Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-03-2014, 10:52 AM
Terr Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
It doesn't matter, withholding documents does not form a cover up. No documents contained information that was covered up. Talking points aren't information. There was nothing covered up. Why don't you think the terrible planning and lack of attention to the obvious threat are not a scandal but an imaginary cover up is?
Withholding documents from a subpoena is the very definition of "cover up". You may not think it is a "scandal" that the White House has committed a criminal offense of withholding information from a Congressional subpoena? I do.

Last edited by Terr; 05-03-2014 at 10:53 AM.
  #52  
Old 05-03-2014, 10:57 AM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
Withholding documents from a subpoena is the very definition of "cover up". You may not think it is a "scandal" that the White House has committed a criminal offense of withholding information from a Congressional subpoena? I do.
Again, "withheld" means that someone saw it, thought it was relevant, and deliberately kept it away from congress.
  #53  
Old 05-03-2014, 10:59 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
The fact that it was White House talking points that talked about the attacks being "spontaneously inspired" - while, as I documented above, the Administration knew that they were not.
You failed to prove that the Administration knew this.

Quote:
You do realize that withholding subpoenaed materials from Congress is a criminal offense, right?
Sure, but considering the volume of material, and the fact that there was no new information in the 'new' email, there seems to be no reason to believe that this new email was deliberately held back.
  #54  
Old 05-03-2014, 11:00 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
CIA has changed the talking points several times under political pressure. That has been documented.
They were revised (as all things are), but there is no evidence that this was due to political pressure.
  #55  
Old 05-03-2014, 11:06 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
Withholding documents from a subpoena is the very definition of "cover up". You may not think it is a "scandal" that the White House has committed a criminal offense of withholding information from a Congressional subpoena? I do.
I didn't say anything about a scandal. I am challenging you to present information that was covered up and you don't have any. If you want a scandal why don't you look at the failure to protect our personnel in Libya. That is scandalous.
  #56  
Old 05-03-2014, 11:21 AM
nate nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 807
It's crazy that the republicans keep "investigating" this, turning up nothing, and continue to look just so it appears like the administration is hiding something. It makes me furious, but the conservatives I work with eat it up.

Not that it happened, but even if someone in the administration sent e-mails claiming the attacks were not from a spontaneous protest while the white house maintained that as of right now, the intelligence points to this stemming from a protest, it doesn't mean anything. I'm sure plenty of ideas of what was behind the attacks were thrown out there for discussion, just because in hindsight we can say one was right doesn't mean there was a coverup.

And what would be the point of a coverup of this nature anyway? It's bizarre.
  #57  
Old 05-03-2014, 11:25 AM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
CIA has changed the talking points several times under political pressure. That has been documented.
What does your cite have to do with the White House, or the election, or knowledge that te attack was preplanned?
  #58  
Old 05-03-2014, 11:31 AM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
If the administration had come out and said this was a preplanned attack by Al-Qaeda and it later turned out to be spontaneous disorganized extremists, they'd be accused of fearmongering and drumming up support for the commander in chief ahead of the election.

Given that the intelligence at the time was incomplete and still evolving, they were screwed no matter what they had Susan Rice say.
  #59  
Old 05-03-2014, 11:33 AM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Again, "withheld" means that someone saw it, thought it was relevant, and deliberately kept it away from congress.
Maybe they withheld it because they knew its contents would be grossly misrepresented by right wing media and Republican talking points.
  #60  
Old 05-03-2014, 12:03 PM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,371
The absolute pathetic need for this to be real is just amazing.
  #61  
Old 05-03-2014, 12:05 PM
EndlessEntropy EndlessEntropy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 79
Good god can the Republicans give Benghazi a rest already? They tried to swing the last election with this crap and failed miserably. In 2016 voter's eyes will glaze over the first Republican to try talking about it even though "Benghazi" will be their rallying cry against Hillary. If it wasn't Benghazi it would be some other cockeyed conspiracy. It's almost as pathetic as the Bill Ayers and birth certificate **** they tried to pull over Obama. When is it going to get beyond the right-wing echo chambers that dog don't hunt.
  #62  
Old 05-03-2014, 12:57 PM
Xema Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
Do you have a cite supporting this claim? The CIA talking points indicated that a spontaneous reaction to the events in Cairo evolved into an attack by heavily armed extremists.
Between the time of the attack and Rice's statements, the White House had access to many sources of information beyond the CIA's talking points (which, as Terr has noted, are known to have been extensively edited).

