I was wrong about Benghazi

[Guest Raidne]

I would be remiss if I did not come out and flatly say that this Ben Rhodes stuff is, to the best of my memory, eerily consistent with FLOW's opinion in the anti-Muslim video threads.

I just didn't think that argument made any sense at all at the time, because it sounded like the kind of bullshit that a 35 year old aspiring writer with a novel-in-progress titled Oasis of Love about a woman who breaks her husband's heart by joining a megachurch in Houston would come up with.

And it is.

[Sci-2]

@Jon Sprunk:

My only point was to refute the idea that the deaths in Libya are an expected/inevitable result of the War on Terror. Basically disagreeing with you here:

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."

I think this is separate from the discussion about whether or not there is a cover up or whatever the scandal is supposed to be.

My understanding of FLOW's argument is that the overall strategy pursued by the Obama administration was flawed, something he's already posted about in this thread. So you can fight a War on Terror without expecting the deaths of diplomats.

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?

I think this fails to explain the incidents of other places in the world where Islamic fundamentalism has led to violence, and it doesn't account for the issues terrorist and fundamentalist groups have with US support for Israel or their stated goals in radically transforming the nature of government and society in countries where is Islam is either not the dominant faith or is limited to some degree by secularism.

[Shryke]

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.

No, you can't. You can prove that there was information going around that the Administration did not release. What you cannot prove is that they were the most credible facts at the time, nor what the reasons for the decision to release the facts they did were. Nor can you prove your own pet theory on why they released what they did, which seems to underpin your entire belief and attitude around this thing.

And this is the problem. You are working on a rather elaborate theory of who edited what when for what reasons. And then are getting all pissy that alot of other people aren't buying it because they don't think your chain of logic holds (no matter how you try and stretch the use of the word prove) and thus look at the same situation and don't see anything.

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:

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.

Um, ok? I'm not seeing what you are on about here either, nor what this proves.

Also, on what grounds are you basing your assumption that Rhodes had ultimate determination on the contents of the talking points?

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.

Because you referenced it but didn't link it so we've no clue which link you were referring to. We can't read your mind Raidne, so drop the fucking attitude.

[Shryke]

I would be remiss if I did not come out and flatly say that this Ben Rhodes stuff is, to the best of my memory, eerily consistent with FLOW's opinion in the anti-Muslim video threads.

I just didn't think that argument made any sense at all at the time, because it sounded like the kind of bullshit that a 35 year old aspiring writer with a novel-in-progress titled Oasis of Love about a woman who breaks her husband's heart by joining a megachurch in Houston would come up with.

And it is.

Yes, this actually clarifies most of this thread now. It's much easier to understand your rambling when you finally tell us what your assumptions actually are here.

[Seli]

Hmmm, what is the correlation between people who think armed guards/teachers are a solution and those who think an attack like Benghazi could have been prevented with more guards/intelligence?

It is a mess out there and attacks and deaths will happen as long as you have people out there on the ground. And without those people making connections I cannot see how the situation can ever improve.

[Jon Sprunk]

So you can fight a War on Terror without expecting the deaths of diplomats.

Not the way we're "fighting" it. We have enemy combatant groups across the region and diplomats in the field. It is not logical to assume that the diplomatic teams will not, from time to time, come under attack. I've pondered in other threads about the possibility of withdrawing all our non-military assets from the region, but the counter-argument is that then you can't do the kinds of interpersonal relationship-building that Stevens and many other people are very good at and which sometimes halt hostitilies before they begin. I don't have an answer for that, but I sure as hell know I can't both expect the US govt to have a role in that part of the world and then turn around and blame it when a fucked-up situation bites us in the ass there.

We have enemies. They will attack us from time to time. People will get hurt and sometimes die. This sucks, but there is no alternative unless we massively change what we're doing.

I think this fails to explain the incidents of other places in the world where Islamic fundamentalism has led to violence, and it doesn't account for the issues terrorist and fundamentalist groups have with US support for Israel or their stated goals in radically transforming the nature of government and society in countries where is Islam is either not the dominant faith or is limited to some degree by secularism.

It was simplistic, but also part of the truth. We had a hand in radicalizing some of the threats we now face. Not all of them, of course. Some people are just crazy, but others are reacting to the situation.

[Sci-2]

We have enemy combatant groups across the region and diplomats in the field. It is not logical to assume that the diplomatic teams will not, from time to time, come under attack. I

Apologies, I should have said these particular deaths didn't have to happen, not that we can create a strategy with zero risk to non-combatants.

So yeah, sloppy/hyperbolic writing on my part. In my defense I was leaving the computer to try the new bacon-potato burrito from Taco Bell. :-)

I've pondered in other threads about the possibility of withdrawing all our non-military assets from the region, but the counter-argument is that then you can't do the kinds of interpersonal relationship-building that Stevens and many other people are very good at and which sometimes halt hostitilies before they begin.

