JMS's Chronology of the Bengazi Raid and "cover-up"

[RedskinsFan44]

The left would be worse, if anything. Look at Plamegate: a woman who worked behind a desk in northern VA gets "outed" and the left goes bonkers, stating that the Bush admin put the life of a "covert agent" in danger.

I don't know if the Obama admin is guilty of any serious wrongdoing beyond pretty standard politician BSing, but there is no doubt that the left would've been up in arms if the roles were reversed.

It's funny that people deny that Plame was a covert agent after she testified under oath before Congress that she was with high level CIA officials nodding in agreement behind her. I don't recall any perjury charges being brought against her by the politicians who liked to claim she was merely a ""desk jockey".

[PeterMP]

Why do you compare Tora Bora to Benghazi?

because of failure or something else

Bad intelligence dictating behavior that contributed to failure before hand (over estimate of Al qeada/underestimate of Al Qeada), faulty post-events reporting (not sure Bin Laden was there/video was responsible), involved use of military forces (with holding the Marines/withholding special forces), and yes failure.

[nonniey]

Nobody's suggesting that mistakes weren't made. ........

You obviously haven't read many of the posts in this thread, because in this thread that is what many, if not the majority, are suggesting.

[JMS]

Why do you compare Tora Bora to Benghazi?

because of failure or something else

Tora Bora was a failure of policy. We had Bin Laudin dead to rights. But because we didn't have the policial will to commit US forces to the effort. We lost him.

The Afghanistani's who we used to assault Tora Bora just let him and everybody else at Tora Bora escape. It was a major policy gaff / failure... As was the Republicans leaking how we were tracking Bin Laudin. He had a sat phone and called his mother in Saudi every week... and a republican senator ( thank you Richard Shelby, R-AL) leaked that information to the press and the calls immediately stopped. There were a lot of Bone headed moves by the GOP after 9/11, .

[twa]

Bad intelligence dictating behavior that contributed to failure before hand (over estimate of Al qeada/underestimate of Al Qeada), faulty post-events reporting (not sure Bin Laden was there/video was responsible), involved use of military forces (with holding the Marines/withholding special forces), and yes failure.

interesting, thanks

not sure how that relates but it does make some sense.

[Redskins Diehard]

Why do you compare Tora Bora to Benghazi?

because of failure or something else

It is interesting that we have people that believe the highest levels of government were involved in some stupid, bored, immature soldiers putting a dog collar on someone in Iraq....but fast forward a few years and they couldn't be expected to know anything about the security posture and threats against a diplomatic mission in a very recently "liberated" country.

[RedskinsFan44]

Rand Paul illustrates the situation nicely:

“I’ve actually always suspected that, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya going through Turkey into Syria.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/09/rand-paul-invents-new-benghazi-conspiracy-involving-secret-cia-arms-trade/

[Larry]

What I want is the heads of the terrorists that killed and abused our people on pikes.

after 8 months I instead get deflections

Yeah, I distinctly remember the way you spent 7 years, incessantly attacking the previous administration for constantly deflecting attention away from Ossama bin Laden, when they should have killed him within months.

And, when the US finally did kill him, the way you approved of the current President announcing the fact, because announcing that the government has killed a terrorist isn't politics, it's his job.

---------- Post added May-10th-2013 at 06:11 PM ----------

Yes, politics are part of this on both sides. That's Washington. It's part of it, but it doesn't invalidate the complaints. The anger on the right is related to politics, but there is substance behind it. The substance is two fold.

1. The President or someone in his chain of command violated the military principal of "Leave no man behind." We were under attack, could have responded, and some decision maker left our Ambassador and 3 others to be killed (2 of which where SEALs who inserted themselves against orders precisely because they wouldn't leave Americans behind).

2. Then we created a lie to hide the fact that that decision was made.

Could you please provide some support for your claim #2?

---------- Post added May-10th-2013 at 06:17 PM ----------

I hate hate hate... offsetting penalties.... Yeah sure X is acting like swine, but you know Y would do the same thing...

The part I really hate about it, is the people who will defend their Party's real actions, by claiming that the other Party's imaginary actions would be worse.

---------- Post added May-10th-2013 at 06:19 PM ----------

You obviously haven't read many of the posts in this thread, because in this thread that is what many, if not the majority, are suggesting.

Really?

Could you, say, pick one single page of this thread, and show us "many, if not the majority" of the posts are claiming that no mistakes were made at all?

Should be easy, if most of the posts in the thread are claiming that.

[Redskins Diehard]

Yeah, I distinctly remember the way you spent 7 years, incessantly attacking the previous administration for constantly deflecting attention away from Ossama bin Laden, when they should have killed him within months.