Here's a useful Benghazi attack timeline from FactCheck.org. Some relevant items:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sept 11, 6:07pm EDT - about 2.5 hours after the attack began
The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sept 12, 6:06 pm EDT
Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East, sends an email to top State Department officials that reads in part: “[T]he group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.”
Note that by this time it was well understood that the attackers had used rocket-propelled grenades and other serious weapons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sept 12
Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, tells the BBC that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sept 13
CNN reports that unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi was a “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie. CNN: “It was not an innocent mob,” one senior official said. “The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sept 14
At a White House press briefing, Press Secretary Carney denies reports that it was a preplanned attack. “I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false.” Later in that same briefing, Carney is told that Pentagon officials informed members of Congress at a closed-door meeting that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack. Carney said the matter is being investigated but White House officials “don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.”
Note that the White House also had no evidence that the attack was in reaction to the video. They had only the CIA's initial assessment - now swamped by newer and much more detailed info - speculating on a link to Cairo events.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sept 16
Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. But Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest.
--------------------------------------------


Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump
Frankly until someone can demonstrate that the CIA was subjected to political pressure in crafting the talking points, I don't understand what we're even debating.
So now you understand.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump
By the way, Susan Rice did not categorically deny that it could have been preplanned.
But she strongly implied it was spontaneous at a time the State Department and the White House knew otherwise.
  #63  
Old 05-03-2014, 01:20 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
Between the time of the attack and Rice's statements, the White House had access to many sources of information beyond the CIA's talking points (which, as Terr has noted, are known to have been extensively edited).
Everything gets edited extensively. That adds nothing useful.

Quote:
So now you understand.
No, that's not clear at all. Just because an unnamed State Department official says one thing does not mean that the White House and everyone else at the time knew it or believed it.

Quote:
But she strongly implied it was spontaneous at a time the State Department and the White House knew otherwise.
It has not been established that the WH knew otherwise.
  #64  
Old 05-03-2014, 01:20 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,952
I urge anyone who has a passing interest in this debate and has three minutes to spare to actually read the "smoking gun" email.

It is quite simply an email between staffers drafting the talking points to prepare Susan Rice to appear on some Sunday TV talk shows. That's clearly it. There's no message to the CIA referenced in the mail, and there's no direction or commands. It's clearly just people brainstorming nine hours after the talking points were first drafted on what Susan Rice should say on TV.

The problem here is some partisan have completely and totally lost touch with the English language. What is the difference between a "heavily armed militant who attacks Americans" and a "terrorist?" One has got to be partially unhinged to believe that there's a big difference. And yet, these same people don't know the damned difference between a "diplomatic compound" and an "embassy." As a result of no longer being able to read and understand American English, every damned email that has the word "Benghazi" in it turns into the latest smoking gun of Obama being a big fat liar.

Seriously, people, read the email in question. All it does is take the talking points that had already gone through seven revisions without major changes in the bottom line assessment of the attack, and put them in a format to brief someone for a TV appearance. That's it.
  #65  
Old 05-03-2014, 01:44 PM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I urge anyone who has a passing interest in this debate and has three minutes to spare to actually read the "smoking gun" email.

It is quite simply an email between staffers drafting the talking points to prepare Susan Rice to appear on some Sunday TV talk shows. That's clearly it. There's no message to the CIA referenced in the mail, and there's no direction or commands. It's clearly just people brainstorming nine hours after the talking points were first drafted on what Susan Rice should say on TV.

The problem here is some partisan have completely and totally lost touch with the English language. What is the difference between a "heavily armed militant who attacks Americans" and a "terrorist?" One has got to be partially unhinged to believe that there's a big difference. And yet, these same people don't know the damned difference between a "diplomatic compound" and an "embassy." As a result of no longer being able to read and understand American English, every damned email that has the word "Benghazi" in it turns into the latest smoking gun of Obama being a big fat liar.

