US Embassy Stormed in Cairo...

[statman]

The CIA's INITIAL reports also said that the attacks were not spontaneous, but coordinated and Al Qaeda related. And they said they were absolutely certain of those facts. And after Obaminions at State and the White House saw that assessment, it dropped to "Oh. Yeah. There might have been a few extremists scattered among the crowd. Maybe. Damn Youtube video..."

The CIA dramatically altered their assessment based on political pressure from State and/or White House. And then our President lied to the American people on numerous occasions. As did our Secretary of State and our Ambassador to the UN. And of course the debates with Romney were complete lies.

They need to start submitting subpoenas and indictments and watch the rats scatter for cover...

As for why they didn't announce it - it's becoming clearer that there actually was something going on at the CIA annex - probably arms dealing to Libyan & Syrian rebels (all linked to Al Qaeda). Had they called it an attack - and had they sent in troops to defend the guys on the ground - there would have been lots of people who shouldn't know about the arms dealing (including military, FBI and reporters) walking around Benghazi asking questions. The way things worked out, Our esteemed Ambassador to the UN insulted the Libyan President on national TV, he got pissed and wouldn't let any Americans into Benghazi for almost a month. That gave the CIA guys time to shut-down shop and get the hell out of dodge...

[VirginiaCougar]

So because Breitbart reported it, it must be horseshit? Are you saying that there WASN'T an off the record briefing - aka a dissemination of talking points?

With extremely rare exception, Breitbart is just that. There is no valid or reasonable excuse to acquire political information from them. Even when they describe a fact accurately, what they then do with that fact, how they spin it, is so egregious that it becomes unrecognizable from the original.

[statman]

With extremely rare exception, Breitbart is just that. There is no valid or reasonable excuse to acquire political information from them. Even when they describe a fact accurately, what they then do with that fact, how they spin it, is so egregious that is becomes unrecognizable from the original.

And that's different form CNN, CBS, ABS, NY Times, WashPo, MSNBC, CNBC, Huffpo, DailyKOS, etc how exactly?

[VirginiaCougar]

And that's different form CNN, CBS, ABS, NY Times, WashPo, MSNBC, CNBC, Huffpo, DailyKOS, etc how exactly?

Some of those are as bad from the left, others on that list are 100x better in spite of their many faults, and other are simply inept at providing any meaningful news.

[calicoug]

cali, you're thinking like a moron now and it is causing me to wonder if you really have an objective thought in your head. If even half the truth about Benghazi had surfaced before October and the incompetency of the Obama administration been made clear then they would have been in big trouble. There is no way that he would have seen a bump in the polls for his reaction (or lack thereof) to the attack had Americans known the details about the attack and the administration's pansy ass response.

Instead, what happened? Romney was roasted for at least a week, possibly two for "jumping to conclusions" about it being a terrorist attack. Everyone but FOX was reporting it as some stupid protest that went bad. Nobody was talking about the lack of response, unless they were spinning it away. Don't forget that Romney also had his ass handed to him, not by Obama, but by Candy Crawley for bringing up Benghazi in the second debate. Romney was made to look like a fool for his analysis of Benghazi and Obama was portrayed as a hero for "keeping abreast of the situation" while fund-raising in Vegas.

No need to be rude Pellegrino.

It is a fact that popularity generally shoots up after a terrorist attack. If every single fact about Benghazi was known at the instant the attack occurred, who knows what the polls would have done. They haven't exactly moved a bunch on Obama's handling of foreign policy overall with all we know. Here's what a Republican pollster thinks about this:

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public...y_to_be_a_bust

But I understood your question to be different than the standard you gave in your last post. I thought you were suggesting Obama changed the narrative for political purposes. Keep in mind that Obama didn't know all of the facts at the time the talking points were compiled. So if, as I thought you were suggesting, he was trying to game the system to create a politically advantageous environment, he chose the worst possible path. It would have been much more beneficial for him to state that these attacks were purely terrorist in nature. If he had done just that, Romney likely would have been even further on his heels and this probably would not have even been raised as a point of contention in the presidential debates at all. Instead the questions would've been about terrorism more generally and about what we can do to combat terrorism. That is a debate that was already occurring before the attacks in Libya and it is one that Romney was losing soundly. So no, I really don't understand why you think that any of this was done with an intention to further Obama's reelection chances. Instead, I think you are being cut in a conservative feedback loop that is telling you that this is a much more sinister issue than it really is and that is coloring your judgment.

[calicoug]

The CIA's INITIAL reports also said that the attacks were not spontaneous, but coordinated and Al Qaeda related. And they said they were absolutely certain of those facts. And after Obaminions at State and the White House saw that assessment, it dropped to "Oh. Yeah. There might have been a few extremists scattered among the crowd. Maybe. Damn Youtube video..."

The CIA dramatically altered their assessment based on political pressure from State and/or White House. And then our President lied to the American people on numerous occasions. As did our Secretary of State and our Ambassador to the UN. And of course the debates with Romney were complete lies.

They need to start submitting subpoenas and indictments and watch the rats scatter for cover...

