With trepidation, Benghazi

[andros]

@ElvisL1ves

You obviously haven’t watched enough cartoons.

Is that the advertising sign over the door of Ol’ Hillary’s Ol’ State Department? “All Things Benghazi”?

I’m just not feeling it.

Maybe Bed, Bath, and Benghazi? I Can’t Believe It’s Not Benghazi?

[ElvisL1ves]

Benghazi ‘N’ Things

[tomndebb]

@doorhinge

In this case, a bipartisan vote created a bipartisan select committee. If given a choice between no investigation and having an investigation, I’m in favor of having an investigation.

Of course you do. You wish to keep the matter alive through 2016 as a point for Beck and Hannity and Limbaugh to harp upon at any opportunity, even when the facts have already been presented to the satisfaction of any intelligent observer.

I understand your point.
(And that both parties have voted for the investigation means only that the Democrats have chosen not to hand the Republicans one more political ad in 2016 claiming that this or that congresscritter tried to “hide” the truth. meh)

[tomndebb]

@doorhinge

. . . the Democrat party . . .

Note to all offenderati to the left of Limbaugh:

Please do not waste your time Reporting this sort of nonsense. Great Debates has tolerated Repug[nican]s, Teabaggers, and any number of other mangled names aimed at both the Right and the Left over the years.

It is a foolish practice, but it is a harmless one, marking its author as uncivil and unimaginative, but not actually inflicting an insult on any poster.
We are not going to Moderate it unless the poster finds a way to make it a direct, personal insult.

[ /Moderating ]

[doorhinge]

@tomndebb

Of course you do. You wish to keep the matter alive through 2016 as a point for Beck and Hannity and Limbaugh to harp upon at any opportunity, even when the facts have already been presented to the satisfaction of any intelligent observer.

I understand your point.
(And that both parties have voted for the investigation means only that the Democrats have chosen not to hand the Republicans one more political ad in 2016 claiming that this or that congresscritter tried to “hide” the truth. meh)

I’m in favor of investigations of government regardless of which party is in power. If one party wasn’t blowing the whistle on the other, we the public wouldn’t have any idea what is going on behind the closed doors and what used to be known as smoke filled rooms.

As an example, I was and am in favor of the multiple investigations surrounding Bridgegate. Never did I say that there should not be any investigations or that there should only be one investigation. Let the witnesses speak publically and under oath, supoena needed documents, and hold the real possibility of contempt charges over the heads of both the accused and the witnesses. Question everything.

I say we should let the investigations continue and let the chips fall where they will. No politician deserves blind loyalty. Blind loyalty undermines the democratic system.

[dropzone]

Tom, you…you…you…DEMOCRAT!

[tomndebb]

@doorhinge

I’m in favor of investigations of government regardless of which party is in power. If one party wasn’t blowing the whistle on the other, we the public wouldn’t have any idea what is going on behind the closed doors and what used to be known as smoke filled rooms.

I have no problem with the notion of investigations.
I think it is silly to RE-investigate events that have already been studied for the purposes of creating political shots.

(And, forgive me if I am unimpressed with your claim to support investigations of Bridgegate, where a Republican who is not a Teabagger might be jostled out of a run for office, leaving the way open for others further to the Right.)

[doorhinge]

@tomndebb

I have no problem with the notion of investigations.
I think it is silly to RE-investigate events that have already been studied for the purposes of creating political shots.

(And, forgive me if I am unimpressed with your claim to support investigations of Bridgegate, where a Republican who is not a Teabagger might be jostled out of a run for office, leaving the way open for others further to the Right.)

Of course you are forgiven.

This is the internet. Everyone could be lying. Or maybe, just maybe, they actually want open investigations of their government?

[tomndebb]

@doorhinge

Of course you are forgiven.

This is the internet. Everyone could be lying. Or maybe, just maybe, they actually want open investigations of their government?

I am still unimpressed by your claim to neutrality and unpersuaded by your claim to an argument.

The matter has already been investigated, openly. The current “investigation” is an open ploy for political capital.

[PastTense]

The U.S.has captured one of the leaders of the attack:

The Suspected Ringleader of the Benghazi Attacks Is in U.S. Custody

[iiandyiiii]

@PastTense

The U.S.has captured one of the leaders of the attack:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/the-suspected-ringleader-of-the-benghazi-attacks-is-in-u-s-custody-20140617

Undoubtedly this was just a ploy by Obama to distract voters from Benghazi.

[ElvisL1ves]

Sure. Just like getting Bin Laden was a ploy to make it look like Bush had failed to.

[Donald_Rump]

Looks like the cemetery of dead talking points just got a new arrival.

[ElvisL1ves]

Not to worry. When one is stricken down, another arises.

[bbonden]

@tomndebb

even when the facts have already been presented to the satisfaction of any intelligent observer.