Seriously, people, read the email in question. All it does is take the talking points that had already gone through seven revisions without major changes in the bottom line assessment of the attack, and put them in a format to brief someone for a TV appearance. That's it.
Damn it. Obama got to Ravenman.
  #66  
Old 05-03-2014, 03:13 PM
Terr Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
They were revised (as all things are), but there is no evidence that this was due to political pressure.
Here:

"In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “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 was entirely deleted."

If this is not "political pressure", I don't know what is.

Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”

In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions.”

After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.

“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.

Last edited by Terr; 05-03-2014 at 03:15 PM.
  #67  
Old 05-03-2014, 03:19 PM
Terr Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Again, "withheld" means that someone saw it, thought it was relevant, and deliberately kept it away from congress.
1. It is very simple to search emails for the word "Benghazi". Any email system allows you to do that.
2. Congress subpoenaed any communication connected to the Benghazi events. That email would have showed up in the search. It would take deliberate action for it to be excluded.
  #68  
Old 05-03-2014, 03:43 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
Between the time of the attack and Rice's statements, the White House had access to many sources of information beyond the CIA's talking points (which, as Terr has noted, are known to have been extensively edited).

Here's a useful Benghazi attack timeline from FactCheck.org. Some relevant items:




Note that by this time it was well understood that the attackers had used rocket-propelled grenades and other serious weapons.






Note that the White House also had no evidence that the attack was in reaction to the video. They had only the CIA's initial assessment - now swamped by newer and much more detailed info - speculating on a link to Cairo events.



--------------------------------------------



So now you understand.



But she strongly implied it was spontaneous at a time the State Department and the White House knew otherwise.
You might know the lyrics to the Billy Preston song "Nothing From Nothing." They go in part, "nothing from nothing leaves nothing." It is also true that nothing plus nothing is nothing. You highlighted six points from the FactCheck.org story, and not a single one offers any concrete evidence that White House was convinced that this was a pre-planned attack. You could offer six hundred more of the same, and nothing plus nothing would still be nothing. If you could only offer one piece of evidence to back up your claims, what would it be?
  #69  
Old 05-03-2014, 03:43 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
1. It is very simple to search emails for the word "Benghazi". Any email system allows you to do that.
If all of the emails are in the same database, then sure. But email systems are not always on the same server, much less the same database.
  #70  
Old 05-03-2014, 03:46 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
"In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “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 …”[/INDENT]
The paragraph was entirely deleted."

If this is not "political pressure", I don't know what is.

Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”

In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions.”

After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.

“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.
That's not political pressure, those are political reasons/spin. And everything is revised with regards to political concerns. Not necessarily a positive thing, but that's the nature of politics -- it will be taken into consideration for everything. The WH spins jobs numbers in a good way, and his opponents spin them in a bad way -- that's political spin, but not political pressure.
  #71  
Old 05-03-2014, 04:05 PM
Terr Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's not political pressure, those are political reasons/spin. And everything is revised with regards to political concerns. Not necessarily a positive thing, but that's the nature of politics -- it will be taken into consideration for everything. The WH spins jobs numbers in a good way, and his opponents spin them in a bad way -- that's political spin, but not political pressure.
Ah it is not "political pressure" to tell CIA to change their talking points for "political reasons". What a wonderfully weaselly pretzel twisting (to mix metaphors).
  #72  
Old 05-03-2014, 04:12 PM
marshmallow marshmallow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
As Hillary Clinton said, who cares why it was attacked? The salient event is that it was attacked, and there's still zero evidence to suggest that there was a realistic way to prevent the attack.
Sun Tzu is spinning in his grave.

Obama should've just said they attacked us for our freedoms and any warnings were too vague or summaries of historical analysis. Worked for the last guy.

Obama drinks wine out of the skulls of Pakistani kids and is probably whipping a chained up whistle blower as we speak but no, this is the big scandal. I love the blatant imperial concern trolling the GOP is doing a la Democrats from 2004. Too bad Obama and his spin machine won't just spit the GOP 2004 shtick right back at them too. The President has secret information you can't see because of reasons. How dare you question the President in a time of war? Are you guys a bunch of anti-American commies? Stop rooting for the terrorists to win for political gain. Hey guys, gay marriage! Oh, guess they did that part.