Personally I think there is a role for soft power, and it can potentially accomplish more when non-combatants are assigned to risky situations.

OTOH, I also believe that there is a danger in having overly high expectations on what soft power can accomplish against religious fanatics whose ideal world scrubs out competing belief systems.

I don't have an answer for that, but I sure as hell know I can't both expect the US govt to have a role in that part of the world and then turn around and blame it when a fucked-up situation bites us in the ass there.

But "part of the world" refers to a rather large area. Did we have to be in Libya? Did we have to be in Libya and put so much trust in local security? Did Stevens have to go to Benghazi on 9/11?

It was simplistic, but also part of the truth. We had a hand in radicalizing some of the threats we now face. Not all of them, of course. Some people are just crazy, but others are reacting to the situation.

I would agree that the US made various mistakes in its strategy. But I'm not sure how withdrawing from the War on Terror will suddenly cause a change of heart among those who seem content to inflict violence all over the world.

[Horza]

So you can fight a War on Terror without expecting the deaths of diplomats.

You can't do anything, anywhere of interest to your nation, without risk to diplomatic staff. It is a dangerous job. It was before 9/11, and not just for American diplomatic staff. Those risks should be mitigated where possible, but cannot be fully done away with, short of only having embassies to Sweden.

[Guest Raidne]

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.

Sadly, only the latter is true. Not going to have time to get to it for awhile.

Yes, this actually clarifies most of this thread now. It's much easier to understand your rambling when you finally tell us what your assumptions actually are here.

??? Everything I said on Ben Rhodes was breaking news in Raidne-land the moment I posted it. And I know I forgot to include the link to the article linked in the OP when I referenced again a few posts ago - that's why I responded to you and linked it again. I also let you know that it probably wasn't worth your time to click on the link and read it, because you purportedly already had read the whole article and decided it was trash. I have exhibited attitude in spades in this thread, but if you think that's an example of it, I can't help you.

[Guest Raidne]

But "part of the world" refers to a rather large area. Did we have to be in Libya? Did we have to be in Libya and put so much trust in local security? Did Stevens have to go to Benghazi on 9/11?

I hear you on this, but I also can't help but think of all that Stevens accomplished there, and how his accomplishments are necessarily premised on being accessible enough to be in danger.

In light of that, I think what we really need is a new hybrid kind of diplomatic staff for "expeditionary diplomacy." We have plenty of government roles that are known to carry a certain amount of risk in the CIA and elsewhere. I think if the risk is known and our diplomatic agents are trained to handle that kind of physical risk without changing the diplomatic nature of their role, I would be more comfortable with that sort of strategy going forward.

[Jon Sprunk]

Personally I think there is a role for soft power, and it can potentially accomplish more when non-combatants are assigned to risky situations.

OTOH, I also believe that there is a danger in having overly high expectations on what soft power can accomplish against religious fanatics whose ideal world scrubs out competing belief systems.

I would tend to agree with these generalities.

But "part of the world" refers to a rather large area. Did we have to be in Libya? Did we have to be in Libya and put so much trust in local security? Did Stevens have to go to Benghazi on 9/11?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Did we have to be in Libya? Nope, we could have let that ball sail right over our plate without swinging. And I kinda wish we had (let the EU handle it, if they could).

Per the local security, that sure looks like a fuck up now, doesn't it? But if it had worked without a problem, we'd all have good things to say about how nice it is for US diplomats and foreign locals to work so well together. Someone misjudged the situation, obviously. But rather than get down to who made the bad calls and why, some folks in our congress and in the media would rather chase down memos about talking points.

Did Stevens have to go? No idea.

I would agree that the US made various mistakes in its strategy. But I'm not sure how withdrawing from the War on Terror will suddenly cause a change of heart among those who seem content to inflict violence all over the world.

Suddenly? No. But over the course of years and decades, I think it would. More importantly, it would help us.

[Sci-2]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Did we have to be in Libya? Nope, we could have let that ball sail right over our plate without swinging. And I kinda wish we had (let the EU handle it, if they could).

Yeah, I don't have a definitive opinion on whether we should have been in Libya. I'd have to go back and read up on the events leading up to recent US involvement.

[i was simply noting there are various positions one can take with regards to US involvement, and various "levels of zoom" where we can ask questions. My set of "Did we" questions are not meant to be read in strident tone.]

Someone misjudged the situation, obviously. But rather than get down to who made the bad calls and why, some folks in our congress and in the media would rather chase down memos about talking points.

Oh, the supposed memo scandal is a separate issue in my mind. I'm more interested in the various levels of strategy we can examine/evaluate.

Suddenly? No. But over the course of years and decades, I think it would. More importantly, it would help us.

