No, Obama Didn't 'Lie For A Month' About Benghazi

[Straight Shooter]

Counter to Issa’s claim, however, the evidence shows that while the administration acted cautiously in what it put forward, it ultimately told the public just what it knew to be fact about the attack. President Obama himself referred to the assault in Libya as an “act of terror” at least twice within 48 hours.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice delivered the final draft of the talking points on Sept. 16, 2012, appearing on all five Sunday news shows. Rice gave what was at the time the administrations’ best knowledge about what caused the attacks, saying that it was the result of a demonstration that mutated into a coordinated attack. Those appearances lead to her being the target of a Republican smear campaign in the weeks and months ahead.

From the CIA’s original draft of the talking points, however, the intelligence community believed that what occurred in Benghazi was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.” The Cairo protests were, in fact, spurred on by an anti-Islamic video as Rice ultimately wound up referencing in her appearances. In another draft, before the document was provided to the rest of the government for input, the word “attack” became “demonstrations,” showing that the very claim that Republicans have accused the White House of lying about came from the CIA itself. The view that the video had at least some part to play in the attack’s genesis has been borne out in later reporting.

What’s more, the administration acknowledged from the beginning that the official story on Benghazi would change as more information became known. “We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that’s the best information we have at present,” Rice said at the time. And rather than “scrubbing” the points of references to Al Qaeda to benefit Obama, then-CIA Director David Petraeus reportedly himself asked for the mentions to be removed to avoid “tipping off the groups” involved.

None of this has stopped Republicans from taking what was inherently a turf war between the CIA and State Department and attempting to turn it into a scandal that will bring down the Obama administration.

Where's the coverup?

 

[Jack Davenport]

There is not sufficient evidence of a coverup at this time. But there are enough questions to warrant an investigation.

 

[xfire]

There is not sufficient evidence of a coverup at this time. But there are enough questions to warrant an investigation.

Congressional republicans have been investigating for months, and they plan to drag this out for as long as they possibly can because they believe it's hurting Obama, and more importantly, hurting Hillary Clinton. The absurd thing is that they're committing this blatant abuse of power, not trying to cover up a damn thing about their witch hunt, and they'll get a pass. They should all be kicked out of office for their abuse of power.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Congressional republicans have been investigating for months, and they plan to drag this out for as long as they possibly can because they believe it's hurting Obama, and more importantly, hurting Hillary Clinton. The absurd thing is that they're committing this blatant abuse of power, not trying to cover up a damn thing about their witch hunt, and they'll get a pass. They should all be kicked out of office for their abuse of power.

Believe me, if nothing is there they will pay a political price for it. They are rolling the dice right now.

 

[Jeep!]

Believe me, if nothing is there they will pay a political price for it. They are rolling the dice right now.

It's not really an "if". But let's look at it this way. Watergate was a deliberate action carried out by a team of organised perpetrators, and featured bigger "revelations" about possible conspiracy within two days than this--an act occurring in the middle of a warzone with no possibility of premeditation or preparation on the part of any conspirators--has seen in eight months. This isn't even smoke and mirrors, because to call it that would imply that someone actually managed to set up a mirror before the GOP started blowing smoke.

 

[Jack Davenport]

It's not really an "if". But let's look at it this way. Watergate was a deliberate action carried out by a team of organised perpetrators, and featured bigger "revelations" about possible conspiracy within two days than this--an act occurring in the middle of a warzone with no possibility of premeditation or preparation on the part of any conspirators--has seen in eight months. This isn't even smoke and mirrors, because to call it that would imply that someone actually managed to set up a mirror before the GOP started blowing smoke.

Cute.

This was an attempt even if innocuous, to paint the attack as a enraged response to a stupid youtube video. The administration even went to great lengths to portray it as such. The man that made the video was even charged. An admission to that would satisfy me. Just a simple admission of stupidity.

 

[Jeep!]

Cute.

This was an attempt even if innocuous, to paint the attack as a enraged response to a stupid youtube video. The administration even went to great lengths to portray it as such. The man that made the video was even charged. An admission to that would satisfy me. Just a simple admission of stupidity.

You mean the YouTube video that sparked multiple widescale protests during that exact span of time, in exactly that part of the world, causing 75 deaths in total? How utterly appalling that someone might have seen a connection there when it was oh so clearly an entirely separate nonentity.

 

[Jack Davenport]

You mean the YouTube video that sparked multiple widescale protests during that exact span of time, in exactly that part of the world, causing 75 deaths in total? How utterly appalling that someone might have seen a connection there when it was oh so clearly an entirely separate nonentity.

But an administration doesn't put all of their eggs into that one basket and remain credible.

 

[Jeep!]

But an administration doesn't put all of their eggs into that one basket and remain credible.

Hmm. So reading OP's extensive quote, point out where either Obama or Clinton put "all their eggs" into that basket and kept them there. Because as I see it, the CIA (you know, the ones whose actual jobs hinge on intelligence-gather, unlike Obama and Clinton and any politician ever) presented the two as being conflated, and despite this initial handing-over of faulty information, the administration was still able to accurately label it as a terrorist attack with a good deal of immediacy. And, again assuming that my reading comprehension is good enough to actually, you know, read, that sounds to me like they're on the ball.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I think you are missing the point. They called it a terrorist attack. But it made it easier to claim that the attack was not something they could defend if it came from an impromptu riot stemming from a video. The whole issue here is did they have sufficient intelligence to prevent it? And by saying that it was something that occurred off of the usual intelligence radar, in their minds takes them off of the hook.

