This is what is referred to as minutia. When that top republican goes on the record and says that there was no CIA operation to arm Syrian rebels from that location... then we can all call this bullshit a hoax/conspiracy.
Certainly this was a significant incident - first time we've lost an ambassador since Carter. Also, attacks on ambassadors are usually effective only when they are moving; this was an exception.So what was the hoax? The facility was attacked. The CIA was using the complex to facilitate running weapons to Syrian rebels (who are believed now to have sold Steven Sotloff to ISIS groups) who now make up part of ISIS.
I haven't read much of this whole thread but my guess is it leftwing nuts whining about a republican conspiracy to make obama look bad.... but my God to deny that Benghazi was a significant incident in the continuing turmoil that is the middle east.... well it is just plain Liberal Brain Defectiveness.
Contrary to some of your talking points, the video was hardly obscure. It was well known throughout the Middle East and had even been reported as a leading story in major American media. The video had already prompted numerous protests throughout the Middle East, making it easy to assume it was a factor in the Benghazi attack. A New York Times investigation confirmed that the video was, in fact, one of the factors that prompted the attack. Finally, contrary to your insinuation, the very first draft of the CIA talking points reported the video as a likely cause. It was not something added later, as the points evolved.[ ... ]
Another is the story told after the event. The CIA talking points started out accurate, but evolved into blaming a non-existent riot based on an obscure video by (wait for it) an American. Susan Rice and Obama blamed the video for weeks even though the CIA had intercepts from Libyan terrorist groups calling for attacks against the consulate on 9-1-1 and intercepts right after indicating that they had been responsible for them. Whether you believe that the CIA talking points honestly evolved from right to wrong or guided for political benefit depends totally on the letter after your name, but either way this is politics. ...
Yes, but that has nothing to do with what I said now, does it?The talking points were pure political spin by the White House and State Department. The Obama administration blatantly lied when they said that references to terrorist involvement in Benghazi were not deleted at their request. We find out the truth later from Nuland that the State Department wanted those references deleted regarding the attacks being linked to al-Qaeda and the CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack. Nuland said those talking points "could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up on the State Department for not paying attention to warnings." Liars lie.
The talking points were pure political spin by the White House and State Department. The Obama administration blatantly lied when they said that references to terrorist involvement in Benghazi were not deleted at their request. We find out the truth later from Nuland that the State Department wanted those references deleted regarding the attacks being linked to al-Qaeda and the CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack. Nuland said those talking points "could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up on the State Department for not paying attention to warnings." Liars lie.
I did not quote you as was not speaking directly to you or in regard to your post directed at Werepossum. Perhaps that may help explain your confusion about "that has nothing to do with what I said now", does it?Yes, but that has nothing to do with what I said now, does it?
I said from the beginning that I felt it was wrong to downplay the terrorist connection from the original talking points. I've repeated that criticism in this very thread, while noting that Rice was always careful to hedge her comments by making some reference to still investigating possible terrorist connections. She, and the administration in general should have been more forthcoming about this.
But that has nothing to do with my reply, correcting factual errors in Werepossum's comment. The video was not obscure, the video did trigger protests across the Middle East, and the very first version of the CIA talking points did, in fact, cite the video as a likely cause. Those are facts.
I did not quote you as was not speaking directly to you or in regard to your post directed at Werepossum. Perhaps that may help explain your confusion about "that has nothing to do with what I said now", does it?
The video point is moot in my opinion. We have clear evidence of the White House and State Department initially lying through their teeth as it is. I personally have difficulty trusting much of anything they say anymore.
We will never know exactly what transpired because the blame crosses party lines and branches out through various agencies. The investigation will go nowhere for that reason. But what has the left so riled up is the political implications. It will affect filling the top slot in November of 2016 because Republicans will not complete the investigation until it is politically convenient to do so.Bottom line, I see no particular conspiracy here except the normal attempt to bend reality to one's political advantage - something common to both parties - and I'm certainly no fan of Obama or Hilary.
Fair enough. I thought you were responding to my post.I did not quote you as was not speaking directly to you or in regard to your post directed at Werepossum. Perhaps that may help explain your confusion about "that has nothing to do with what I said now", does it?.
I believe that our people in Benghazi were sacrificed in an attempt to keep out of the public eye what our government was doing.
See Post #779.
Fair enough, but we knew at the time that the attack was a pure terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9-11. It had nothing to do with the video, which admittedly was part of the propaganda used to whip up anti-American furor. Bottom line, we knew when the administration put it out that there was no spontaneous riot, period. There were survivors who knew exactly what happened; the administration merely picked the least politically damaging, most politically advantageous story and evolved the talking points to reflect that narrative.Contrary to some of your talking points, the video was hardly obscure. It was well known throughout the Middle East and had even been reported as a leading story in major American media. The video had already prompted numerous protests throughout the Middle East, making it easy to assume it was a factor in the Benghazi attack. A New York Times investigation confirmed that the video was, in fact, one of the factors that prompted the attack. Finally, contrary to your insinuation, the very first draft of the CIA talking points reported the video as a likely cause. It was not something added later, as the points evolved.
