Democrats now critical of Rice's Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence

[LisaA]

Yet that detail was already known on Capitol Hill.

You keep fixating on the opinion portion of the piece. That is not the point of posting that source; rather the letters mentioned there.

What all of this means is that the narrative that Hillary Clinton was responsible for lax security at the consulate is falling apart. We know that Stevens did not request additional American security forces, as he never sent the second cabal. We know that Stevens declined additional American security forces when asked on two occasions. We also know that Stevens wanted the Libyans to address his security concerns.

Hicks is a disgruntled employee and I wasn’t referring to his politics; rather the web of lies spun around him by conservative pundits and politicians which were debunked by his own testimony.

And you keep mistaking your opinion for fact. We “know” nothing more than what was reported by an anonymous source and some speculation by a WaPo reporter.

I don’t recall that Greg Hicks had anything to say about Ambassador Stevens’ requests for security. As I recall his testimony it related to the events on the evening of the attack. Why are you conflating those two issues? What “web of lies”? Did Hicks lie in his testimony?

Further if you think this is so significant in clearing Hillary, why wasn’t it reported in the hearings or ARB? Why did the talking points keep referring to not wanting the requests for security that were declined to be made public? Why did Susan Rice, Obama and Hillary keep blaming the video if they had done everything possible to protect Ambassador Stevens and the Consulate?

I see far fewer conclusions than questions. But if your mind is at ease, that’s all that matters

Lisa

 

[BroomWagon]

None of the people there, who were in effect rescued by the brave Ex-Seals, Woods, has testified, we need to hear that.

 

[rlg94086]

The conservative Hicks narrative has been torn to shreds, partially, by his own testimony. Of course Hicks wouldn’t be aware of private conversations between Stevens and Ham, but he should also know that Stevens never sent that second cabal requesting additional American security forces. Indeed, he knew that Stevens wanted more security, but its those letters which tell us from whom and this recent revelation that it wasn’t the US.

Can you provide a link to this information? The link you provided said nothing about letters. So “those letters” are not substantiated…from what you’ve provided anyway.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Can you provide a link to this information? The link you provided said nothing about letters. So “those letters” are not substantiated…from what you’ve provided anyway.

Its in the first paragraph.

 

[LisaA]

Can you provide a link to this information? The link you provided said nothing about letters. So “those letters” are not substantiated…from what you’ve provided anyway.

In the WaPo piece from November it referred to letters found after the attack:

Two journalists combed through the U.S. consulate building in Benghazi, Libya, over a month after it was attacked and turned up something significant: two unsigned draft letters expressing strong concern about security at the building. The letters are dated Sept. 11 – the day of the attack – and addressed to Libya’s foreign minister and Benghazi’s police chief. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens’s team had earlier requested additional security from the Libyans, according to the letters, and were not satisfied with the results

Again, the letters were unsigned, drafts and I am not sure were attributable to Stevens himself although I think it’s presumed he wrote them. Still not sure what conclusions can be drawn. If the letters were significant, I would expect them to have been mentioned during the hearings, many articles and ARB. That the scene was unsecured might make them less credible.

BTW there were references to Stevens’ personal diary among the rubble. I am curious why this was never requested or placed in evidence.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Its in the first paragraph.

Not sure you addressed Robert’s concern. You haven’t provided any substantiation for the letters. They were found a month after the attack by two journalists. Drafts, not signed. Scene had been unsecured since the attack. The FBI was afraid to investigate.

I think he actually referred to their credibility which seems in question.

Again, if so significant why was this never introduced during the hearings, ARB, and many articles?

Lisa

 

[rlg94086]

Its in the first paragraph.

Here are the first five paragraphs…

U.S. envoy Chris Stevens refused offers of more security before the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya in which he was killed, McClatchy Newspapers reported.
Why Stevens turned down the offers was unclear, given embassy officials during an Aug. 15 meeting concluded they could not defend the consulate in Benghazi amid deteriorating conditions in the city, government officials told McClatchy in an article published Tuesday.

In a cable, the embassy outlined the circumstances and said it would detail what it needed in a separate cable.

“In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover,” said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.

Rather than wait for the second cable, however, Army Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of the U.S. Africa Command, called Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team, the officials said. Stevens told Ham it did not, the government officials said.

During a meeting several weeks later, Ham again asked Stevens if he wanted additional military security and again Stevens said no, the officials told McClatchy.
“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” one official said, speaking anonymously.

