- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New York Times claims they had a reporter on scene at Benghazi
Posted on 1/3/14 at 2:36 pm to Decatur
Posted on 1/3/14 at 2:36 pm to Decatur
quote:
I want to be sure you realize there was a lull in the attack for a few hours before mortars were used. It was not a continuous attack and the mortars were only used at the very end.
Why would you assume otherwise? I posted relevant portions of the timeline in response to your link calling the attackers a flash mob.
I don't normally associate flash mobs with heavy machine guns, mortar zeroing and roving assaults but hey whatever.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 2:56 pm to Decatur
quote:
In the call, the alleged attacker said the locals went forward with the attack only after watching the riots that same day at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.
This suggests nothing other than the attacks occurred after the riots in Cairo. Not that they were related.
quote:
But the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaeda’s international terrorist network. The only intelligence connecting Al Qaeda to the attack was an intercepted phone call that night from a participant in the first wave of the attack to a friend in another African country who had ties to members of Al Qaeda,
But you just posted this
quote:
The mob included members of the Ansar al-Sharia militia, about four members of al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, and members of the Egypt-based Muhammad Jamal network, along with other unarmed looters.
And you interestingly left out this from your post.
quote:
However, the intercept was one of several monitored communications during and after the attacks between members of a local militia called Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM, which, taken together, suggest the assault was in fact a premeditated terrorist attack, according to U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials not authorized to talk to the press.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 3:07 pm to Decatur
quote:
As to the first group:
quote:
The intelligence that helped inform those talking points—and what the U.S. public would ultimately be told—came in part from an intercept of a phone call between one of the alleged attackers and a middle manager from al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the group’s north African affiliate, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intercept. In the call, the alleged attacker said the locals went forward with the attack only after watching the riots that same day at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.
After posting this paragraph, you followed it up with a link to the Daily Beast story from which it was extracted to support your position. Most readers will either not click on the link, or will merely scan it briefly. That could leave them with a distorted sense of your properly-attributed excerpt.
Why?
Because your quote is immediately followed by this (why did you stop at the word "Cairo"? :
"However, the intercept was one of several monitored conversations during and after the attacks between members of local militia called Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM, which, taken together, suggest the assault was in fact a premeditated terrorist attack, according to U.S. intelligence counter-terrorism officials not authorized to talk to the press.
In one of the calls, for example, members of Ansar al-Sharia bragged about their successful attack against the American consulate (sic)and the U.S. ambassador.
It's unclear why the talking points said the attacks were spontaneous and why they didn't mention the possibility of al-Qaeda involvement given the content of the intercepts and the organizations the the speakers were affiliated with. One U.S. intelligence official said the widely-distributed assessment was an example of "cherry picking", or choosing one piece of intelligence and ignoring other pieces, to support a preferred thesis."
Again, my quote from the link begins with the very next word after your quote from the link ends. Which merely illustrates how relying on too many quotes, without context, is a circle game. In this case particularly, considering the source publication, and the date of publication (Oct 1, 2012, 20 days after the attack and a time when misinformation was overflowing everywhere. If you go back and read countless Benghazi stories from 2012, the factual errors are mind-numbing in retrospect!)
Your Kirkpatrick quote does not support your Daily Beast quote.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 3:15 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
And you interestingly left out this from your post.
Damn man, you're getting good. While I was slowly and carefully writing my post, which included the very same thing you posted just above me, you were taking care of business. Nevertheless, we both looked at his link and were both immediately struck by the obvious contradiction of the consecutive paragraphs. (Have you been secretly copying my Benghazi files? - j/k
Posted on 1/3/14 at 3:16 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
Damn man, you're getting good. While I was slowly and carefully writing my post, which included the very same thing you posted just above me, you were taking care of business. Nevertheless, we both looked at his link and were both immediately struck by the obvious contradiction of the consecutive paragraphs. (Have you been secretly copying my Benghazi files? - j/k
You did do a more thorough job of it though. I'd love to see those Benghazi files though.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 3:19 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
Because your quote is immediately followed by this (why did you stop at the word "Cairo"? :
quote:
"However, the intercept was one of several monitored conversations during and after the attacks between members of local militia called Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM, which, taken together, suggest the assault was in fact a premeditated terrorist attack, according to U.S. intelligence counter-terrorism officials not authorized to talk to the press.
