# With trepidation, Benghazi **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2014, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535 "2014-05-02T20:30:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![EndlessEntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f9ae1b/32.png) [@EndlessEntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EndlessEntropy)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/61 "2014-05-03T16:05:32Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/62 "2014-05-03T16:57:21Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > 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](http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/). Some relevant items: > [@Sept 11](#): > > 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.) > [@Sept 12](#): > > 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. > [@Sept 12](#): > > Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, tells the BBC that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. > [@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.” > [@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. > [@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=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. [/quote] So now you understand. [QUOTE=Donald Rump] By the way, Susan Rice did not categorically deny that it could have been preplanned. [/quote] But she strongly implied it was spontaneous at a time the State Department and the White House knew otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/63 "2014-05-03T17:20:06Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/64 "2014-05-03T17:20:20Z")
I urge anyone who has a passing interest in this debate and has three minutes to spare to actually read the “smoking gun” ([Politics | Fox News](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/04/29/email-links-white-house-advisor-to-spin-blaming-benghazi-on-film/)). 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. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/65 "2014-05-03T17:44:22Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I urge anyone who has a passing interest in this debate and has three minutes to spare to actually read the “smoking gun” ([Politics, Policy and Political News & Updates | Fox News](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/04/29/email-links-white-house-advisor-to-spin-blaming-benghazi-on-film/)). > > 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**. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/66 "2014-05-03T19:13:17Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/67 "2014-05-03T19:19:12Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/68 "2014-05-03T19:43:01Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > 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](http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/). 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](http://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? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/69 "2014-05-03T19:43:56Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/70 "2014-05-03T19:46:03Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > "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. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/71 "2014-05-03T20:05:38Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > 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). ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/72 "2014-05-03T20:12:06Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/73 "2014-05-03T20:14:59Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/74 "2014-05-03T20:16:12Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/75 "2014-05-03T20:18:03Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/76 "2014-05-03T20:26:22Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/77 "2014-05-03T20:27:26Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/78 "2014-05-03T20:29:01Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/79 "2014-05-03T20:30:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535/80 "2014-05-03T20:37:30Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-trepidation-benghazi/687535.md?page=5)