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

[Tulane Skins Fan]

According to this article, this was actually an easily understood error by Jonathan Karl of ABC News.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348744/pfeiffer-stretches-truth-benghazi-emails-jonathan-strong

Ah, that error was completely understandable and not deserving of 6 months of spin on cable news? Got it.

By the way, I just read that article and I believe it is wrong on four points... You can guess which points its wrong on.

[mcsluggo]

According to this article, this was actually an easily understood error by Jonathan Karl of ABC News.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348744/pfeiffer-stretches-truth-benghazi-emails-jonathan-strong

it is easily believable that there is an innoculous explanation to the changes in the email text in this case....

but something that is VERY noticabe is how quickly you are willing to immediately accept a positive spin on "doctoring" from one side of the aisle; while simultaneusly relentlessly clinging to the worst conceivable interprepretation of any "doctoring" from the other side of the aisle.

no?

[Wrong Direction]

it is easily believable that there is an innoculous explanation to the changes in the email text in this case....

but something that is VERY noticabe is how quickly you are willing to immediately accept a positive spin on "doctoring" from one side of the aisle; while simultaneusly relentlessly clinging to the worst conceivable interprepretation of any "doctoring" from the other side of the aisle.

no?

Did I not lead that with "According to this article?"

Is the article incorrect? Is it a false explanation? I haven't seen a counter, so I simply posted it.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Did I not lead that with "According to this article?"

Is the article incorrect? Is it a false explanation? I haven't seen a counter, so I simply posted it.

So, you don't agree that this is an easily explainable error, or you do?

[Wrong Direction]

So, you don't agree that this is an easily explainable error, or you do?

According to that article, it is an easily explainable error. I haven't seen a counter to that article. What do you think?

This is the nature of all of these "scandals" over the last week+. One side says x. People jump to conclusions. The other side counters. People jump to more conclusions. The other side comes back. And on and on it goes. In this particular case, the source of that quote should be easy enough to confirm if it really was Jon Karl from ABC news. So, we should know this tidbit relatively soon.

I wish political discourse in this country were cleaner, but it's just not, and it really isn't anywhere in the world. So we take what we can get and hope things generally move in the right direction.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

According to that article, it is an easily explainable error. I haven't seen a counter to that article. What do you think?

This is the nature of all of these "scandals" over the last week+. One side says x. People jump to conclusions. The other side counters. People jump to more conclusions. The other side comes back. And on and on it goes. In this particular case, the source of that quote should be easy enough to confirm if it really was Jon Karl from ABC news. So, we should know this tidbit relatively soon.

I wish political discourse in this country were cleaner, but it's just not, and it really isn't anywhere in the world. So we take what we can get and hope things generally move in the right direction.

What do I think? I think its ****ing ludicrous that you can say this is easily explainable when for nearly a week (I don't remember exactly how long maybe less than that) people were running around saying the emails that ABC got flatly contradicted the story the White House gave us. And that's true, but its only true because someone doctored the emails.

So no, I don't think there's a good reason in that regard. I think the obvious answer is that the GOP didn't think that Obama would release all the emails and they overplayed their hand (again), and got caught lying their way to the news cycle.

Now, what do YOU think?

[twa]

The e-mails released by the WH contradicted the story the WH gave us.

only fundamental difference was the ABC one singled out the State dept(which the reporter claims was in a sequence of e-mail exchanges with State)

what Carney and Hillary said was false no matter which one you use

[@DCGoldPants]

I think the obvious answer is that the GOP didn't think that Obama would release all the emails and they overplayed their hand (again), and got caught lying their way to the news cycle.

I think there is a reason why the GOP all but dropped this by last Sunday. Seems that a hand was overplayed there. If they think that going back on TV and announcing why its easily explainable. They should. But like there must be a reason why so many dropped it at the same time, there must be a reason why they seemingly won't get into it again even with a explanation to this.

Some polling is telling them to back off right now.

[Wrong Direction]

What do I think? I think its ****ing ludicrous that you can say this is easily explainable when for nearly a week (I don't remember exactly how long maybe less than that) people were running around saying the emails that ABC got flatly contradicted the story the White House gave us. And that's true, but its only true because someone doctored the emails.

So no, I don't think there's a good reason in that regard. I think the obvious answer is that the GOP didn't think that Obama would release all the emails and they overplayed their hand (again), and got caught lying their way to the news cycle.

Now, what do YOU think?

I think your e-mail is wrong in just about every regard. I also don't think anyone in this is as stupid as people want us to think. Pfeiffer knew the R's didn't doctor the e-mails when he said they did. R's knew Karl's notes weren't exactly correct, but were happy to cite them for many weeks before the WH actually released the e-mails. I think the slightly edited e-mails don't change the substance of the fact that the State Dept weighed in to change the TPs, contrary to Carney's assertions.

I think the press knows coverage of this is off by 1/2.