As for why they didn't announce it - it's becoming clearer that there actually was something going on at the CIA annex - probably arms dealing to Libyan & Syrian rebels (all linked to Al Qaeda). Had they called it an attack - and had they sent in troops to defend the guys on the ground - there would have been lots of people who shouldn't know about the arms dealing (including military, FBI and reporters) walking around Benghazi asking questions. The way things worked out, Our esteemed Ambassador to the UN insulted the Libyan President on national TV, he got pissed and wouldn't let any Americans into Benghazi for almost a month. That gave the CIA guys time to shut-down shop and get the hell out of dodge...

Where are you getting this? Now Obama was selling arms to al-Qaeda linked groups out of the embassy? The very talking points you and others cite as evidence of misconduct consistently say that the attacks were spontaneous. The very first draft says the attacks were linked to the protests in Egypt which involved the infamous YouTube video. Everything you said is pure conjecture that seems frankly dissociated from reality.

The CIA thought the attacks were spontaneous. State didn't buy apparently didn't feel confident enough in their belief to challenge the CIA. That scenario happens all the time.

[calicoug]

With extremely rare exception, Breitbart is just that. There is no valid or reasonable excuse to acquire political information from them. Even when they describe a fact accurately, what they then do with that fact, how they spin it, is so egregious that it becomes unrecognizable from the original.

Yep.

[statman]

It is a fact that popularity generally shoots up after a terrorist attack.

Absolutely true - which makes the coverup all the more suspicious.

WHAT WAS ON THE GROUND IN BENGHAZI THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT/COULDN'T LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FIND OUT ABOUT?

The answer to that question is the key to understanding why there was no military response and why the White House/State Department/CIA concocted a bullshit story about a youtube video and repeated it until the election.

What do I think was on the ground - an arms depot that they were using to feed arms to terrorists opposing middle eastern regimes - including terrorists tied to Al Qaeda. That appears to be the consensus of the trial balloons that are leaking out. I think it's also conceivable that it could have been an interrogation site run by the CIA, but with guys from other countries running the interrogations (we know such sites existed under Bush in Syria, Egypt, a few countries in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia). Obama said he wouldn't use such sites, but he also said he'd shut down Gitmo and have all of our troops home by 2010.

IMO the first type of site would have been embarrassing politically - the Republicans would have had a field day with it. But having such a site is not illegal, just embarrassing when everyone officially finds out about it. The President has a constitutional right to conduct foreign policy, and if that means supplying arms to the enemy of our enemy, so be it. He has the right, but it doesn't mean it won't be embarrassing when others find out about it.

The discovery of the second kind of site, on the other hand, would not just prove to be embarrassing, but it could put people in jail. Obama lead the way with a bunch of new anti-torture laws, and if the CIA were involved in that kind of site in Benghazi, and it was found out, heads would roll. The discovery of a black interrogation site would have been a calamity for the White House/CIA/State Department.

What was going on in Benghazi? I'd guess weapons dealing. I'm guessing that the really damning thing to the administration is going to be that someone very senior in the White House/State Department/CIA/all of the above decided that they couldn't risk a military response because of the political embarrassment the discovery of US arms dealing would be. Again - not that it would have been found to be illegal, just that it would have been very embarrassing right before an election. So they nixed any military response because that would make it easier to say that it was the video's fault and no one would go digging around in Benghazi for more info/intel. And in fact, their use of the video defense DID provide them cover - it pissed the Libyan government off so much that they didn't allow FBI in to the consulate for more than three weeks after the attack. The CIA complex also would have been cleaned up completely at that point.

Bottom line - something was going on at the CIA facility. If it was 'just' a weapons dealing operation, someone at the top made a decision that measured political fallout vs people's lives. Who made that call?

If the CIA was running something worse - something illegal under US law - someone made the same call. But at least they could argue that for US security, the facility HAD to be kept secret, and that everyone involved knew it was the case. I'd still want an acknowledgement of that being the case and I'd still want to know who made the call to leave guys on the ground unaided.

To me, the first case is worse - and more likely. It means that we had no military response because of the political fallout that discovery of the CIAs operations would have. Politics vs lives. Who made that call?

[Pelado]

No need to be rude Pellegrino.

It is a fact that popularity generally shoots up after a terrorist attack. If every single fact about Benghazi was known at the instant the attack occurred, who knows what the polls would have done. They haven't exactly moved a bunch on Obama's handling of foreign policy overall with all we know. Here's what a Republican pollster thinks about this:

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public...y_to_be_a_bust

But I understood your question to be different than the standard you gave in your last post. I thought you were suggesting Obama changed the narrative for political purposes. Keep in mind that Obama didn't know all of the facts at the time the talking points were compiled. So if, as I thought you were suggesting, he was trying to game the system to create a politically advantageous environment, he chose the worst possible path. It would have been much more beneficial for him to state that these attacks were purely terrorist in nature. If he had done just that, Romney likely would have been even further on his heels and this probably would not have even been raised as a point of contention in the presidential debates at all. Instead the questions would've been about terrorism more generally and about what we can do to combat terrorism. That is a debate that was already occurring before the attacks in Libya and it is one that Romney was losing soundly. So no, I really don't understand why you think that any of this was done with an intention to further Obama's reelection chances. Instead, I think you are being cut in a conservative feedback loop that is telling you that this is a much more sinister issue than it really is and that is coloring your judgment.

