens.

I actually would [also] argue that the global war is against people who want to destroy the varied civilizations which includes the West. If terrorists were happy to hate America from afar there wouldn't be a war.

[Shryke]

Don't know what to tell you. Google benghazi security unspent funds. Bunch of stories about State making the request to use unspent funds only in December 2012.

All I'm finding is shit like this:

After the Benghazi attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked Congress to help reallocate $1.4 billion that was no longer needed in Iraq - where the State Department has been scaling back operations after the departure of troops in 2011 - to pay for hardened security at diplomatic facilities elsewhere.

The money unspent seems to be earmarked for Iraq and can't be moved without congressional approval.

And of course,there's Lamb's direct testimony on this exact point about poor security not being due to a lack of funds. I assume you found that.

That I found once you mentioned her name. The problem is she just says budget cuts weren't the problem but mentions nothing about an extra billion sitting around, which is why it doesn't turn up when you search for that. Or any search at all.

[Usotsuki]

And for those of you with truly impressive amounts of free-time and a pharmaceutically enhanced ability to focus Barack Obama proudly presents the eagerly anticipated sequel to the Hunger Games complete Benghazi emails.

First one to finish gets to give Shryke a new custom title and three months in the rehab facility of Lindsay Lohan's choice.*

*adderall not included

[Shryke]

FLOW:

On Lamb's testimony:

Still, then-Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Charlene Lamb testified in October that the size of the attack -- and not the money -- was the issue.

Asked if there was any budget consideration that led her not to increase the security force, she said: "No."

She added: "This was an unprecedented attack in size." Asked again about budget issues, Lamb said: "Sir, if it's a volatile situation, we will move assets to cover that."

Asked Wednesday about Lamb's testimony, Clinton noted that the review board that examined the Libya attack found budget issues have played a role.

"That's why you have an independent group like an (Accountability Review Board), that's why it was created to look at everything," Clinton said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/24/budget-figures-challenge-clinton-claim-about-lack-funding-for-security/#ixzz2SjsGEamO

[The Anti-Targ]

So anyone gonna read those hundred pages they just released and come back here with an unbiased, objective summary?

Ha ha, unbiased and objective, I forgot for a moment where I'm posting.

[Jon Sprunk]

There's also the argument is that the mistake lies in thinking that fundamentalists can be won over via soft power, or at least the point that demonstrations of soft power should not come before ensuring the security of our own citizens.

If I'm following your point, I suppose that if there was correspondence from Stevens where he states outright that he feels unsafe and does not want to go to Benghazi, and an official reply from State ordering him to go anyway, I'd have to say that State official was a major dick and needs to be investigated/fired. Is anyone saying that? because what little I know about Stevens is that he was a great diplomat with a lot of Libyan support from the locals. I'm guessing he felt safe.

But none of this points back to a grand conspiracy hatched between Comrade Obama and BlackWidow Clinton to either cause or coverup the attack at Benghazi. None of it points to anything but a snafu -- which some of us have pointed out repeatedly has happened to every modern administration.

I'd still like an answer why Pres. Obama's admin is held to such an incredibly high standard, one that no other president could have lived up to.

I actually would [also] argue that the global war is against people who want to destroy the varied civilizations which includes the West. If terrorists were happy to hate America from afar there wouldn't be a war.

Perhaps if America wasn't camped in their backyard, propping up dictators and inflicting "collateral damage" on the local populations, these ideas might not find such fertile ground?

[Shryke]

And for those of you with truly impressive amounts of free-time and a pharmaceutically enhanced ability to focus Barack Obama proudly presents the eagerly anticipated sequel to the Hunger Games complete Benghazi emails.

First one to finish gets to give Shryke a new custom title and three months in the rehab facility of Lindsay Lohan's choice.*

*adderall not included

Still looking through these but I found the email Karl was talking about from Nuland on Pg 37 and the context makes it alot less damning than he claims imo. It's mostly comments about prejudicing the investigation. The part Karl mentions, from the replies to it, seems mostly to be about stopping Congress from getting the idea that they were warned about an attack on the consulate in Benghazi.

There's also alot of general concerns about misinformation.

I found a section around Pg 46 talking about the State Department having major reservations, but the revised document after that seems to still contain all the shit that was later redacted about extremists and such.

The heavy redaction occurs around Pg 62. It seems like some people thought they weren't bad, and then a guy called "CIA OPA" in the email came in and says "Nope, not for Congress yet". Then about half an hour later CIA OPA resends an email with the new heavily redacted version.

After that, "extremists may have been involved" gets tacked on to the end and it basically gets sent out like that.

Will continue reading. It's not terribly clear from my skimming who removed all the references to specific extremists or why though.

EDIT: Also, around Pg 51 there's references to "DOJ equities" and "State desire to run some traps" that I don't understand at all, but they say "safe to assume we can hold on this till tomorrow" because of it.

[Guest Raidne]

You didn't link an article here btw.

It's from the article I linked (1) in the OP and (2) again in another response to you. You already said it was useless and didn't prove anything, so does it really matter? Here is the direct link to the quote on page 2.

I mean, if your contention here is that they lied, you actually have to show that they knew the facts and then didn't release them.

I believe that Ben Rhodes, author of the "agency equities" email, Obama's foreign policy speechwriter, author of Obama's 2009 Cairo speech, and brother of the President of CBS news - whose self-described job is the Shaping of Obama's Voice - and who is now a 35 year old Deputy National Security Advisor - is the ultimate author of the video narrative that Susan Rice presented to the press.

I believe that this pissed off the State Department to no end and I believe that the CIA was not so cooperative.

I can prove that Ben Rhodes sent a 9/14/2012 email on the talking points that said they would "correct the record" from the "wrong information" getting out from "Congress." I can prove that the statements made by members of Congress were ultimately correct. I can prove that the White House knew everything members of Congress knew. I can prove that the White House knew everything the Libyan President was saying on U.S. television news broadcasts and national public radio. I can prove that State was unhappy with the talking points. And I can prove that Petraeus thought the talking points, in their final version, were useless.

So what I can prove is that the Administration did not release the most credible facts available. And they did not refrain from releasing any facts until they knew anything definitive. They released a "preliminary" version of the facts on the basis of criteria that is still unknown.

But as the ultimate determination on that criteria was made by Obama's foreign policy speechwriter, who has a very specific point of view on the Arab Spring and was probably already drafting Obama's September 25, 2012 remarks on the importance of free speech before the United Nations - his last "major address on a global stage before the November election" (which was written by Ben Rhodes), I think we can draw some pretty good conclusions.

And from that last linked September 25, 2012 NY Times article, check this out:

Benjamin J. Rhodes, one of Mr. Obama’s deputy national security advisers, worked on the speech, but as a starting point he had the president’s own thoughts after he learned of the attacks in Benghazi that claimed the lives of the four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

Mr. Obama had accompanied Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to the State Department to console grieving employees there, and spoke off the cuff, a senior administration official said, about the devotion of diplomats like Mr. Stevens and the American ideals that they put themselves in the line of fire to uphold.

He returned to that subject at the United Nations on Tuesday. “There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents,” Mr. Obama told the General Assembly. “There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.”

Paging Mr. Wolfowitz, please tell me more about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. At least the fuck-up wasn't on that scale, but I can't ultimately say what damage was done to the situation in Libya.