Please point out the supposed “letters.” I see a cable mentioned in the second/third paragraph, but the cable doesn’t refuse security. Rather, it mentions outlining the security needs in a second cable. The supposed refusal for more security is in a supposed phone call.

Again, if you have some other information you can link to, it would be appreciated. Maybe it was in an earlier post? I certainly don’t see a smoking gun in the UPI piece from military.com - just anonymous sourcing about a phone call and a discussion in a meeting that may have happened.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

In the WaPo piece from November it referred to letters found after the attack:

Two journalists combed through the U.S. consulate building in Benghazi, Libya, over a month after it was attacked and turned up something significant: two unsigned draft letters expressing strong concern about security at the building. The letters are dated Sept. 11 – the day of the attack – and addressed to Libya’s foreign minister and Benghazi’s police chief. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens’s team had earlier requested additional security from the Libyans, according to the letters, and were not satisfied with the results

Again, the letters were unsigned, drafts and I am not sure were attributable to Stevens himself although I think it’s presumed he wrote them. Still not sure what conclusions can be drawn. If the letters were significant, I would expect them to have been mentioned during the hearings, many articles and ARB. That the scene was unsecured might make them less credible.

BTW there were references to Stevens’ personal diary among the rubble. I am curious why this was never requested or placed in evidence.

Lisa

Thats a lot of straw grasping, Lisa.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Please point out the supposed “letters.” I see a cable mentioned in the second/third paragraph, but the cable doesn’t refuse security. Rather, it mentions outlining the security needs in a second cable. The supposed refusal for more security is in a supposed phone call. Again, if you have some other information you can link to, it would be appreciated. Maybe it was in an earlier post?

Looks like you missed the source in post #665 and were referencing an earlier source regarding his declination of additional American security personnel. The two together make clear that, while Stevens acknowledged a need for additional security, he wanted the Libyans to fill the gap instead of American security forces. In essence, he wanted the Libyans to meet their obligations under international law instead of dropping Americans into harms way.

 

[BroomWagon]

In the WaPo piece from November it referred to letters found after the attack:

Two journalists combed through the U.S. consulate building in Benghazi, Libya, over a month after it was attacked and turned up something significant: two unsigned draft letters expressing strong concern about security at the building. The letters are dated Sept. 11 – the day of the attack – and addressed to Libya’s foreign minister and Benghazi’s police chief. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens’s team had earlier requested additional security from the Libyans, according to the letters, and were not satisfied with the results

Again, the letters were unsigned, drafts and I am not sure were attributable to Stevens himself although I think it’s presumed he wrote them. Still not sure what conclusions can be drawn. If the letters were significant, I would expect them to have been mentioned during the hearings, many articles and ARB. That the scene was unsecured might make them less credible.

BTW there were references to Stevens’ personal diary among the rubble. I am curious why this was never requested or placed in evidence.

Lisa

You got it. Just wait until the other witnesses come forward and so much email etc. is not missing.

 

[rlg94086]

Looks like you missed the source in post #665 and were referencing an earlier source regarding his declination of additional American security personnel. The two together make clear that, while Stevens acknowledged a need for additional security, he wanted the Libyans to fill the gap instead of American security forces. In essence, he wanted the Libyans to meet their obligations under international law instead of dropping Americans into harms way.

Obviously, you missed the post I was referencing in my response.

I will go back to post #665 and take a look, but I was responding to a different post which you said “revealed” something important…it didn’t.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I will go back to post #665 and take a look, but I was responding to a different post which you said “revealed” something important…it didn’t.

It did considering all of the allegations that Hillary was responsible for refusing additional security personnel; which we now know isn’t true and that it was Ambassador Stevens who said no.

 

[BroomWagon]

Hillary Clinton was fired from working for the Watergate Committee for ethical violations and fraud. It’ll be a cold day in June when we should believe her.

 

[LisaA]

Thats a lot of straw grasping, Lisa.

You’re right, you are indeed…if your whole theory is dependent upon anonymous sources, unnamed officials’ reports and a couple of unsigned drafts of letters found in the rubble of the Consulate a month after the attack…well yes you are definitely grasping at straws.

You haven’t answered my question posed multiple times, if this report of the unsigned drafts were so important and if they served to take Hill off the Hook, why have they not been mentioned in the five months that have passed since the opinion piece was written?