And, when the US finally did kill him, the way you approved of the current President announcing the fact, because announcing that the government has killed a terrorist isn't politics, it's his job.

---------- Post added May-10th-2013 at 06:11 PM ----------

Could you please provide some support for your claim #2?

---------- Post added May-10th-2013 at 06:17 PM ----------

The part I really hate about it, is the people who will defend their Party's real actions, by claiming that the other Party's imaginary actions would be worse.

---------- Post added May-10th-2013 at 06:19 PM ----------

Really?

Could you, say, pick one single page of this thread, and show us "many, if not the majority" of the posts are claiming that no mistakes were made at all?

Should be easy, if most of the posts in the thread are claiming that.

The part I really hate about it is the focus is on Party's. Too bad nobody cares about what could have been done differently that maybe would have saved a life or two in Banghazi. But hey....as long as the "correct party" scores the most points.

edit:

And if you want to find the pages with the no mistakes made check from about 5-8. Not only were no mistakes made...but the best decisions were made. And the usual points making it all about Fox News and what they are saying.

[aREDSKIN]

What is it about talking points being edited that people think is damning? I don't get that at all. Maybe I'm missing something, but is there some rule that the State Department can't edit documents from the CIA based upon what they know, etc? First draft is final draft? That's just silly.

You know what we need to add to the timeline of this story: how pathetic this is all is. The real story here is how pathetic the GOP has become in trying so desperately to pin a scandal on someone associated with the White House.

You might want to take a look at the ABC piece. Yes, the ABC piece not the Fox news piece. Interpet it with an OBJECTIVE eye and not just your left eye. IMO the Admin just blantly lied to the American public. And that said, it's done by all politicians maybe not as blantant maybe so but it is what it is.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

[Tulane Skins Fan]

You might want to take a look at the ABC piece. Yes, the ABC piece not the Fox news piece. Interpet it with an OBJECTIVE eye and not just your left eye. IMO the Admin just blantly lied to the American public. And that said, it's done by all politicians maybe not as blantant maybe so but it is what it is.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

Ok, I had already read it. And I read the actual edits.

,someone who thinks there was a lie in there, TELL ME WHAT IT WAS and cite the talking points.

[Redskins Diehard]

Ok, I had already read it. And I read the actual edits.

,someone who thinks there was a lie in there, TELL ME WHAT IT WAS and cite the talking points.

I think in this case if there is a "lie" it is a lie of omission right? Do you believe that what Jay Carney said regarding the edits to be a factual statement?

Mind you this is the most minor of the concerns I have with the whole situation...what we called it and when. Clearly in the context of pre-election the issue of "how effective has our counter terrorism fight been" could have been a pretty 'big deal". And it would not "help" the re-election campaign if there was a terrorist attack significant enough to kill a US Ambassador for only I believe the 6th time in our country's history. But that is all water under the bridge now...the election is over.

[twa]

asserting repeatedly you changed only one minor thing,while neglecting to say you directly communicated changes to be made may not be a lie....simply deceit

repeatedly blaming a protest getting out of hand as the cause despite clear evidence to the contrary may not be a lie...simply deceit

deceitfully correcting the leader of another country as to the cause probably isn't a lie either

those yarns to the families of the dead were probably not lies ....just a alternative history

I feel so much better

[GoSkins0721]

I have an idea:

Lets petitione elected officials to disclose the following information related to that night in Benghazi and the next day:

1. All communication between covert US people on the ground in Tripoli to include the actual recorded conversations that took place

2. All communication with Libyian "friendlies" on the ground in Tripoli

3. All CiA NSA DIA photo satellite imagery to include any other US security agency not named

4. All covert operations in any stage of the operation within a 1500 mile radius of Libya

5. All communication protocol used including bandwitdth security codes passwords etc

6. Military position , troop strength, equipment availabity & maintence reports for all equipment within a 1500 mile radius of Libya

7. Documentation of all communication by POTUS SoD SoS anyone else we think could have talked that night

By god, we'll see who's lyin'

I feel so much better

Edit: I probably missed something so **** it: anything we can think of we need can & will be handed over to us!

[IHOPSkins]

Attkisson discusses "allegations of a coverup" on Benghazi

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50146665n

[aREDSKIN]

Ok, I had already read it. And I read the actual edits.

,someone who thinks there was a lie in there, TELL ME WHAT IT WAS and cite the talking points.

Here's another article from the "New Yorker" no less that will help you out.

Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said:...................................

This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/benghazi-cia-talking-point-edits-white-house.html?mobify=0

[Larry]

Guess his request, for people claiming "lie" to specify what was lied about, was too complicated?