I’m a reasonably intelligent observer. If “the facts” have been presented in response to these questions, I’ve missed them:

1. There was no video/protest in Benghazi on September 11. That was known in real time on September 11 through both direct communications from Benghazi and indirect communications from Tripoli. Later, the talking points/semi-official story referred to a video/protest. What was the source of that information? Is there a “witness” for this non-event? (I don’t mean “the CIA”; I mean a person, perhaps at the CIA.) Bonus question: Someone or someones in the chain of command had access to both actual information from the ground in Benghazi and the misinformation about the non-protest. Why did that person or persons (presumably at CIA, perhaps elsewhere) not correct the misinformation?

2. Why was the ambassador in Benghazi overnight? Was that customary?

3. Why was the Benghazi mission not provided with better security both overall, and when the ambassador was in residence?

4. Why were there not forces available for action in theater on September 11? Why were there not forces readied for action after the Cairo protests started? (“in theater” meaning rapid response across the eastern Mediterranean/“Arab Spring”) There were unusually specific statements signalling both the Cairo protests and, separately, an attack on US interests in Libya.
   Some questions (e.g., #2) may not be answerable publicly. Some have partial answers (e.g., #3, embassy funding/evil republicans) but not full or final answers. Others may have answers that are about the bureaucracy of State/Defense, earmarks, logrolling, etc. But this episode was a clear fail across several parts of the government, and good governance requires identifying and correcting prior errors.

Personally, I am not concerned about whether the event was labeled “terrorism” from go (it was terrorism, of course, but it is a label with diplomatic and legal consequences) or about the delay in picking up the decidedly-not-in-hiding Khattala (which looks odd, but I put in the discretion of the executive). I would not find it unreasonable for folks to disagree, and to want “the facts” in response to those questions.

[Richard_Parker]

@bbonden

I’m a reasonably intelligent observer. . . . There was no video/protest in Benghazi on September 11. That was known in real time on September 11 through both direct communications from Benghazi and indirect communications from Tripoli.

That’s pretty misleading because you both conflate the video and the protest, and you imply that since some people knew there was no protest that their account should have been privileged over the conflicting evidence for no particular reason.

While it is true that there was contemporaneous evidence that there was no protest, there was also contemporaneous to the contrary. From the Senate Intelligence Report:

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the IC received numerous reports,
both classified and unclassified, which provided contradictory accounts that there
were demonstrations at the Temporary Mission Facility. In some cases, these
intelligence reports-which were disseminated widely in the Intelligence
Community–contained references to press reports on protests that were simply
copied into intelligence products.

On what basis, other than the kind of investigation that they ultimately conducted and which Susan Rice expressly made her comments contingent upon, would the people at the top choose one of the intelligence narratives over the other?

Moreover, it now appears that while there was no protest, some of the attackers were indeed motivated by the video in question.

@http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=4

There is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers. A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet.

So suggesting as you do above that the video played no role appears to simply be false, as best we can now tell.

[Magiver]

@Richard_Parker

So suggesting as you do above that the video played no role appears to simply be false, as best we can now tell.

They had a drone on site as well as ground observers. There was no indication of a protest. You can’t quote “other sources” as if has any meaning. It’s bullshit.

And knowing this they still blamed it on a movie director weeks later and went so far as to prosecute him for unrelated things.

[Richard_Parker]

Your reasoning here seems to be that there was no protest, therefore the attackers could not have been motivated by the video (contrary to the evidence that some of them were, indeed, so motivated).

That reasoning is not sound.

Oh, and to your point that “other sources” is just code for “bullshit,” I strongly suggest you actually read the bipartisan Senate investigation’s report:

A dearth of clear and definitive HUMINT or eyewitness reporting led IC
analysts to rely on open press reports and limited SIGINT reporting that incorrectly
attributed the origins of the Benghazi attacks to “protests,” over first-hand accounts
from U.S. officials on the ground. CIA’s January 4, 2013, Analytic Line Review
found that "[a ]pproximately a dozen reports that included press accounts, public
statements by AAS members, ffiJMINT reporting, DOD reporting, and signals
intelligence all stated or strongly suggested that a protest occurred outside of the
Mission facility just prior to the attacks."120

Of the 11 reports cited by the CIA’s Analytic Line Review, six were press
articles, two were the public statements of Ansar al-Sharia, and the three others
were intelligence reports. Specific open source reports and intelligence on which
analysts appear to have based their judgments include the public statements by
Ansar al-Sharia that the attacks were a "spontaneous and popular uprising."121
Aiso, there was protest activity in Egypt and approximately 40 other cities around
the world and violent attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities in Tunisia, Yemen,
and Egypt from September 11-20, 2012. In addition, there were intelligence
reports in the days following the Benghazi attacks that al-Qa’ida-associated
terrorists hoped to take advantage of global protests for further attacks.122

[Magiver]

@tomndebb

Of course you do. You wish to keep the matter alive through 2016 as a point for Beck and Hannity and Limbaugh to harp upon at any opportunity, even when the facts have already been presented to the satisfaction of any intelligent observer.

If they came clean in the first place it wouldn’t be in the news. If would have been done and over with in 6 months. If it goes to 2016 it’s because the investigation was stalled for 5 years. There is no transparency in this administration.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Magiver

If they came clean in the first place it wouldn’t be in the news. If would have been done and over with in 6 months. {…}

Only for certain definitions of “came clean”.

CMC fnord!