Shouldn't he at least have been briefed on all the known facts to date?

State immediately knew there was no protest. The CIA claimed to know it was perpetrated by terrorists with links to Al Qaeda. Yet for some inexplicable reason, the White House continually referenced the YouTube video and refused to acknowledge the involvement of terrorists (see WH briefings by Jay Carney) until a couple weeks after the event - well after the dissemination of the talking points and well after when the president should have been briefed on what actually happened.

Absent an explanation for why the WH would continue with this charade, we're left to speculate as to why they tried so hard to pin it on a crappy video and why they were determined not to call it terrorism. The simplest explanation to me is for electoral purposes. As you state, if it was for electoral purposes then it was a stupid move. I agree, but with the caveat that Obama was re-elected, so maybe it served its purpose.

Where are you getting this? Now Obama was selling arms to al-Qaeda linked groups out of the embassy? The very talking points you and others cite as evidence of misconduct consistently say that the attacks were spontaneous. The very first draft says the attacks were linked to the protests in Egypt which involved the infamous YouTube video. Everything you said is pure conjecture that seems frankly dissociated from reality.

The CIA thought the attacks were spontaneous. State didn't buy apparently didn't feel confident enough in their belief to challenge the CIA. That scenario happens all the time.

State department employees - both in Libya and Washington - have sworn testimony before Congress that they knew immediately that there were no protests. What would have caused their confidence to waiver several days later?

[calicoug]

Shouldn't he at least have been briefed on all the known facts to date?

State immediately knew there was no protest. The CIA claimed to know it was perpetrated by terrorists with links to Al Qaeda. Yet for some inexplicable reason, the White House continually referenced the YouTube video and refused to acknowledge the involvement of terrorists (see WH briefings by Jay Carney) until a couple weeks after the event - well after the dissemination of the talking points and well after when the president should have been briefed on what actually happened.

Absent an explanation for why the WH would continue with this charade, we're left to speculate as to why they tried so hard to pin it on a crappy video and why they were determined not to call it terrorism. The simplest explanation to me is for electoral purposes. As you state, if it was for electoral purposes then it was a stupid move. I agree, but with the caveat that Obama was re-elected, so maybe it served its purpose.


State department employees - both in Libya and Washington - have sworn testimony before Congress that they knew immediately that there were no protests. What would have caused their confidence to waiver several days later?

This was an extremely chaotic event involving many people in multiple countries and analysis performed by several different groups often arriving at different conclusions. Why does everyone assume within a day or a week or even a month after the attacks the government would know for sure what happened? They did the best they could with what they had, and it's not surprising much if what they had was contradictory. You can take this simple explanation, or you can believe like Statman that they picked a politically disadvantageous path to follow because they were covering up arms dealing to al-Qaeda based groups out of the embassy.

For me, I'll stick with Occams Razor.

[Pelado]

This was an extremely chaotic event involving many people in multiple countries and analysis performed by several different groups often arriving at different conclusions. Why does everyone assume within a day or a week or even a month after the attacks the government would know for sure what happened? They did the best they could with what they had, and it's not surprising much if what they had was contradictory. You can take this simple explanation, or you can believe like Statman that they picked a politically disadvantageous path to follow because they were covering up arms dealing to al-Qaeda based groups out of the embassy.

For me, I'll stick with Occams Razor.

Oh good, then you agree with me.

[il Padrino Ute]

White House releases 100 pages of emails and notes on Benghazi. The Washington Post has riveting coverage here.

[myboynoah]

This was an extremely chaotic event involving many people in multiple countries and analysis performed by several different groups often arriving at different conclusions. Why does everyone assume within a day or a week or even a month after the attacks the government would know for sure what happened? They did the best they could with what they had, and it's not surprising much if what they had was contradictory. You can take this simple explanation, or you can believe like Statman that they picked a politically disadvantageous path to follow because they were covering up arms dealing to al-Qaeda based groups out of the embassy.

For me, I'll stick with Occams Razor.

LOL. The White House acted pretty sure by sending Rice out to explain it was only a protest in response to a silly video. Hillary doubled down on that explanation.

[statman]

LOL. The White House acted pretty sure by sending Rice out to explain it was only a protest in response to a silly video. Hillary doubled down on that explanation.

The very first communications - as the first attack occurred - eliminated the idea that it was from protests. There were no protests before hand, just the attacks.

The first CIA descriptions also didn't include any mention of protests and they concluded with absolute certainty that it was a terrorist attack - and the CIA rarely says anything with absolute certainty.

Both the CIA and State Department initial assessments were confirmed only hours after the attack with intercepted cell phone conversations where known terrorists were discussing their participation in the attacks.

And then the political spin machines started to define how THEY wanted the story to be told...

[wuapinmon]

How many people died in protests against a video after it was named the cause of the fake protest?