Last edited by marshmallow; 05-03-2014 at 04:13 PM.
  #73  
Old 05-03-2014, 04:14 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
Ah it is not "political pressure" to tell CIA to change their talking points for "political reasons". What a wonderfully weaselly pretzel twisting (to mix metaphors).
That would be political pressure, but there's nothing to indicate that the CIA was told to change the talking points for "political reasons". There's evidence that some official had some political concerns about the talking points, but that's not the same thing as ordering the CIA to change the information.
  #74  
Old 05-03-2014, 04:16 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,809
With the thousands of documents and emails, it would be shocking if some official at some point didn't have political concerns about talking points.
  #75  
Old 05-03-2014, 04:18 PM
Terr Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That would be political pressure, but there's nothing to indicate that the CIA was told to change the talking points for "political reasons". There's evidence that some official had some political concerns about the talking points, but that's not the same thing as ordering the CIA to change the information.
That official expressed her political concerns to the CIA, and the CIA subsequently changed that information in their talking points. Claiming that's not "political pressure" is absurd.
  #76  
Old 05-03-2014, 04:26 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
Here:

"In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “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 State Dept via Nuland expressed a desire not to draw attention explicitly to prior incidents that had taken place in Benghazi, understandably so. That's not a cover up. How do you cover up information that's in the public record?

On 9/11/01, when President Bush addressed the nation, he might have included in his remarks that day some mention of the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US" memo. He did not. Does that mean he was covering something up? In my book, no. By the standard you're applying here, yes.
  #77  
Old 05-03-2014, 04:27 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
That official expressed her political concerns to the CIA, and the CIA subsequently changed that information in their talking points. Claiming that's not "political pressure" is absurd.
The talking points were revised multiple times, and probably for multiple reasons. Taking concerns into account is not necessarily "political pressure", and not all of Nuland's concerns were necessarily political in nature. Her concern that using the names of the terrorist groups could prejudice the investigation, for example, is a reasonable concern that may not have been political.

Basically, if you want to find something that you could question, you'll probably find it. And that's probably true for every big decision and every talking point that every White House has been involved in forever. There's no smoking gun here, and nothing that looks out of the bounds of politics as usual.
  #78  
Old 05-03-2014, 04:29 PM
Terr Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
The State Dept via Nuland expressed a desire not to draw attention explicitly to prior incidents that had taken place in Benghazi, understandably so. That's not a cover up. How do you cover up information that's in the public record?

On 9/11/01, when President Bush addressed the nation, he might have included in his remarks that day some mention of the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US" memo. He did not. Does that mean he was covering something up? In my book, no. By the standard you're applying here, yes.
Moving goalposts. Here, we're discussing political pressure on CIA to change their talking points (since iiandyiiii claimed there was no such thing). That's what that Nuland "expressing a desire" was.
  #79  
Old 05-03-2014, 04:30 PM
Terr Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The talking points were revised multiple times, and probably for multiple reasons. Taking concerns into account is not necessarily "political pressure", and not all of Nuland's concerns were necessarily political in nature. Her concern that using the names of the terrorist groups could prejudice the investigation, for example, is a reasonable concern that may not have been political.
But the FBI said they didn't have a problem with that. Thus there was no "reasonable concern" - it was a political one.
  #80  
Old 05-03-2014, 04:37 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
You guys still need to demonstrate that anything knowingly untrue was put into the talking points by any party involved.

There was speculation that it was preplanned. This was not known with certainty. The WH was being understandably cautious in its public pronouncements. Hence, Susan Rice left open the possibility that it was preplanned, but said we don't know for sure.

Some individuals believed Ansar Al-Sharia was responsible. Others believed it could be Al-Qaeda. Others thought it could be another local group. That's why Susan Rice said they were armed extremists, possibly AQ, possibly AaS, we're not really sure. I fail to see how through anything but the most partisan of lenses this looks remotely like an effort to cover something up. And literally days later they came out with a more conclusive assessment.
  #81  
Old 05-03-2014, 04:37 PM
Xema Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It has not been established that the WH knew otherwise.
To believe they didn't, you'd have to believe that in a matter of this importance the White House decided to take no notice of what Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, the President of Libya, and its own State Department (among others) were saying. That doesn't pass the laugh test.

