http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?hp
QuoteA boyish-looking American diplomat was meeting for the first time with the Islamist leaders of eastern Libya's most formidable militias.
It was Sept. 9, 2012. Gathered on folding chairs in a banquet hall by the Mediterranean, the Libyans warned of rising threats against Americans from extremists in Benghazi. One militia leader, with a long beard and mismatched military fatigues, mentioned time in exile in Afghanistan. An American guard discreetly touched his gun.
"Since Benghazi isn't safe, it is better for you to leave now," Mohamed al-Gharabi, the leader of the Rafallah al-Sehati Brigade, later recalled telling the Americans. "I specifically told the Americans myself that we hoped that they would leave Benghazi as soon as possible."
Yet as the militiamen snacked on Twinkie-style cakes with their American guests, they also gushed about their gratitude for President Obama's support in their uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. They emphasized that they wanted to build a partnership with the United States, especially in the form of more investment. They specifically asked for Benghazi outlets of McDonald's and KFC.
The diplomat, David McFarland, a former congressional aide who had never before met with a Libyan militia leader, left feeling agitated, according to colleagues. But the meeting did not shake his faith in the prospects for deeper involvement in Libya. Two days later, he summarized the meeting in a cable to Washington, describing a mixed message from the militia leaders.
[...]
QuoteMonths of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
They are in on it! The New York Times is part of the conspiracy to "Reduce American standing in the world". :(
Sounds like the name of a Combat Mission scenario.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2013, 07:04:51 PM
Sounds like the name of a Combat Mission scenario.
C'mon. I know you. You can read the article, understand it, and comment it, if you want to :)
QuoteThey emphasized that they wanted to build a partnership with the United States, especially in the form of more investment. They specifically asked for Benghazi outlets of McDonald's and KFC.
:lol:
I don't see much in the article to comment on Veep. Maybe you can try to start the ball rolling.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2013, 02:13:02 PM
I don't see much in the article to comment on Veep. Maybe you can try to start the ball rolling.
Republican narrative is false, full of claims they had no evidence of and have now been revealed to be untrue. It was not an Al-Qaeda thing, it was not planed to coincide with 9-11, it was provoked by that anti-Muslim film that sparked riots in other countries.
:lol: Reading comprehension.
Elaborate.
Pointless.
:face:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2013, 06:06:52 PM
Pointless.
Oh, I fully understand that. But the article explicitly states that it was not an Al-Qaeda operation, that it was provoked in large part by a video produced in the US, and that it was not planned to coincided with 9/11. The article also states this contrary to the GOP narrative.
QuoteThe other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda's role to avoid undermining the president's claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
QuoteThe violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.
For once, I tend to side with Raz. He got the summary quite right.
Quote from: viper37 on December 29, 2013, 09:37:25 PM
For once, I tend to side with Raz. He got the summary quite right.
The Republican narrative was that the attack was planned ahead of time and did not form on an impromptu basis in response to the Mohammed video. I never heard mention of any al Qaeda connection, so that's a straw man. This article asserts the planned attack was joined spontaneously by a crowd angered by the Mohammed video.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2013, 11:22:45 PMI never heard mention of any al Qaeda connection, so that's a straw man.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/29/house-intelligence-chair-benghazi-attack-al-qaeda-led-event/
QuoteThe 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya was an "Al Qaeda-led event" according to multiple on-the-record interviews with the head of the House Intelligence Committee who receives regular classified briefings and has access to the raw intelligence to make independent assessments.
"I will tell you this, by witness testimony and a year and a half of interviewing everyone that was in the ground by the way, either by an FBI investigator or the committee: It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event. And they had pretty fairly descriptive events early on that lead those folks on the ground, doing the fighting, to the conclusion that this was a pre-planned, organized terrorist event," Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told Fox News in a November interview.
...
In the same interview, Rogers also suggested there were attempts to connect between the assailants and the Al Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan. "I can tell you we know the participants of the event were clearly Al Qaeda affiliates, had strong interest and desire to communicate with Al Qaeda core and others, in the process -- we believe before and after the event."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2013, 11:22:45 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 29, 2013, 09:37:25 PM
For once, I tend to side with Raz. He got the summary quite right.