 

[Jeep!]

I think you are missing the point. They called it a terrorist attack. But it made it easier to claim that the attack was not something they could defend if it came from an impromptu riot stemming from a video. The whole issue here is did they have sufficient intelligence to prevent it? And by saying that it was something that occurred off of the usual intelligence radar, in their minds takes them off of the hook.

No I'm following that point--when the CIA tell them expressly that they believed the attack came as a relatively spontaneous one taking advantage of the protests, it's not in any way the fault of the politicians that this intelligence was what they were given. If a team of weathermen gave Obama a report telling him it would rain, and it didn't, it's not Obama's fault--and if the people who are actually responsible for the gathering of this kind of intelligence tell him their professional belief was that it was a bolt from the blue, then why is Petraeus not the one under the spotlight here?

 

[Jack Davenport]

No I'm following that point--when the CIA tell them expressly that they believed the attack came as a relatively spontaneous one taking advantage of the protests, it's not in any way the fault of the politicians that this intelligence was what they were given. If a team of weathermen gave Obama a report telling him it would rain, and it didn't, it's not Obama's fault--and if the people who are actually responsible for the gathering of this kind of intelligence tell him their professional belief was that it was a bolt from the blue, then why is Petraeus not the one under the spotlight here?

Interesting that you would take that POV. Considering the fact that WMD in Iraq stemmed initially from British intelligence which Bush and the Congress relied upon.

 

[Jeep!]

Interesting that you would take that POV. Considering the fact that WMD in Iraq stemmed initially from British intelligence which Bush and the Congress relied upon.

Yep, I'll grant you that--though I was against that war (and, as usual, against anything the British do). However, it's known now that the report involved was knowingly doctored (I believe "sexed up" was the term used to attempt to make it seem less outrageous an offence), which is many steps above simple ignorance. Hell, if it ever comes to light that Petraeus' boys had their intell doctored then I'd expect both sides of this thing to be up in arms, but that's neither the assertion being made or the even the direction being considered.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Yep, I'll grant you that--though I was against that war (and, as usual, against anything the British do). However, it's known now that the report involved was knowingly doctored (I believe "sexed up" was the term used to attempt to make it seem less outrageous an offence), which is many steps above simple ignorance. Hell, if it ever comes to light that Petraeus' boys had their intell doctored then I'd expect both sides of this thing to be up in arms, but that's neither the assertion being made or the even the direction being considered.

Stop making sense lol

 

[Jeep!]

Stop making sense lol

I'll try. But trust me--you don't grow up in an environment of actual conspiracy, state terrorism and political stonewalling and not learn to spot a real issue versus a non-issue pretty quickly. It's probably why so many of us knew that Thatcher had mishandled the Hillborough affair (now that I mention that, it's probably worth reading about it for anyone still convinced that this Benghazi thing is more than it seems), and were able to tell the difference between state involvement in, say, the deaths of Billy Wright (now there's a man who deserved a bullet) versus Pat Finucane. Rule of thumb; when a government actually sits down and answers questions, there's probably nothing much being hidden.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I'll try. But trust me--you don't grow up in an environment of actual conspiracy, state terrorism and political stonewalling and not learn to spot a real issue versus a non-issue pretty quickly. It's probably why so many of us knew that Thatcher had mishandled the Hillborough affair (now that I mention that, it's probably worth reading about it for anyone still convinced that this Benghazi thing is more than it seems), and were able to tell the difference between state involvement in, say, the deaths of Billy Wright (now there's a man who deserved a bullet) versus Pat Finucane. Rule of thumb; when a government actually sits down and answers questions, there's probably nothing much being hidden.

As a child, the first terrorism I was even aware of was not Islamic terror but IRA bombings. I also remember vividly the news reports of the conflict between Catholics and Protestants. I can't imagine growing up in such an environment and understand why your world view is what it is.

 

[Jeep!]

As a child, the first terrorism I was even aware of was not Islamic terror but IRA bombings. I also remember vividly the news reports of the conflict between Catholics and Protestants. I can't imagine growing up in such an environment and understand why your world view is what it is.

See don't ever call it a conflict between Catholics and Protestant because it never was--it was a conflict between pro-union British forces, often but not exclusively of English descent, and between pro-independence forces, often but not exclusively ethnic Irishmen. The most revered nationalist was the protestant Wolfe Tone, while whole brigades of the unionist terror group the LVF were Catholic. That said, I don't see how my worldview should be any different--I support the secession from a reactionary police state which has committed genocide and ethnic cleansing on my people for centuries; if that doesn't drive you to the left I dunno what will.

 

[Jack Davenport]

See don't ever call it a conflict between Catholics and Protestant because it never was--it was a conflict between pro-union British forces, often but not exclusively of English descent, and between pro-independence forces, often but not exclusively ethnic Irishmen. The most revered nationalist was the protestant Wolfe Tone, while whole brigades of the unionist terror group the LVF were Catholic. That said, I don't see how my worldview should be any different--I support the secession from a reactionary police state which has committed genocide and ethnic cleansing on my people for centuries; if that doesn't drive you to the left I dunno what will.

We have been fortunate in the United States (at least for me, not speaking for all) to not experience things here on that level. The only thing remotely comparable is the violence that ensued during the civil rights movement. You have piqued my interest in this more and I am curious enough to learn more about it. If for nothing else my Irish heritage demands it. I won't even begin to act like I know all of what you have experienced.