I largely agree, except that I don't think our people were intentionally sacrificed. The lack of security MIGHT have been intentional, to help obscure some CIA operation. I think it's more likely that State simply overestimated the ability of the nearby CIA station to effectively react and Defense to effectively reinforce. After that, sending in three CIA shooters might well have been suicidal or developed into a blue-on-green incident at a time when we were trying to balance on a knife's edge to pull the victorious Libyan factions into a pro-US coalition. Defense's failure to have a QRF available and able to deploy is inexcusable, but not inexplicable as we're always trying to walk a fine line between having sufficient force available and not insulting Islamic sensibilities.We will never know exactly what transpired because the blame crosses party lines and branches out through various agencies. The investigation will go nowhere for that reason. But what has the left so riled up is the political implications. It will affect filling the top slot in November of 2016 because Republicans will not complete the investigation until it is politically convenient to do so.
We armed people who turned out to be our enemies. It's not the first time. This should have been an easy cover up but too many mistakes were made.
I believe that our people in Benghazi were sacrificed in an attempt to keep out of the public eye what our government was doing. Too many people have come forward saying they were in a position to help and were thwarted. There's a reason for that and over thinking it is not necessary. Face value tells us all we need to know.
The cover up couldn't have been much more poorly conceived and implemented. I believe its failure enraged the people that consider themselves to be the brightest of the bright. Their egos would not allow them to even put a spin on their spin. They had their story and they stuck to it. Once those few in the press that actually still do investigative work proved it be be bunk, the brightest went dark. Nothing to say.
People in the know were threatened by their own government to keep quiet. Only recently did some of the braver ones go public. To understand why they were threatened does not require a lot of thought.
Nothing will come of any of it.
But Republicans smell blood in the water and they're not going to quit until it suits them and that's how politics is done in the good ol' U.S. of A. The lefties can whine and howl all they wish but the politician's on the left will stay mum and avoid the fray to the greatest degree possible because if the tables are turned someday they want to be able to leverage that situation to their advantage. Both sides know how the game is played. There is nothing to be gained by "draining the swamp". The swamp has become very comfortable to navigate.
There is no conspiracy because the word conspiracy has no meaning anymore in the context of government. Publicly they're battling and privately they're circling the wagons to cover each others backs. They're fully in charge but it's important for the electorate to think that they still have some say. It's all just politics.
The talking points were pure political spin by the White House and State Department. The Obama administration blatantly lied when they said that references to terrorist involvement in Benghazi were not deleted at their request. We find out the truth later from Nuland that the State Department wanted those references deleted regarding the attacks being linked to al-Qaeda and the CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack. Nuland said those talking points "could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up on the State Department for not paying attention to warnings." Liars lie.
I'd say the spin started well before these emails. To believe otherwise requires believing that the CIA is somehow unable to speak to its own employees, who were there and survived the attack, for two full days afterward, then purely coincidentally sent those employees elsewhere so that they could not be contacted. Assuming the CIA could speak with its employees, then the CIA had to know that they had reported being surveiled earlier in the day and had reported a deliberate attack, NOT a spontaneous attack by a crowd of protesters. This is fine-tuning of the spin, not evidence of no spin.
I'd say the spin started well before these emails. To believe otherwise requires believing that the CIA is somehow unable to speak to its own employees, who were there and survived the attack, for two full days afterward, then purely coincidentally sent those employees elsewhere so that they could not be contacted. Assuming the CIA could speak with its employees, then the CIA had to know that they had reported being surveiled earlier in the day and had reported a deliberate attack, NOT a spontaneous attack by a crowd of protesters. This is fine-tuning of the spin, not evidence of no spin.
Bottom line, I see no particular conspiracy here except the normal attempt to bend reality to one's political advantage - something common to both parties - and I'm certainly no fan of Obama or Hilary.
I'd say the spin started well before these emails. To believe otherwise requires believing that the CIA is somehow unable to speak to its own employees, who were there and survived the attack, for two full days afterward, then purely coincidentally sent those employees elsewhere so that they could not be contacted.
Assuming the CIA could speak with its employees, then the CIA had to know that they had reported being surveiled earlier in the day and had reported a deliberate attack, NOT a spontaneous attack by a crowd of protesters. This is fine-tuning of the spin, not evidence of no spin.
You realize that even well documented events with large numbers of witnesses frequently have facts that later turn out to be massively wrong, right? The CIA forms assessments based on a lot more than just asking a few guys.
Just like in the IRS thread you guys have all decided to spin conspiracy theories based on functionally zero knowledge.
The State Department diplomat referenced is former Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell.As the House Select Committee on Benghazi prepares for its first hearing this week, a former State Department diplomat is coming forward with a startling allegation: Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to separate damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.
It looks as though the House Select Committee has some new information to sink their teeth into.When the ARB issued its call for documents in early October 2012, just weeks after the Benghazi attacks, the executive directorate of the State Departments Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs was put in charge of collecting all emails and relevant material. It was gathered, boxed andMaxwell saysended up in the basement room prior to being turned over.
In May 2013, when critics questioned the ARBs investigation as not thorough enough, co-chairmen Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Adm. Mike Mullen responded that we had unfettered access to everyone and everything including all the documentation we needed.
Maxwell spent a year on paid administrative leave with no official charge ever levied against him. Ultimately, the State Department cleared Maxwell of wrongdoing and reinstated him. He retired a short time later, in November 2013.
Why yes, yes it is...Several weeks after he was placed on leave with no formal accusations, Maxwell made an appointment to address his status with a State Department ombudsman.
She told me, You are taking this all too personally, Raymond. It is not about you, Maxwell recalls.
I told her that My name is on TV and Im on administrative leave, it seems like its about me. Then she said, Youre not harmed, youre still getting paid. Dont watch TV. Take your wife on a cruise. Its not about you; its about Hillary and 2016.
Nobody gives two shits about Benghazi with the exception of right wing wackers.
-snip-