Officials have said there was evidence of both, and I'm sure Lake's sources were pushing the "premeditated" angle (if the rest of his reporting is to be considered here). Last I heard officials say there was no evidence of much pre-planning.
quote:
It's unclear why the talking points said the attacks were spontaneous and why they didn't mention the possibility of al-Qaeda involvement given the content of the intercepts and the organizations the the speakers were affiliated with.
I don't know why Lake thinks this is necessarily mutually exclusive, if a few people associated with AQIM participated with a large group of AAS for an "opportunistic" attack.
quote:
Your Kirkpatrick quote does not support your Daily Beast quote.
I'm not so sure of that
If you have any more info regarding the intercepts we got then I'm more than happy to consider it.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 3:31 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
I'd love to see those Benghazi files though
So would Hillary ...
Posted on 1/3/14 at 3:34 pm to Decatur
quote:
quote:
Your Kirkpatrick quote does not support your Daily Beast quote.
I'm not so sure of that
Read one, then the other. What statement exists in the former and not the latter?
Posted on 1/3/14 at 3:35 pm to NHTIGER
You stingy bastard.
<<<@gmail.com if you're ever feeling generous.
<<<@gmail.com if you're ever feeling generous.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 4:39 pm to NHTIGER
Also, the Lake quote seems to jibe with what this source told David Ignatius (linked to earlier in thread)
All of their accounts don't match perfectly, but I'd assume they are all basically referencing the same stuff (maybe they used different sources/could have been described differently)...which seems to indicate why they saw the video/protests as a factor (even if it may not have been seen as the only factor).
If you'd like to provide any more info on these intercepts I'd love to check it out.
I just don't see how anyone can fault the CIA for putting this stuff in the initial intel assessment.
quote:
The senior intelligence official said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the consulate.
All of their accounts don't match perfectly, but I'd assume they are all basically referencing the same stuff (maybe they used different sources/could have been described differently)...which seems to indicate why they saw the video/protests as a factor (even if it may not have been seen as the only factor).
If you'd like to provide any more info on these intercepts I'd love to check it out.
I just don't see how anyone can fault the CIA for putting this stuff in the initial intel assessment.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 5:03 pm to NHTIGER
More reporting, this time from Ken Dilanian of the Los Angeles Times
LINK
quote:
Republicans have zeroed in on possible Al Qaeda ties to the Sept. 11 attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, and have criticized the Obama administration for not saying early on that it was an act of terrorism. But after five weeks of investigation, U.S. intelligence agencies say they have found no evidence of Al Qaeda participation.
The attack was "carried out following a minimum amount of planning," said a U.S. intelligence official, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a matter still under investigation. "The attackers exhibited a high degree of disorganization. Some joined the attack in progress, some did not have weapons and others just seemed interested in looting."
A second U.S. official added, "There isn't any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance." Most of the evidence so far suggests that "the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" earlier that day, the official said.
The lack of a firm Al Qaeda link could constrain U.S. military options. The administration believes it has the right under international law to use lethal force against Al Qaeda operatives who kill Americans, but that case would be harder to make against members of a Libyan militia.
The description by witnesses also differs from some of the administration's recent statements. Officials, most notably Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, at first said they believed the attack was motivated by a controversial anti-Islamic video produced in the United States. More recently, officials downplayed any connection. But in Benghazi, witnesses said members of the group that raided the U.S. mission specifically mentioned the video, which denigrated the prophet Muhammad.
Tarek, an off-duty police sergeant who asked that his full name be withheld to shield him from reprisals, said he came to the scene about an hour after the attack began and found militants blocking the road leading to the compound.
"They drew their guns on me and they told me that the Americans were abusing our prophet," he said. "That's why they said they had come to fight."
He and others described the attackers as a mob rather than a team of commandos. It included some organized elements, they said, but its intelligence was less than precise. A caretaker at the villa adjacent to the U.S. mission said the attackers initially threatened to raid his compound until he and a guard barred the gate and shouted: "Private property! Women inside!"
