Obama lied about Benghazi

Page 38 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
The White House shouldn't have had to get personally involved at all - that's why Presidents appoint political operatives rather than career professionals to Cabinet and agency head posts, to watch out for their political interests. That was my point, that at the highest level State and the DoD are on the same team politically which is a far stronger motivation than is being on the same team for the country. The ABC document shows that the lie and subsequent cover-up was completely for political purposes. ...
That's a very cleverly crafted lie. Congratulations...I guess.

Yes, it is technically accurate to say the State emails show that the talking points were revised -- in part -- for political purposes. Specifically, some changes were due to State and the CIA squabbling over who knew what when, with State trying to cover its butt. Of course that covered only some of the changes, not all of them. State also wanted to remove speculative information about the specific terrorist group to avoid prejudicing the investigation. So no, contrary to your claim, they were not "completely" for political purposes.

More to the point, however, is that the Obama haters haven't been wailing for months about changing the talking points to cover up for State. Instead, they have repeatedly cried this was all about Obama's reelection. That "political purpose" is not supported at all by the State emails. Yes, it was technically for "political purposes", but internal politics, not election politics.

Of course there's also the claim that the White House and/or Rice changed the talking points to blame the video. The State emails show this is also false. The very first draft from the CIA stated the attack was triggered by the other protests due to that video.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
if you say so skippy.
Why am I not surprised you lack the integrity to acknowledge your error? Here's a helpful hint: if you're going to constantly, belligerently shoot off your big mouth, best to have some clue what you're talking about. Otherwise you look like just another ignorant partisan blowhard.

You're welcome, again.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Man, just shut up you Monday morning conservative armchair general wannabe idiot.

:D
:D

Speaking of "shit for brains", did you actually bother to read what Werepossum wrote? Specifically, "Mogadishu is a good case though for the dangers of sending in a response without adequate preparation and operational knowledge." If those words are too hard for you, let me summarize: He just spanked your sorry ignorant wing-nut ass.

In short, while he challenged some of the details presented by Bshole, he reiterated the conclusion. You're welcome.
Actually I challenged ALL the details presented by Bshole, but I do at least somewhat agree with his conclusion. This is shit that needs to be done up front, and the difficulties in reacting afterward are no excuse. Piss poor planning does not excuse piss poor performance, it causes it. Personally I lean more toward sending in a reaction force even without adequate preparation, although I can understand the decision to not send a reaction force as well as the visceral disagreement and the need to do so. I won't presume to agree or disagree with this particular decision; I think that would be a disservice to those who had to make this very, very difficult call about how to allocate very limited resources knowing that however they choose, Americans are likely to die.

With what I know about the situation, I honestly can't say which way I'd decide. Morally there is an absolute requirement to send help; morally there is also an absolute requirement not to abandon those non-combatants who may soon also be under attack. I am just very, very glad I don't have to make those life and death decisions. I'm sure that applies equally to the military and paramilitary forces involved; since very often militarily a bad decision well executed is better than no decision, they are no doubt equally glad I don't have to make those decisions. :D
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Why am I not surprised you lack the integrity to acknowledge your error? Here's a helpful hint: if you're going to constantly, belligerently shoot off your big mouth, best to have some clue what you're talking about. Otherwise you look like just another ignorant partisan blowhard.

You're welcome, again.

you can lead a horse to water....

go take your meds, your crazy is starting to come out again.

wtf is your issue? I wasn't even talking to you. again go take your meds.
 
Last edited:

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
you can lead a horse to water....

go take your meds, your crazy is starting to come out again.

wtf is your issue? I wasn't even talking to you. again go take your meds.
:D

My issue? I don't like liars, I don't like ignorant blowhards, and I don't like slime balls who refuse accountability for their words and actions. As far as you not talking to me, if you want to control who responds to your BS, get a blog or host your own forum. This one's not your private soapbox.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Speaking of "shit for brains", did you actually bother to read what Werepossum wrote? Specifically, "Mogadishu is a good case though for the dangers of sending in a response without adequate preparation and operational knowledge." If those words are too hard for you, let me summarize: He just spanked your sorry ignorant wing-nut ass.