Don’t tell me you think you have stumbled upon something missed by dozens of journalists, the State Dept, the FBI and the White House.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

It did considering all of the allegations that Hillary was responsible for refusing additional security personnel; which we now know isn’t true and that it was Ambassador Stevens who said no.

Hillary was responsible in that she was SoS and so claimed responsibility although…“what does it matter?” I believe a Ms Lamb was the direct contact who dealt with the security requests and made the decision. Whether or not Hillary signed off on this (or robo signed) is apparently still in question.

We don’t really know many details and as meltzerboy noted, since Stevens is dead and the other sources are anonymous, it’s hard to know exactly what was offered and whether or not it was refused.

Has Gen Ham testified? Seems he could clear up at least that portion of the question.

But once again, why if this is important, has it not been mentioned? What does this have to do with the refusal to respond during the attack or make believe talking points afterward? Are you saying that if Stevens turned down the security, well it served him right since it was his decision?

Lisa

 

[BroomWagon]

Former Governor John Sununu was talking about this, there’s a world of knowledge there. He’s always been a more reasonable voice out of the many on both sides.

 

[rlg94086]

It did considering all of the allegations that Hillary was responsible for refusing additional security personnel; which we now know isn’t true and that it was Ambassador Stevens who said no.

We don’t know that Ambassador Stevens said “no,” other than the anonymous source cited in the article. As I pointed out earlier, the rest of the article points out that they are unsubstantiated.

Also, I read the article(s) you linked about the letters. They also don’t tell us that Ambassador Stevens refused additional American forces. The drafts ask Libyan forces for additional help. How does that lead anyone to conclude that Ambassador Stevens didn’t make any pleas for additional help from the US?? There are other possibilities:

A) He wanted help from Libyan and American forces.

B) He made a plea for help from Libyan forces after being refused help from his own country.

Thank you for providing those links. They certainly provide for some interesting speculation. If you find anything more concrete, I would love to read it.

 

[_Abyssinia]

WH Benghazi emails have different quotes than earlier reported

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Are you saying that if Stevens turned down the security, well it served him right since it was his decision?Lisa

I wouldn’t say it “served him right”—he certainly didn’t deserve to die—but if it ever becomes verified that he turned down the alleged offer of extra security from General Ham, it would suggest that the expertise of Stevens himself on the security situation in Benghazi at the time was respected. Most people who knew him and worked with him had an opinion of him consistent with that—he was highly respected as an intelligent and perceptive diplomat.

 

[_Abyssinia]

WH Benghazi emails have different quotes than earlier reported

Is there an explanation?

As TheBlaze reported earlier this week, this story isn’t new; disparities between the e-mails were already highlighted by CNN’s Jake Tapper earlier this week, as the host also noted that Rhodes didn’t mention the State Department in his official Benghazi correspondence.

While a possible explanation is not mentioned in Garrett’s report, TheBlaze previously highlighted one possible reason for the difference in wording. Here’s a portion of our previous report, which provides some context:

Tapper, who previously worked at ABC, reports that “whoever provided those accounts seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed.” ABC’s Jonathan Karl [responded](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/more-details-on-benghazi-talking-points-emerge) to Tapper’s report Tuesday by saying he quoted verbatim a source who had seen the original emails but was not permitted to make copies of them.

Karl said he contacted his source, who said that Rhodes’ reply “was after a long chain of email about State Dept concerns. So when WH emailer says, take into account all equities, he is talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about.”

To review: The so-called GOP version of the emails consisted of someone reading the talking points to ABC News. This does not dismiss the differences, but it does add some more context to the scenario in helping to explain why the texts vary in the first place. And it certainly doesn’t implicate any obvious Republican source.

So that makes Garrett’s charge that it was “Republicans” who altered the emails much more curious. In fact, Garrett claims that there is a “Republican version” of the emails that was previously released and that this text is apparently inaccurate compared to the emails that were finally released by the White House this week. Throughout his report, Garrett even mentions this “Republican version.”

He wrote:

On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes: “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.”

But it turns out that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department.

But that is a new charge. While it is entirely possible GOP members leaked the e-mails, there has been no admission of that publicly, and Garrett doesn’t cite sources.

So where does this all leave us? First, there’s no denying that there are discrepancies. But is it true that it was Republicans who either altered them or were behind intentionally misleading the public? As the CBS report stands, that allegation has not been proven.

Haven’t any emails related to Benghazi been released from 12th and 13th of September 2012?