Libyan guards who served as the security force at the U.S. compound said the mob was made up of disparate types, some who appeared to be experienced fighters and others who were not. There were long-bearded men whose faces were obscured by scarves in the style of practiced militants and called each other "sheik." But there also were younger men, some who looked like teenagers with wispy beards on their uncovered faces.
"There were civilians there, and many were carrying weapons," said Sheik Mohamed Oraibi, a hard-line Islamic preacher who arrived soon after the attack began. He said the attackers arrived in about 20 pickup trucks, many of which had machine guns mounted on them in the style favored by rebels during the Libyan revolution last year.
Multiple witnesses said the accents and vernacular used by the attackers sounded Libyan, not foreign. They were extremely well armed, but Libya is awash in weapons. In Benghazi, machine guns and shoulder-fired grenade launchers, many pilfered by rebels from Kadafi's stocks during the revolution, are sold on the streets.
LINK
Posted on 1/3/14 at 5:16 pm to Decatur
That's a lazy piece of reporting Decatur. Filled with ambiguous statements from unnamed and unreliable sources that the author is trying to pass off as fact for the purpose of attacking Republicans.
This post was edited on 1/3/14 at 5:17 pm
Posted on 1/3/14 at 5:35 pm to Decatur
quote:
I just don't see how anyone can fault the CIA for putting this stuff in the initial intel assessment.
I understand why and how it happens, and don't "fault" it.
It's just that's it's such a minor and largely insignificant aspect of any investigation into the Benghazi events, it creates unnecessary confusion in the mind of the casual reader/citizen/voter. It's a matter of connecting the dots over a 19-day period. Jonathan Karl and the over-hyped "talking points memo", the Lara Logan fiasco and that entire bushwhack job that occurred on "60 Minutes", and now this surprisingly weak Kirkpatrick attempt to kill the Benghazi story only fuels the fire in the direction they don't want it to go.
Kirkpatrick, the NYT and the people at CBS all want the public to focus on the shiny object - the CIA in Benghazi. That shiny object is a very real but peripheral issue in the Benghazi investigation.
Kirkpatrick wrote all those words but really wanted the reader to walk away remembering one sentence subtly slipped into the final page, with no premise attached, but intended to deliver a sledgehammer blow to distract the reader. That sentence reflects both Kirkpatrick's and the NYT's longstanding obsession with blaming the CIA for everything that has gone wrong in American foreign policy since the Kennedy administration.
"Other Benghazi Islamists insist, bizarrely and without evidence, that they suspect the C.I.A. killed the ambassador." - This sentence is thrown down onto the page with absolutely no lead-in and no exit. Completely standing apart from anything else in his report. "bizarrely and without evidence" he makes sure to say, but if that is the case, why say it at all, especially since the story gives it no context, nor do the sentences preceding it or following it? Its purpose is beyond clear, and it's aimed right at the conspiracy-theory dunces. It's there to distract them, i.e., the "shiny object" some of that crowd can't resist. Kirkpatrick wants a Hannity or a Billy Cunningham type to run with something like that, to illustrate that those questioning the Administration's Benghazi explanations are right-wing nut jobs.
Since the suggestion is "bizarre" and "without evidence", why not just say something like "Other Islamists believe, bizarrely and without evidence, that the fricking moon is made out of cream cheese and iguana eggs"?
Plant a crazy idea, watch a few run with it, brand those few as being representative of those pursuing the Benghazi story, thus discrediting the pursuit itself, and yuck it up over martinis somewhere in Manhattan.
Fortunately (or unfortunately if you're Kirkpatrick or the NYT), no one bit into the apple (at least so far), and the Benghazi story lives on, completely unscathed by the NYT's "boom", which turned out to be a "splat", like a bug on a windshield.
They're trying to rein in a wild horse with a lasso made of yarn.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 6:28 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
"Other Benghazi Islamists insist, bizarrely and without evidence, that they suspect the C.I.A. killed the ambassador."
I didn't think much of this. I have learned that Libyans can be suckers for conspiracy theories though(based on statements by other Libyans mocking them).
If the initial intel assessment/talking points issue is insignificant, what are the real issues here in your opinion?
What are your thoughts on the charges filed against Ahmed Abu Khattalah?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News