We know the TPs edited out specific reference to specific terror organizations. We know that happened after the State Dept and WH got a hold of the originals, and that Patraes would rather not use the edited version. We know Rice enthusiastically portrayed the attack as resulting from the YouTube video, but only with extremists (but not the specific groups) joining later. We know that the president of Libya said it was a terrorist attack. We know Rice said in the same interview (on Face the Nation, I believe) that Obama had decimated (or very similar word) Al Qaida. We know from testimony to Congress that Hillary Clinton was notified at 2 AM that this was a terrorist attack, and nobody's putting that testimony up against the State Dept's watering down of the TPs. We know she came down with a mysterious concussion so she couldnt' testify or go on talk shows, and then she resigned. We have no idea where Obama was during this whole thing, what he ordered or what he didn't order.

This administration isn't stupid. They're doing just enough to cover their arses. But for me, they clearly promoted a story that deliberately minimized the terrorist aspects of the attack and specifically avoided public knowledge of Clinton or Obama's role in the long ordeal, and we know that the press is only now starting to ask questions about their role in this (but still not very much). We know that 2 weeks after the attack, Obama went to the UN and blamed everything on the video.

Finally, we also know there were multiple orders to stand down made by someone, and those orders resulted in zero chance of rescue for our murdered ambassador. Ultimately, it's all the noise around that point deliberately presented for the Administration to avoid any accountability that is the scandal.

[aREDSKIN]

I think your e-mail is wrong in just about every regard. I also don't think anyone in this is as stupid as people want us to think. Pfeiffer knew the R's didn't doctor the e-mails when he said they did. R's knew Karl's notes weren't exactly correct, but were happy to cite them for many weeks before the WH actually released the e-mails. I think the slightly edited e-mails don't change the substance of the fact that the State Dept weighed in to change the TPs, contrary to Carney's assertions.

I think the press knows coverage of this is off by 1/2.

We know the TPs edited out specific reference to specific terror organizations. We know that happened after the State Dept and WH got a hold of the originals, and that Patraes would rather not use the edited version. We know Rice enthusiastically portrayed the attack as resulting from the YouTube video, but only with extremists (but not the specific groups) joining later. We know that the president of Libya said it was a terrorist attack. We know Rice said in the same interview (on Face the Nation, I believe) that Obama had decimated (or very similar word) Al Qaida. We know from testimony to Congress that Hillary Clinton was notified at 2 AM that this was a terrorist attack, and nobody's putting that testimony up against the State Dept's watering down of the TPs. We know she came down with a mysterious concussion so she couldnt' testify or go on talk shows, and then she resigned. We have no idea where Obama was during this whole thing, what he ordered or what he didn't order.

This administration isn't stupid. They're doing just enough to cover their arses. But for me, they clearly promoted a story that deliberately minimized the terrorist aspects of the attack and specifically avoided public knowledge of Clinton or Obama's role in the long ordeal, and we know that the press is only now starting to ask questions about their role in this (but still not very much). We know that 2 weeks after the attack, Obama went to the UN and blamed everything on the video.

Finally, we also know there were multiple orders to stand down made by someone, and those orders resulted in zero chance of rescue for our murdered ambassador. Ultimately, it's all the noise around that point deliberately presented for the Administration to avoid any accountability that is the scandal.

+1 Of course. those who cant or wont see it are well,,,,,,,

[Larry]

I think there is a reason why the GOP all but dropped this by last Sunday. Seems that a hand was overplayed there. If they think that going back on TV and announcing why its easily explainable. They should. But like there must be a reason why so many dropped it at the same time, there must be a reason why they seemingly won't get into it again even with a explanation to this.

Some polling is telling them to back off right now.

Well, I assume the fact that they have two new scandals, ones where they can actually say WHAT they're pretending to be outraged about, was a big factor in that decision.

[Wrong Direction]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/20/exclusive-hillary-s-benghazi-scapegoat-speaks-out.html

Exclusive: Hillary's Benghazi 'Scapegoat' Speaks Out

Following the attack in Benghazi, senior State Department officials close to Hillary Clinton ordered the removal of a mid-level official who had no role in security decisions and has never been told the charges against him. He is now accusing Clinton’s team of scapegoating him for the failures that led to the death of four Americans last year.

...

“I had no involvement to any degree with decisions on security and the funding of security at our diplomatic mission in Benghazi,” he said.

...

Since the leave is not considered a formal disciplinary action, Maxwell has no means to appeal the status, as he would if he had been outright fired. To this day, he says, nobody from the State Department has ever told him why he was singled out for discipline. He has never had access to the classified portion of the ARB report, where all of the details regarding personnel failures leading up to Benghazi are confined. He also says he has never been shown any evidence or witness testimony linking him to the Benghazi incident.

Maxwell says he had planned to retire last September, but extended his time voluntarily after the Sept. 11 attack to help the bureau in its time of need. Now, he is refusing to retire until his situation is clarified. He is seeking a restoration of his previous position, a public statement of apology from State, reimbursement for his legal fees, and an extension of his time in service to equal the time he has spent at home on administrative leave.