In short, while he challenged some of the details presented by Bshole, he reiterated the conclusion. You're welcome.

He also said that it's irresponsible for that prep work to not be done and kept up to date.

Your summary is lacking.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
He also said that it's irresponsible for that prep work to not be done and kept up to date.

Your summary is lacking.
Well, it was a very short summary. Since throughout this you've acted as though you know far more about this than the Pentagon itself, please entertain us. Without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, exactly what prep work should have been done for this attack that was "unprecedented in its ferocity and duration" (as stated during sworn Congressional testimony, though I'm pulling the quote from memory)?
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Well, it was a very short summary. Since throughout this you've acted as though you know far more about this than the Pentagon itself, please entertain us. Without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, exactly what prep work should have been done for this attack that was "unprecedented in its ferocity and duration" (as stated during sworn Congressional testimony, though I'm pulling the quote from memory)?

Unprecedented? I doubt that. Even when compared to the fall of Saigon? The fall of the Kingdom of Iran?

I would say, for starters, that having a response plan and troops less than two days away would be a start on what I would call responsible leadership. Especially in a country as unstable as Libya.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
So CIA wasn't the one who pushed for changes. FBI didn't have concerns about original truthful talking points.

Any other excuses used by the administratin that are directly contradicted there?
Why would the CIA push for changes to its own talking points? Who claimed the FBI had concerns about them? Granted this story has evolved greatly over the months and my memory is imperfect, but did the administration make either of those claims?
 

sunzt

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2003
3,076
3
81
So CIA wasn't the one who pushed for changes. FBI didn't have concerns about original truthful talking points.

Any other excuses used by the administratin that are directly contradicted there?

The CIA made the changes and removed references to extremists.

"Morell edited the document by hand. He reordered the talking points and struck out sections about CIA warnings to the State Department on possible demonstrations, and the outbreaks of violence in the region. He also removed the reference to Islamic extremists."

What the e-mails say

September 14, 2012

Page 6 (11:15 a.m.): The original talking points were sent by the CIA.

Page 12 (3:04 p.m.): Talking points were sent to the White House's Tommy Vietor (National Security Council spokesman) and Ben Rhodes (a top National Security aide).

Page 13 (3:27 p.m.): A top official with the CIA Office of Public Affairs says they're working on the talking points, and "will have further edits."

Page 15 (4:42 p.m.): CIA sends out a new draft for review before sending to the White House.

Page 21 (5:09 p.m.): A version of talking points is sent to the White House and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence at 5:09 p.m. This is the second draft of the talking points, when the reference to "attack" was changed to "demonstrations."

Page 26 (6:21 p.m.): The White House suggests adding the word "Cairo" to the first bullet point.

Page 28 (6:33 p.m.): Talking points are sent to the State Department. An administration official says the highlighted portions included the last sentence of the first bullet -- "On 10 September we learned of social reports calling for a demonstration in front of Embassy CAIRO and that jihadists were threatening to break into the embassy."

A sentence in the second-to-last bullet was also highlighted. That sentence said "The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya."

Page 29-30 (6:41 p.m.; 6:43 p.m.): Office of the Director of National Intelligence proposes an edit: "I've been very careful not to say we issued a warning," wrote Shawn S. Turner (a spokesman).

Page 32 (6:52 p.m.): White House national security staff send around their own edits, namely to the second bullet.

Page 37 (7:39 p.m.): Then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland sends her e-mail flagging concerns about information contained in the bullet points revealing too much information.

She also questions the point about the CIA's previous warnings to the State Department about potential attacks in Benghazi.

Page 38 (7:51 p.m.): The FBI weighs in with questions on particular pieces of intelligence.

Page 48 (8:58 p.m.): CIA sends the latest draft in talking points, which they say take into account State Department and FBI concerns.

Page 48-49 (9:24 p.m.): Nuland responds, saying the new draft's talking points "don't resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership. They are consulting w NSS."