The Republican narrative was that the attack was planned ahead of time and did not form on an impromptu basis in response to the Mohammed video. I never heard mention of any al Qaeda connection, so that's a straw man. This article asserts the planned attack was joined spontaneously by a crowd angered by the Mohammed video.
Yeah, shelf beat me to it, but you can find any number of Republican big wigs claiming it was Al-Qaeda linked or led and many go so far to say that the Video had nothing to do with it, which is untrue since it seems that it both sparked the original plan (which might have been a plan in the sense that one guy called up a bunch of other people to come along and had a person scout a head to take a picture so they knew what it looked like), and fueled it as happened, and compromised security for the ambassador.
I keep getting a kick out of reading this as "A wintry mix in Benghazi," so I'm just going to put that out there. :blush:
Quote
Mike Rogers: New York Times Benghazi Report 'Just Not Accurate'
House Intelligence Committee members took to "Fox News Sunday" to question an extensive New York Times report on the 2012 attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, saying the newspaper was wrong to suggest al-Qaeda had no involvement.
"What did they get wrong?" host Chris Wallace asked Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
"That al-Qaeda was not involved in this," Rogers replied. "There was some level of pre-planning; we know that. There was aspiration to conduct an attack by al-Qaeda and their affiliates in Libya; we know that. The individuals on the ground talked about a planned tactical movement on the compound -- this is the compound before they went to the annex. All of that would directly contradict what The New York Times definitively says was an exhaustive investigation."
On Saturday, The New York Times published the result of its lengthy investigation into the Benghazi attack -- the attack that has led to harsh criticism by Republicans over the Obama administration's response. The Times reported that some of the GOP's claims about what happened in Benghazi are likely inaccurate, or at least more complicated than Republicans have made them out to be. In particular, the Times report found through interviews that there is no evidence al-Qaeda was involved. The report also called into question GOP claims that an American-made anti-Muslim video had nothing to do with the attack. White House officials had said that it provided part of the spark for the incident.
Rogers said that his committee has also done an "exhaustive investigation" into what happened in Benghazi, including going through 4,000 classified cables, and that the committee's findings were very different from those of the Times.
"It tells me they didn't talk to the people on the ground who were doing the fighting and shooting and the intelligence gathering," Rogers said. "When you put that volume of information, I think it proves that story is just not accurate."
Wallace also asked Rogers whether he thought there was a political motive for the White House's statements on Benghazi, pointing to speculation that the aim was to "clear the deck" for a presidential run in 2016 by Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time of the attack.
"I find the timing odd," Rogers said. "I don't want to speculate on why they might do it, but I can tell you that the information that's being presented in a way that we heard before ... through the [committee] investigation [we] have been able to determine [it] is not accurate in its portrayal."
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), also a member of the intelligence committee, said on "Fox News Sunday" said the New York Times report added value, but that the newspaper did not have the level of information the intelligence committee had.
"I don't think the New York Times report is designed to exonerate the security lapses within the State Department that left our people vulnerable," Schiff said. "I do think it adds some valuable insights. I agree with Mike [Rogers] that, however, the intelligence indicates that al-Qaeda was involved. But there are also plenty of people and militias that were unaffiliated with al-Qaeda that were involved."
"I think the intelligence paints a portrait that some people came to murder, some came to destroy property, some merely came to loot, and some came in part motivated by those videos," Schiff continued. "So it is a complex picture."
UPDATE: 12:15 p.m. -- Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), another fierce critic of the Obama administration's handling of the Benghazi attack, was asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" to respond to the New York Times story.
Although he said The New York Times "did some very good work," the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform questioned the story's assertion that the attack was largely fueled by anger about the anti-Muslim video cited in early administration comments.
"We have seen no evidence that the video was widely seen in Benghazi, a very isolated area, or that it was a leading cause," Issa said. "What we do know is that September 11 [the date of the 2012 attack] was not an accident. These are terrorist groups, some of them linked to or ... self-claimed as al-Qaeda linked. ... Before I go on, I wanted to make a very good point that [reporter David D. Kirkpatrick] put out. Look, it is not about al-Qaeda as the only terrorist organization."