“For any FSO being at work is the essence of everything and being deprived of that and being cast out was devastating,” he said.

More at link.

[Wrong Direction]

And IF this is true, this will clearly be a scandal.

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/21/pjm-exclusive-ex-diplomats-report-new-benghazi-whistleblowers-with-info-devastating-to-clinton-and-obama/

More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.

...

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

And IF this is true, this will clearly be a scandal.

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/21/pjm-exclusive-ex-diplomats-report-new-benghazi-whistleblowers-with-info-devastating-to-clinton-and-obama/

If Boehner is a terrorist, a la Homeland the TV show, who ordered the strike on Benghazi, there would be a huge scandal!

[Wrong Direction]

If Boehner is a terrorist, a la Homeland the TV show, who ordered the strike on Benghazi, there would be a huge scandal!

True, but there aren't any credible allegations of that. If these are real whistleblowers, the allegations would be credible. We're not talking about Alice in Wonderland stuff here.

[Dan T.]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/20/exclusive-hillary-s-benghazi-scapegoat-speaks-out.html

More at link.

Maxwell is deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, which includes Libya. Down in paragraph 24 of the Daily Beast article, it notes that Maxwell was placed on administrative leave after he admitted to Pickering's Administrative Review Board that he failed to read his daily classified briefings. The article does explore what effect that failure to read his daily intel may have had on the events in Benghazi. That may be the reason - other than scapegoating - that he has been placed on administrative leave.

[Wrong Direction]

Yeah, it's a long article. That's the only leak in the article against this guy in it. There could be more.

As an aside, imagine you're this guy for a second and totally forget about this scandal, his reputation or any of this political stuff.

Dude is on paid administrative leave for lord knows how long. If something doesn't change, he could get full pay for the rest of his life, set money aside into his Thrift, etc. At some point (maybe after 2016?) I suspect someone will cut a deal that absolves him of all responsibility in return for his retirement. That's assuming he's not blowing smoke and is actually culpable to the point he could be fired (unlikely, given the ARB recommended no disciplinary action against anyone). As such, this isn't a bad financial windfall for him.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

True, but there aren't any credible allegations of that. If these are real whistleblowers, the allegations would be credible. We're not talking about Alice in Wonderland stuff here.

There aren't credible allegations of anything on this issue.

"IF" there are real whistleblowers, huh? Exactly. Everything is "if."

Alice in Wonderland was a much better story than the one the right wing blogs have concocted.

[Wrong Direction]

Alice in Wonderland was a much better story than the one the right wing blogs have concocted.

You can say this until you're blue in the face. That doesn't make it true.

[mcsluggo]

You can say this until you're blue in the face. That doesn't make it true.

Again... you are willing to accept ANY explanation for irregualrities on the part of people invloved in "exposing this cover-up", while simultaneusly giving full faith and credit to ANY unsubstantiated and hypothetical accusation against the State Dept/Whitehouse.

you realize this, right?

[Duckus]

Say this on Colbert last night.

41% of Republicans consider this to be the biggest political scandal in American history. But of those Republicans, 39% don't know where Benghazi is. 10% think it's in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, with North Korea making it at 1%.

:ols: :ols:

Biggest in American history . . . . . . . amazing.

[@DCGoldPants]

Again... you are willing to accept ANY explanation for irregualrities on the part of people invloved in "exposing this cover-up", while simultaneusly giving full faith and credit to ANY unsubstantiated and hypothetical accusation against the State Dept/Whitehouse.

you realize this, right?

COMING SOON: How Obama created the Oklahoma disaster to deflect attention from.........

I'll be curious to see where this is in about 2 weeks.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

You can say this until you're blue in the face. That doesn't make it true.

Saying it doesn't make it true, but its true so I said it.

[Wrong Direction]

Again... you are willing to accept ANY explanation for irregualrities on the part of people invloved in "exposing this cover-up", while simultaneusly giving full faith and credit to ANY unsubstantiated and hypothetical accusation against the State Dept/Whitehouse.

you realize this, right?

I realize the rumor of these new whistleblowers, along with their supposed story, fits pretty much exactly with what I've assumed happened the whole time. My assumptions were based on my own thoughts about how an event like this would have had to go down. They weren't based on some right wing blog. Sure, that makes me more likely to believe it.

I think the president was always involved. There were stand down orders. We decided not to protect our ambassador during the attack. The rest has been a disinformation campaign meant to hide his role on that day.

[mcsluggo]

I realize the rumor of these new whistleblowers, along with their supposed story, fits pretty much exactly with what I've assumed happened the whole time. My assumptions were based on my own thoughts about how an event like this would have had to go down. They weren't based on some right wing blog. Sure, that makes me more likely to believe it.

.

this post is easily the most honest in the whole thread.

to paraphrase:

"I have known since the beginning many things that were not substantiated by any corroborating facts or information, but based on pure gut. As a result, i will of course immediately believe any blogs that resemble what i already know, whether or not they have any corroborating information or facts."

I am glad we cleared that up.