The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

According to the Wall Street Journal, "In reports to Obama, CIA did not alter assessment of trigger for Violence for 10 days, even as witness accounts disputed it."

"President Obama was told in his daily intelligence briefing for more than a week after the consulate siege in Benghazi that the assault grew out if a spontaneous protest, despite conflicting reports from witnesses and other sources that began to cast doubt on the accuracy of that assessment almost from the start.

New details about the contents of the Presidential Daily Brief, which haven't been reported previously, show that the Central Intelligence Agency didn't adjust the classified assessment until September 22, fueling.g tensions between the administration and the agency."

Sounds like another intelligence failure.

johnlockedema said:

Now that we now know that the Obama Administration had live coverage via a drone of the terror attack, how can they possibly spin what happened?

There was a drone there during the final hour. It wasn't there for the entire battle.

johnlockedema said:

dave said:

Oh wait, I forgot. Romney is just using the deaths of people to score some votes.

Yeah, Obama's 'spiking the football' about Bin Ladens killing was exactly the same . . .

Not sure I'd equate Osama bin Laden with Ambassador Stevens.

Intelligence takes days, weeks, months and years to gather. Stupidity, a mere nanosecond.

dave23 said:

johnlockedema said:

dave said:

Oh wait, I forgot. Romney is just using the deaths of people to score some votes.

Yeah, Obama's 'spiking the football' about Bin Ladens killing was exactly the same . . .

Not sure I'd equate Osama bin Laden with Ambassador Stevens.

No. They would. We shouldn't.

rastro said:

According to the Wall Street Journal, "In reports to Obama, CIA did not alter assessment of trigger for Violence for 10 days, even as witness accounts disputed it."

"President Obama was told in his daily intelligence briefing for more than a week after the consulate siege in Benghazi that the assault grew out if a spontaneous protest, despite conflicting reports from witnesses and other sources that began to cast doubt on the accuracy of that assessment almost from the start.

New details about the contents of the Presidential Daily Brief, which haven't been reported previously, show that the Central Intelligence Agency didn't adjust the classified assessment until September 22, fueling.g tensions between the administration and the agency."

Sounds like another intelligence failure.

Just because you have eyewitness accounts does not mean you automatically assume they're true. They still have to be investigated for reliability.

I swear it's as if people are watching a TV show or something.

CSI: Benghazi, apparently.

No one said eyewitnesses should be believed without investigation. But when multiple sources of doubt come up, that should be included in the PDB which, it appears, did not include them.

rastro said:

No one said eyewitnesses should be believed without investigation. But when multiple sources of doubt come up, that should be included in the PDB which, it appears, did not include them.

Excuse me, but since when are you an expert on what qualifies for inclusion in a PDB?

According to his post, since 11:30.

An "intelligence failure" would be if the analysts didn't go through the reports and data and draw a valid conclusion. Taking the time to check out, analyze and verify isn't an intelligence failure.

And all the time, the actual statements from the Administration stressed that an investigation was being done, not that a final conclusion had been reached.

As for the PDB, it's a daily brief, not a detailed summary of everything that's being investigated. It contains conclusions, such as "Bin Laden determined to attack US", for example.

cjc said:

Funding was not an issue in this incident, per the testimony of this Administration.

Next.

No, but it shows Republican priorities, which are not security.

To be a republican you have to be able to be outraged about a security failure regarding an embassy that is in a country that has had many recent violent outbreaks, where the victims did understand some of the inherent risks of being stationed in that location. But then you also can not be outraged and mudt defend the president regarding a security failure on our soil that managed to kill thousands of US citizens who had assumed no risk of attack by going to work that day.

drummerboy said:

rastro said:

No one said eyewitnesses should be believed without investigation. But when multiple sources of doubt come up, that should be included in the PDB which, it appears, did not include them.

Excuse me, but since when are you an expert on what qualifies for inclusion in a PDB?

So you're saying that even though the CIA had conflicting information about the attack, it was appropriate for them to continue to tell the President there was a riot?

The implication of the WSJ article is that the CIA was not sure of the cause, yet provided a conclusion.

But they obviously provided conclusions with caveats - that's why the administration kept on saying they're still investigating.