Last edited by Xema; 05-03-2014 at 04:37 PM.
  #82  
Old 05-03-2014, 04:37 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
But the FBI said they didn't have a problem with that. Thus there was no "reasonable concern" - it was a political one.
It can still be a reasonable concern even if the FBI disagrees. Maybe her reasonable concern was wrong. In any case, that still sounds like politics as usual. Which is an indictment of our system, certainly. So some people were concerned about politics. Do you really think you'd find anything different if you investigated any other White House's responses after something like an embassy attack? When all of this stuff is widely known, and has been widely known for over a year, what was covered up?
  #83  
Old 05-03-2014, 04:39 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
To believe they didn't, you'd have to believe that in a matter of this importance the White House decided to take no notice of what Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, the President of Libya, and its own State Department (among others) were saying. That doesn't pass the laugh test.
Oh I think it's likely that the White House suspected a lot of things. But the word "know" implies certainty -- and it's good that they didn't act as if they were certain about anything in the immediate aftermath, considering the wildly different information that was coming from various sources. A proper investigation takes time, and it's a good thing they didn't claim certainty and didn't rule out possible explanations.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-03-2014 at 04:39 PM.
  #84  
Old 05-03-2014, 04:46 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
Moving goalposts. Here, we're discussing political pressure on CIA to change their talking points (since iiandyiiii claimed there was no such thing). That's what that Nuland "expressing a desire" was.
Au contraire, mon frčre: you're moving the goalposts. We are talking about whether the Obama administration issued knowing untruths (ie lied) to improve its chances in the election. Now you're arguing that if anyone involved in crafting the talking points took politics into consideration at any stage, including by not going out of their way to draw attention to embarrassing facts, that constitutes a scandal.

In your book was it a scandal that for political reasons President Bush saw fit not to mention the Bin Laden memo in his address to the nation on 9/11?
  #85  
Old 05-03-2014, 04:48 PM
Xema Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I urge anyone who has a passing interest in this debate and has three minutes to spare to actually read the "smoking gun" email.
It is quite simply an email between staffers drafting the talking points to prepare Susan Rice to appear on some Sunday TV talk shows. That's clearly it.
Would you agree that the state of the White House's knowledge of the facts is relevant here?

That if the WH had evidence that the attack was a consequence of the aftermath of a demonstration related to the internet video, this email is innocent. But if the WH had reason to believe it was a pre-planned attack not related to any video, then this email amounts to "we need you to go out and lie to the world, to provide political cover to a president seeking re-election".
  #86  
Old 05-03-2014, 04:56 PM
Xema Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
You highlighted six points from the FactCheck.org story, and not a single one offers any concrete evidence that White House was convinced that this was a pre-planned attack.
Right - these points don't show the WH was convinced this was a pre-planned attack. They only show it's extremely likely that this was the case - as indeed it was - and that the WH should at least have been convinced that statements coming from their own State Department and the President of Libya deserved careful investigation.
  #87  
Old 05-03-2014, 05:05 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
Would you agree that the state of the White House's knowledge of the facts is relevant here?

That if the WH had evidence that the attack was a consequence of the aftermath of a demonstration related to the internet video, this email is innocent. But if the WH had reason to believe it was a pre-planned attack not related to any video, then this email amounts to "we need you to go out and lie to the world, to provide political cover to a president seeking re-election".
If you read the document (starting on page 5 of the pdf) it's clear that Rice was being prepped for a discussion of the unrest in the Middle East overall. That unrest was uncontroversially prompted by this ridiculous video. The Ben Rhodes line is clearly referring to the broader context. Should there have been an explicit carve-out for Benghazi? We can debate that. But by acting like the Rhodes line is specifically about Benghazi you're grossly misrepresenting what he said.

Last edited by Donald Rump; 05-03-2014 at 05:06 PM.
  #88  
Old 05-03-2014, 05:09 PM
furt furt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: College Park, MD
Posts: 9,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
For those who do believe that there was an administration cover-up surrounding the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, what piece(s) of information and/or evidence could theoretically change your mind, if such information/evidence were to surface?
What information and/or evidence could theoretically change your mind?