[aREDSKIN]

Guess his request, for people claiming "lie" to specify what was lied about, was too complicated?

Geeze, I guess, being intransigent is a wonderful thing. Do I have to do it yet again Larry??

[Redskins Diehard]

Guess his request, for people claiming "lie" to specify what was lied about, was too complicated?

I think the claim is that his "no editing took place" was a lie. Do you disagree?

Did you get a chance to look at page 5-8?

[NoCalMike]

Does the Benghazi thing basically break down to whether the Administration though the attack was caused by the movie, or whether they knew all along it was something else entirely and just the movie excuse for political cover?

And if either/or of the above is right, what exactly would have changed about the attack itself?

Is there precedence for an Administration getting something wrong during a real-time, and getting it wrong for some-time afterwards? If so, what was the fallout/punishment?

What is the endgame for these Benghazi hearings? Are they attempting to press charges for something or is this theater?

I heard on the radio from someone about the "I" word being floated around (Impeachment) is that really the end game here?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Geeze, I guess, being intransigent is a wonderful thing. Do I have to do it yet again Larry??

I don't think so. I asked you to tell me your problem, and you couldn't.

I'm honestly trying to understand the outrage over this story. NO ONE in the media or in an article, or on this board, seems to know what it is.

Let me drill down:

1. Does anyone think that the attack would not have happened if something hadn't been political?

2. Does anyone think the four people who died could have been saved if something hadn't been political?

3. Does anyone think that there was a cover up of what happened?

4. What is the evidence of a cover up?

5. What was the purpose of a cover up?

6. How is Hillary Clinton linked to any cover up?

7. How is Barack Obama linked to any cover up?

8. What information was kept from the American public in this cover up?

9. Why isn't an ongoing FBI investigation a good reason to not release every detail about the attack?

10. What in the talking points was a lie?

11. What in the talking points was deceitfully removed?

Instead of citing an article that doesn't answer my questions, tell me what the answer is.

[RVAbrendan]

I didn’t quite realize this was an issue until last night when I was chatting with my girlfriends parents. They are fairly conservative and hate this administration, so I wasn’t sure if I ought to accept what they were saying or shrug it off.

But basically, what I gathered was… the administration lied to the public about the cause for the attack for political purposes. They also said that the military was denied requests to come in and intervene during the attack.

Now, my thought was that there had to be good reasoning not to just swoop in with the military, but as an embassy is being attacked, why would they just let it slide like that? There are reasons why the government is not 100% transparent and I get that… but is this the gist of the whole Benghazi situation?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I didn’t quite realize this was an issue until last night when I was chatting with my girlfriends parents. They are fairly conservative and hate this administration, so I wasn’t sure if I ought to accept what they were saying or shrug it off.

But basically, what I gathered was… the administration lied to the public about the cause for the attack for political purposes. They also said that the military was denied requests to come in and intervene during the attack.

Now, my thought was that there had to be good reasoning not to just swoop in with the military, but as an embassy is being attacked, why would they just let it slide like that? There are reasons why the government is not 100% transparent and I get that… but is this the gist of the whole Benghazi situation?

Yes, and there were good reasons not to send the military in. For one, the military was 600 miles away from Benghazi and they wouldn't have gotten there in time. For another, there were a lot of surface to air missiles that disappeared in the Egyptian revolution, and the airspace was not secure.

Robert Gates, former Bush appointee to Defense, said that he would never have ordered a military presence in those conditions.

Other than that, people on TV are just trying to stir it up, as far as I can tell. I keep asking people to explain what they think went wrong and how it could have been prevented, and no one can.

[Stadium-Armory]

Yes, and there were good reasons not to send the military in. For one, the military was 600 miles away from Benghazi and they wouldn't have gotten there in time. For another, there were a lot of surface to air missiles that disappeared in the Egyptian revolution, and the airspace was not secure. Robert Gates, former Bush appointee to Defense, said that he would never have ordered a military presence in those conditions.

These are the things that should be being discussing: Embassy security, our posture in the region, and the security of our diplomats in general. Instead, the house republicans chose to skip over the meaningful areas of opportunity and instead chose to chase this angle about how the story was originally characterized by the administration in the first hours of the attack. It does a disservice to the country, when clearly there were real mistakes made that need to be corrected.

[twa]

why not address all of them?....I certainly have

It was much more than just immediately after the attack btw.....it also impacted the investigation and our relations with the Libyan leader.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/12/dems-circle-wagons-around-hillary-as-benghazi-whistleblowers-signal-2016-attacks/