My gut feeling is that scaling back will be seen by terrorists as retreat, further emboldening them, in addition to leaving various terrorist groups more free to work on hurting Americans as well as people in other parts of the world.

[Guest Raidne]

Someone misjudged the situation, obviously. But rather than get down to who made the bad calls and why, some folks in our congress and in the media would rather chase down memos about talking points.

But...Ben Rhodes is the author of the email on the talking points? And the Deputy National Security Adviser who advocated intervention in Libya and wrote the President's address to the nation on the war in Libya.

How can these two questions be at odds with each other when they concern the same person?

Here is a profile of Rhodes in Mother Jones from March 2011, Obama Adviser Continues to Defend Stance on Libya; another one from Foreign Policy from August 2011; and a White House Press Briefing on Libya from March 2011 with National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes.

White House staff introduced him as the Deputy National Security Adviser for "Strategic Communications." Indeed. And look! An interview with Jake Tapper from March 2011. Hey, isn't he the guy who broke the story of the "real" Ben Rhodes talking points email???

[Shryke]

??? Everything I said on Ben Rhodes was breaking news in Raidne-land the moment I posted it.

I'm not sure how to parse this, but if it's in reference to your Ben Rhodes allegations above, I've still seen nothing to corroborate your belief in his being a big force behind whatever people think happened here.

ABC does a decent job on it in this section:

http://abcnews.go.co...=2#.UZRBArVlnGA

The early versions of the talking points, drafted entirely by the CIA, included references to the al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia and to previous CIA warnings about terror threats in Benghazi. State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about including those references in the talking points.

[...]

After some changes were made, Nuland was still not satisfied.

"These don't resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership," Nuland wrote.

A senior administration official said that Deputy CIA Director Mike Morrell agreed with Nuland's concerns and made the changes himself.

There is no email record, however, showing that Morrell shared Nuland's concerns.

Which seems to be about all we know. There's no indications Rhodes was behind the changes as you claimed. There doesn't seem much of anything definitive in the emails about who ultimately decided on the major redaction around 9:45am, other then that is seems to have involved the State Department and the CIA. And, possibly, the FBI since someone expresses concern about what the NSS will think. (which I think is the National Security Service here)

As another random point this article made me think of, I find this article a good example of why this story so often seems bullshit to me, because there's several parts of this article that I would call just badly done or slanted. Here for instance:

All 12 versions of the talking points, as previously reported by ABC News, say that the attack in Benghazi was "spontaneously inspired by protest in Cairo." In other words, all the talk of protests – which proved to be wrong – started with the CIA. What did get removed was the CIA's saying that it believed Ansar al-Sharia took part in the attack and that the CIA had warned of the terror threat.

Which isn't at all what I'd call an accurate reading of the talking points. It actually seems kinda like the reading the people in those emails were worried people would make.

[jarl the climber]

As another random point this article made me think of, I find this article a good example of why this story so often seems bullshit to me,

Thats kind of where I am with this, the administration did make some mistakes in handling the whole thing and an attack on an overseas diplomatic mission that results in the death of the ambassador and other personel does seem like it deserves some scrutiny. Still it seems like its becoming more of a partisan thing rather than something constructive.

[Guest Raidne]

And there it is. Page 63.

To whoever deleted the last post, surely if I can withstand countless pages of spurious bullshit on my inability to make any point when I'm repeating myself ad nauseum, lack of ability to make a substantive argument that isn't boring as fuck, commentary on my medication for genetic cognitive impairment, and insinuation that I'm violating my duties as a federal employee in absolutely 100% good humor, then I've earned the privilege, upon reviewing edits of the original talking points, edited down to the version ultimately released, and signed by Ben Rhodes, to cheerfully tell everyone who said all of the above to go fuck themselves? :)

Thank you.

[Guest Raidne]

In case anyone is really contrarian, CIA OPA tells FO and CIA FO that the final talking points are "where we are with the tweaks from Ben and Jake." (page 82)

Cue whinging about why all this even matters again, etc.

[Shryke]

And there it is. Page 63.

/looks at page 63

This is feeling more and more like communication is becoming impossible because we are looking at the same shit and you are deriving EXTREMELY different meanings from it then I am.

In case anyone is really contrarian, CIA OPA tells FO and CIA FO that the final talking points are "where we are with the tweaks from Ben and Jake." (page 82)

You mean the tweaks like "Consulate" becoming "Diplomatic Post" that occur on page 73 and 75?

So, again, same as above.

[Guest Raidne]

Nope.

But I think I can resolve your confusion - the document for the full text version on the NY Times webpage does not show electronic document page numbers, so I'm referring to the handwritten page numbers on the bottom of the page.

[Guest Raidne]

Also, page 97: "You should confirm with Ben that Susan can deploy tomorrow."