This week, an email was released in response to a FOIA for documents related to Benghazi. The email was about briefing the National Security Advisor for her nigh-unprecedented five-TV-shows-in-one-day appearance several days after the attacks. The official response was to say that the email wasn't really about Benghazi.

When asked by a journalist this week to account for his actions in this much-publicized case in which a US ambassador was murdered, a high-level Obama official's response was quote "Dude, it was two years ago."


I'm entirely willing to believe that this is much more about incompetence and confusion than about ill intent. But the admin from the start has withheld information, failed to be forthcoming, and taken this unseriously. They're very much acting like the teenager who will only open his bedroom door three inches wide. The fact that he's doing it doesn't prove he has weed in there, and you'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt, but at some point you get so tired of the damned secretiveness about everything that at some point you don't mind seeing Darrell Issa kick the door in to find out what the hell is going on.

Last edited by furt; 05-03-2014 at 05:10 PM.
  #89  
Old 05-03-2014, 05:15 PM
Xema Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
You guys still need to demonstrate that anything knowingly untrue was put into the talking points by any party involved.
Right. I'm sure the WH et al have long been thinking: "They have yet to prove that the false things we said were known by us to be false at the time we said them."

Quote:
There was speculation that it was preplanned.
There was also considerable evidence of this:
- Use of heavy-duty weapons
- Reports that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed credit
- Statements by Libya’s deputy ambassador to London
- Statements by Libya President Mohamed Magariaf

Quote:
The WH was being understandably cautious in its public pronouncements.
For values of "cautious" that include "self-serving". How is it "cautious" to put forward an explanation (reaction to internet video) for which no actual evidence had - or has ever - emerged?
  #90  
Old 05-03-2014, 05:27 PM
Iggy Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
You guys still need to demonstrate that anything knowingly untrue was put into the talking points by any party involved. ....
That is not a necessary requirement for a cover-up. Failing to disclose information known to be true would also be a cover-up.


Daring to back to the OP....

I had a pretty open mind on the whole Benghazi mess. Stuff happens. Sometimes evil stuff happens. It can be hard to know what is true as such a situation develops.

But... it now appears that this is a slam dunk cover-up, IMHO. Emails crafting talking points well after the wheat should have been sorted from the chaff indicate a political motivation.

So asking me now what evidence would convince me there is no cover-up is a bit like asking me what evidence would disprove the law of gravity. That I cannot imagine the existence of such evidence does not propel my faith in the accuracy of the law of gravity into the realm of conspiracy theory.
  #91  
Old 05-03-2014, 05:30 PM
Xema Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
If you read the document (starting on page 5 of the pdf) it's clear that Rice was being prepped for a discussion of the unrest in the Middle East overall.
So in preparation for appearances 5 days after an attack on the Benghazi consulate that left 4 people dead, the anticipated context is "unrest in the Middle East overall" ?
  #92  
Old 05-03-2014, 05:38 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
For values of "cautious" that include "self-serving". How is it "cautious" to put forward an explanation (reaction to internet video) for which no actual evidence had - or has ever - emerged?


There was evidence for that too, IMHO that someone had planned to take on the embassy does not refute that the video was not a factor for the terrorists to take action, I see it as an item that helped the terrorists to be more effective than if they would had attacked with people not being upset and creating more confusion around the consulate.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...used-by-video/
Quote:
The grudging change comes on the heels of several new reports that cut through the simplicity of the Republican talking points. Reporters from both Reuters and the New York Times met with Ahmed Abu Khattala — leader in the Ansar al-Sharia militia suspected by the Libyan and U.S. governments of taking part in the attack — in a Benghazi hotel. While Abu Khattala claimed that he himself did not take part in the assault, he said the attack grew out of a protest against the video.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 05-03-2014 at 05:40 PM.
  #93  
Old 05-03-2014, 05:39 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post