Page 51 (9:25 p.m.): State Department Official Jacob Sullivan says "we'll work through this in the morning and get comments back."

Page 58 (9:44 p.m.): Department of Justice officials are added to the e-mail chain.

On the next day, a Saturday, officials from the State Department, CIA, FBI, the White House and the Justice Department convene at a "deputies meeting."

According to an administration official, the meeting was not focused specifically on Benghazi or Libya, but rather on the broad violence, prompted by the anti-Muslim video throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The meeting centered on keeping Americans safe.

Only at the very end were the talking points discussed, the administration official said.

The administration official said Morell relayed that he was aware of some interagency concerns about talking points, and noted he had his own concerns. He said he would take a crack at editing them and would send them to those attending the deputies meeting.

The administration official said then-Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough thanked Morell. That was the total extent of the discussion of the Benghazi talking points at the meeting.

Page 63, From Saturday: after the meeting, Morell edited the document by hand. He reordered the talking points and struck out sections about CIA warnings to the State Department on possible demonstrations, and the outbreaks of violence in the region. He also removed the reference to Islamic extremists.

Page 64 (9:49 a.m.): Original CIA drafter says the edits Morell made are "fine with me. But, pretty sure HPSCI won't like them. :)" HPSCI refers to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Page 69-70 (11:08 a.m.) New draft of talking points is circulated to agencies for clearance.

Page 69-89 (11:12-12:43 a.m.): Officials from various agencies sign off on the talking points.

Page 74-76 (11:25-11:26 a.m.): Officials from the State Department and the White House National Security Staff ask to change the reference in the first bullet point from "US Consulate" to "diplomatic post."

So other than adding "CARIO" and rephrasing "US Consulate" to "diplomatic post" what did the white house change?
 
Last edited:

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Going to go down swingin huh?

You are the one trolling here....blindly repeating partisan BS and lies.

I've pointed out some facts, but as usual, you choose to ignore them.

But at least you admit you are like the rest of the ignorant GOP that will believe whatever you are told. But from your posting history here, I think everyone already knows that.

Fox/Rush/drudge "reports" made up stories-> Gets posted on AT P&N -> Matt1970 expresses his faux outrage at story -> rinse and repeat for next made up story.

Not a new thing here, and you aren't the only one guilty of it. But glad you admit to it.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
No, he's not right. Nice spin BTW. He is calling people ignorant who 61% of know where a place in Libya is when half the US population doesn't even know where Mississippi is. I wouldn't expect you to see it any differently. He is calling conservatives ignorant. You will look for any angle you can to try and justify it.

No, I'm calling idiots ignorant...not all conservatives. Not my fault you fall into the first group.

But continue on with your faux outrage.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
You are the one trolling here....blindly repeating partisan BS and lies.

I've pointed out some facts, but as usual, you choose to ignore them.

But at least you admit you are like the rest of the ignorant GOP that will believe whatever you are told. But from your posting history here, I think everyone already knows that.

Fox/Rush/drudge "reports" made up stories-> Gets posted on AT P&N -> Matt1970 expresses his faux outrage at story -> rinse and repeat for next made up story.

Not a new thing here, and you aren't the only one guilty of it. But glad you admit to it.

The 12 changes of the talking points got discovered by ABC, not Fox/Rush/drudge. You then call the people idiots for their lack of knowledge of geography but that was debunked. Little tip, when you are lying on your back watching the ref reach 10 and wave his hands over you, you lost the match.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
The 12 changes of the talking points got discovered by ABC, ...
Not so much, as it turns out. Now that the White House has released the actual emails, it turns out ABC's "quote" from those emails wasn't really a quote at all. It was a second-hand paraphrase by an anonymous source who added significant spin. ABC screwed up in their rush for a sensational headline, the latest example of the decline of journalism in America.