"Meet the Press" host David Gregory pointed out that Issa had repeatedly contended that al-Qaeda was behind the attack but that President Obama did not want to acknowledge it for political reasons.
"There was a group there that was involved that's linked to al-Qaeda," Issa replied. "What we never said -- and I didn't have security look behind the door, that's for other members of Congress. ... Those sources and methods I've never claimed. What I have claimed, and rightfully so, is Ambassador Stevens [who was killed in the attack] and others alerted, well in advance, that they had a security threat."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/29/mike-rogers-new-york-times-benghazi_n_4515537.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/29/mike-rogers-new-york-times-benghazi_n_4515537.html)
Republicans in Congress should know better then to endorse my strawman arguments about themselves.
Quote
ALAN GRAYSON: Here's How I Plan To Make The Benghazi Investigation A 'Nightmare' For Republicans
Business Insider
By Brett LoGiurato
Rep. Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida, has a plan to become Republicans' "worst nightmare" if he is indeed appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to the select committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Pelosi has not yet decided whether Democrats will participate in the panel. However, in an interview with Business Insider, Grayson gave a preview of what he'd do if he gets the job.
Grayson said the creation of the select committee dedicated to investigating Benghazi proves House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa's probe of the incident is a "failure." He compared Republicans still focusing on Benghazi to so-called birthers who questioned President Barack Obama's citizenship.
"It's ridiculous. They just dredge up one fake scandal after another fake scandal, going all the way back to the president's birth certificate," Grayson said.
Grayson said he would use the Benghazi hearings as an opportunity to draw attention to other issues important to "ordinary Americans" that have not received as much attention.
"That's where we are at this point," he added. "They're scandalmongers without a scandal. They're trying to offer the American people bread and circuses — without the bread."
Grayson has repeatedly said he would love to be appointed to the committee if Democrats do participate. The committee was established earlier this month by House Speaker John Boehner to investigate Benghazi attack and subsequent government response.
House Democrats have floated a few different courses of action for their potential participation. Some suggest they could boycott the hearings while others say they could participate in full, sending five members to the panel along with Republicans' seven.
However, in a letter to Pelosi last week, Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro floated the idea of possibly sending just one House Democrat to participate on the panel. DeLauro argued this would allow for Democrats to both signal their disapproval of the panel while also maintaining their ability to question witnesses and get access to reports.
Following DeLauro's proposal, liberal groups hatched another idea: send Grayson. A petition on the CREDO group's website has already garnered more than 65,000 signatures.
"The pugnacious former litigator has demonstrated the exact skill set needed to cut through the Republican mythology, the work ethic necessary to fully immerse himself in the issue, and the temperament to weather the blistering attacks sure to come from the conservative media," wrote Brad Bauman, the former executive director of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who posted the petition.
Grayson said it's up to Pelosi to determine how she wants to approach the number of people she sends to participate. He said he's "ready, willing, and more than able" to be on the committee and, if he's chosen he would be Republicans' "worst and last nightmare." On Tuesday, Pelosi's office did not immediately respond to a request from Business Insider on Democrats' plans for the committee.
Grayson also offered Business Insider a preview of what that "nightmare" would look like. During the proceedings, Grayson said he would attempt to draw attention to other issues for which he thought voters would also like select committees to be formed.
"I'll be asking why there's no select committee on income inequality. I'll be asking why there's no select committee on immigration reform. I'll be asking why there's no select committee on the minimum wage. I'll be asking why there's no select committee on anything that has anything to do with the lives of ordinary Americans," Grayson said.
Grayson predicted he would draw attention to the 60 people who died from embassy attacks under the Bush administration, as well as questioning why there wasn't a select committee established to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack.
He also said he thought the appointment of Phil Kiko, a former National Republican Congressional Committee aide, to be the staff director for the select committee on Benghazi proved it is an attempt by Republicans to boost their fundraising in an election year.
"Well, listen. If you're going to have a kangaroo court, you've got to have your kangaroos. And what better kangaroos than the NRCC?"
lulz, the Benghazi-Industrial Complex. The GOP's going to keep running this one into the ground until they uncover Ambassador Stevens' casket and find Vince Foster in it.