So asking me now what evidence would convince me there is no cover-up is a bit like asking me what evidence would disprove the law of gravity. That I cannot imagine the existence of such evidence does not propel my faith in the accuracy of the law of gravity into the realm of conspiracy theory.
If you think the existence of a cover up is as self-evident as the law of gravity, the prospects for there ever being a national consensus on this issue are pretty slim.
  #94  
Old 05-03-2014, 05:43 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
But... it now appears that this is a slam dunk cover-up, IMHO. Emails crafting talking points well after the wheat should have been sorted from the chaff indicate a political motivation.
A political motivation to what? IIRC there were reports that the CIA and others did not wanted to telegraph to the perpetrators everything what we knew about them.
  #95  
Old 05-03-2014, 05:43 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
So in preparation for appearances 5 days after an attack on the Benghazi consulate that left 4 people dead, the anticipated context is "unrest in the Middle East overall" ?
The script beginning on page 5 of the PDF presumably reflects what the WH expected the Sunday talk show discussions to look like. Benghazi is not the only or even the central topic. So, to answer your question: yes, believe it or not.
  #96  
Old 05-03-2014, 05:56 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
That is not a necessary requirement for a cover-up. Failing to disclose information known to be true would also be a cover-up.
What relevant information that was known to be true was withheld? That it was preplanned was believed by some but not known to be true. Likewise for the perpetrators being Ansar al Sharia. Moreover, Susan Rice certainly did not categorically deny that it may have been preplanned or AaS. So the big cover up was to say, "It wasn't necessarily preplanned but might have been?" as opposed to saying "It was definitely preplanned?" That's what this months long controversy and veritable obsession on the right boils down to?
  #97  
Old 05-03-2014, 05:57 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
Between the time of the attack and Rice's statements, the White House had access to many sources of information beyond the CIA's talking points (which, as Terr has noted, are known to have been extensively edited).

Here's a useful Benghazi attack timeline from FactCheck.org. Some relevant items:




Note that by this time it was well understood that the attackers had used rocket-propelled grenades and other serious weapons.






Note that the White House also had no evidence that the attack was in reaction to the video. They had only the CIA's initial assessment - now swamped by newer and much more detailed info - speculating on a link to Cairo events.



--------------------------------------------



So now you understand.



But she strongly implied it was spontaneous at a time the State Department and the White House knew otherwise.
You don't seem to understand what the word "know" means. Nothing you posted suggest we knew that any one group in particular was responsible. Officials knew that Al-Ansar had claimed responsibility; that isn't the same as knowing they were responsible. A state dept. official may have been convinced in his own mind that it was pre-planned, but we did not (and still do not, AFAIK) know that that was the case.

Knowing involves having incontrovertible evidence that denies any other possibility; you haven't shown that to exist at all with regards to what happened in Benghazi.
  #98  
Old 05-03-2014, 06:27 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Rump View Post
You guys still need to demonstrate that anything knowingly untrue was put into the talking points by any party involved. . . .
And even if it had been, how is that in any way an impeachable offense? Gosh, wow, a politician lied. So the hell what? If every lie is a "high crime," then our government will be a collection of empty buildings.

That's the depth to which this issue has sunk into stupidity: even if every single claim made about it is true...so fucking what? There isn't any "there" there. This is the prince of non-issues.
  #99  
Old 05-03-2014, 06:41 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
So in preparation for appearances 5 days after an attack on the Benghazi consulate that left 4 people dead, the anticipated context is "unrest in the Middle East overall" ?
See page 17 of the documents that were released. The promos for the Sunday talk shows are given. They are all primarily on the topic of the protests--plural--roiling the Middle East.
  #100  
Old 05-03-2014, 07:03 PM
Donald Rump Donald Rump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post
What information and/or evidence could theoretically change your mind?
Email surfaces from David Axelrod to Obama:

"Mr. President,

As we've discussed, we all know that what happened in Benghazi was a preplanned terrorist attack by al-Qaeda affiliates. If we let the public believe that, the campaign narrative re the war on terror is toast. You need to go out there and make sure people think this was spontaneous and related to the video. It's BS but you'll just have to hold your nose and do it.

Dave"

THAT would be a smoking gun and would change my mind. The sheer preposterousness of such an email--(how is the president in his public pronouncements supposed to permanently mold public opinion contrary to facts that will surely eventually come out? This is why I never believed that Bush knew in advance that Iraq had no meaningful WMD cache)--makes me confident that no such email was ever written nor will surface. But that's just a reflection of how ridiculous I think this fabricated controversy really is.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017