(To be clear, yes, ABC broke the story. They were not accurate in reporting it, however.)
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Not so much, as it turns out. Now that the White House has released the actual emails, it turns out ABC's "quote" from those emails wasn't really a quote at all. It was a second-hand paraphrase by an anonymous source who added significant spin. ABC screwed up in their rush for a sensational headline, the latest example of the decline of journalism in America.

(To be clear, yes, ABC broke the story. They were not accurate in reporting it, however.)

Now why am I not shocked about that?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Well, it was a very short summary. Since throughout this you've acted as though you know far more about this than the Pentagon itself, please entertain us. Without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, exactly what prep work should have been done for this attack that was "unprecedented in its ferocity and duration" (as stated during sworn Congressional testimony, though I'm pulling the quote from memory)?
This attack was hardly "unprecedented in its ferocity and duration". That's a very dumb thing to say for whomever said it, because it argues for sending help rather than against, but beyond that we've seen much larger and more violent attacks by much better armed forces. Only a single mortar here, and no large numbers of rockets or RPGs. As for duration, there were two distinct attacks. Ideally during or after the first attack help should have been sent; I suspect that among other things, there were worries about a second attack, which did in fact materialize. The commanders would have to weigh the fact that there might be survivors, perhaps injured, against the fact that a small party might well be ambushed or caught out in the open (or in the building) by a second attack or a force left specifically to ambush the relief force.

Unprecedented? I doubt that. Even when compared to the fall of Saigon? The fall of the Kingdom of Iran?

I would say, for starters, that having a response plan and troops less than two days away would be a start on what I would call responsible leadership. Especially in a country as unstable as Libya.
I agree completely. Have to remember though that Libya was (and is) a very dangerous place without a settled government and with a largely anti-American provisional government. My inclination would be to simply seize ground and make a defensible base, but State would have a cow as that would make their mission (to make that provisional government less anti-American) much more difficult. I do think that State goes way too far to placate hostile nations (and with far too little positive result), but placing a military force large enough to defend itself on foreign soil without permission can be construed as an act of war.

We definitely stepped on our collective dick here and the assets available were not what I would consider acceptable. Nonetheless I don't consider this a scandal, but simply a bad decision that probably seemed like an acceptable risk at the time. We should take heed here; one simply does not put civilians or military out on a limb without having adequate security as well as a contingency plan of at least two levels with an immediately available reserve and a larger reserve on call. (And as we saw with Mogadishu, even that can leave one scrambling for what one needs.) I suspect that unlike the military, which tries to have contingency plans for every possible scenario, State and the CIA are much more lax.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
This attack was hardly "unprecedented in its ferocity and duration". That's a very dumb thing to say for whomever said it,
I suspect that remark must be taken in the context of attacks on American diplomatic stations outside an active war zone. Beyond that, however, I won't attempt to judge the accuracy of the comment. I don't even remember who made it, specifically, but it was one of the first group of four witnesses who testified before Congress last fall. I just remember reading the transcripts and that comment really stood out.


because it argues for sending help rather than against, but beyond that we've seen much larger and more violent attacks by much better armed forces. Only a single mortar here, and no large numbers of rockets or RPGs. As for duration, there were two distinct attacks. Ideally during or after the first attack help should have been sent; I suspect that among other things, there were worries about a second attack, which did in fact materialize. The commanders would have to weigh the fact that there might be survivors, perhaps injured, against the fact that a small party might well be ambushed or caught out in the open (or in the building) by a second attack or a force left specifically to ambush the relief force.


I agree completely. Have to remember though that Libya was (and is) a very dangerous place without a settled government and with a largely anti-American provisional government. My inclination would be to simply seize ground and make a defensible base, but State would have a cow as that would make their mission (to make that provisional government less anti-American) much more difficult. I do think that State goes way too far to placate hostile nations (and with far too little positive result), but placing a military force large enough to defend itself on foreign soil without permission can be construed as an act of war.

We definitely stepped on our collective dick here and the assets available were not what I would consider acceptable. Nonetheless I don't consider this a scandal, but simply a bad decision that probably seemed like an acceptable risk at the time. We should take heed here; one simply does not put civilians or military out on a limb without having adequate security as well as a contingency plan of at least two levels with an immediately available reserve and a larger reserve on call. (And as we saw with Mogadishu, even that can leave one scrambling for what one needs.) I suspect that unlike the military, which tries to have contingency plans for every possible scenario, State and the CIA are much more lax.
There's an interesting new claim about this I heard in the last day, but I don't remember where I found it. It may have been on one of the NBC news programs (Nightly News last night, or Today this morning), or it may have been in one of the articles I've read. In any case, the claim was that in the months before the attack, because of the reported threats, the Pentagon twice offered to provide additional defensive forces specifically for Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens (allegedly) personally refused both offers. I have no idea why, or even if it's true, but that was the claim. It's something I plan to dig into more when I have more time.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I suspect that remark must be taken in the context of attacks on American diplomatic stations outside an active war zone. Beyond that, however, I won't attempt to judge the accuracy of the comment. I don't even remember who made it, specifically, but it was one of the first group of four witnesses who testified before Congress last fall. I just remember reading the transcripts and that comment really stood out.

There's an interesting new claim about this I heard in the last day, but I don't remember where I found it. It may have been on one of the NBC news programs (Nightly News last night, or Today this morning), or it may have been in one of the articles I've read. In any case, the claim was that in the months before the attack, because of the reported threats, the Pentagon twice offered to provide additional defensive forces specifically for Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens (allegedly) personally refused both offers. I have no idea why, or even if it's true, but that was the claim. It's something I plan to dig into more when I have more time.
That's odd since we have emails from Stevens requesting security. I suspect it's a false claim, although it's possible that Stevens was specifically trying to get CIA or contract security rather than uniformed Marines, perhaps thinking it would be less provocative?

I spent some time in a hospital waiting room Tuesday and was surprised how much coverage CNN and ABC News are giving this. My own suspicion is that more than the case's merits, they are pissed about the AG's surveillance of AP reporters. They may also be pissed that Team Obama lied to them about the edits. Must be something, the new information coming out hasn't been sufficiently titillating or incriminating (to my mind anyway) to explain why news agencies who previously ignored the issue are suddenly covering it.
 
Last edited:

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
The 12 changes of the talking points got discovered by ABC, not Fox/Rush/drudge. You then call the people idiots for their lack of knowledge of geography but that was debunked. Little tip, when you are lying on your back watching the ref reach 10 and wave his hands over you, you lost the match.

You have proved that the study I posted was false? Please show me where you proved that? Otherwise, you are once again making up BS as usual.

Saying that a lot of GOP'ers that think this is the worst scandal ever and still don't know where Benghazi is a total joke, showing how ignorant they are, but you just can't help but trying to defend their ignorance. Shocking.

Once again, you are upset that we showed how ignorant a large part of the GOP is (and a part that you apparently identify with). I can't help it large parts of the GOP have become divroced from reality, and I see no reason why it should not be pointed out.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
You have proved that the study I posted was false? Please show me where you proved that? Otherwise, you are once again making up BS as usual.

Saying that a lot of GOP'ers that think this is the worst scandal ever and still don't know where Benghazi is a total joke, showing how ignorant they are, but you just can't help but trying to defend their ignorance. Shocking.

Once again, you are upset that we showed how ignorant a large part of the GOP is (and a part that you apparently identify with). I can't help it large parts of the GOP have become divroced from reality, and I see no reason why it should not be pointed out.

If you would read I actually agreed that they are blowing it way out of proportion way back in this thread. You said they were ignorant because they didn't know the geography of the area. Their knowledge of geography was above the average of the US.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Obama-Interview-8-425x273.jpg


:)
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
So e-mails have been released. Has Sit Room audio/video and calls between Executive and outside sources been screened and released? Something like this when it's happening isn't handled by e-mail, the powers that be are going to be actively involved. F ups won't be shown in e-mail unless someone documents them after the fact, which I doubt they'd do unless they want to be looking for a new job...which means they won't be documented.

Chuck