Again, the implication in the WSJ article is that they provided a conclusion, not a conclusion with caveats. The implication is that any discrepancies came from outside the PDB - "from news accounts and elsewhere."

Those who consider Obama incompetent will use this to confirm their pre-existing belief.
Those who believe Romney will shamlessly do or say anything for votes will use his statements to confirm their pre-existing belief.

The "undecided" will either have no idea what they're all talking about or respond by confirmimg their pre-existing belief that the US should completely pull out of any involvement in the Middle East.

"The CIA was consistent from Sept. 13 to Sept. 21 that the attack evolved from a protest. The current intelligence assessment still notes that there is conflicting evidence about whether there was a protest earlier on the day of the attack."

rastro said:

Again, the implication in the WSJ article is that they provided a conclusion, not a conclusion with caveats. The implication is that any discrepancies came from outside the PDB - "from news accounts and elsewhere."

Whatever the implication may be, the statements early on that a final conclusion had not been reached, were based on what the intelligence agencies were saying. There's an article in today's NY Times pointing out that Ambassador Rice's statements (for example) were the most up-to-date advice from the intelligence agencies.

To the extent that the WSJ article implies that the agencies had indicated that there was a final conclusion, that article would not be correct.

No administration is immune from foreign policy errors of judgement or execution. The fact that the current administration has been far more successful in its foreign policy endeavors than previous administrations is a huge positive in my opinion.

Judging from the knee JERKS on the GOP team I would venture to say a Romney administration will contain far more than its share of FP screw ups and tragedies. I'd be very leary of anything team Romney is proposing regarding the ME.

hoops said:

The fact that the current administration has been far more successful in its foreign policy endeavors than previous administrations is a huge positive in my opinion.

Exhibit A to demonstrate that success, is the GOP reliance on creating phony issues.

rastro said:

Again, the implication in the WSJ article is that they provided a conclusion, not a conclusion with caveats. The implication is that any discrepancies came from outside the PDB - "from news accounts and elsewhere."

But the implication is obviously wrong, because the administration constantly qualified their remarks by saying there was an ongoing investigation.

More info to stir the pot!

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/10/22/judge-napolitano-libya-situation-getting-worse-the-more-we-learn-about-it/

mtierney said:

More info to stir the pot!

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/10/22/judge-napolitano-libya-situation-getting-worse-the-more-we-learn-about-it/

More callous exploitation of the deaths of four Americans. Napolitano is arguing that the U.S. shouldn't have supported the Libyan rebels - but Ambassador Stevens was the representative to those rebels before the overthrow of the Libyan regime.

Thus, Napolitano is blaming the Ambassador for his own death. Classy.

Aww yeah. Judge Napalitano.

"cjc said:

Funding was not an issue in this incident, per the testimony of this Administration.

Next.



ProgressivePatriot said: No, but it shows Republican priorities, which are not security."

Another whiff on the same pitch. You have to buy the argument (which this Republican doesn't) that any cuts to the massive defense budget means that Democrats who advocate them are against security. A defense of democrats that I venture to say you would offer, and I would largely agree with.

But I understand you were painting in broad stereotypical strokes, not to me personally, being the reasoned Patriot that you are who can understand a false charge when you see one.

Well, well, now the Times shows some interest in the Benghazi debacle!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/world/africa/petraeuss-lower-profile-at-cia-leaves-void-in-benghazi-furor.html?ref=todayspaper

well, when actual facts come to light, a proper analysis can be made. Unlike Fox, etc, who have kept it in the news with nothing but accusations, rumors, falsehoods, and phony 'facts'.

mtierney said:

Well, well, now the Times shows some interest in the Benghazi debacle!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/world/africa/petraeuss-lower-profile-at-cia-leaves-void-in-benghazi-furor.html?ref=todayspaper

Odd comment. The Times has been spreading the same disinformation about Benghazi as everyone else.

mtiernet, I think I speak for Obama supporters everywhere when I say, I'm sorry you didn't get anything new to be outraged about during the hurricane. You must be so disappointed.

drummerboy said:

mtierney said:

Well, well, now the Times shows some interest in the Benghazi debacle!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/world/africa/petraeuss-lower-profile-at-cia-leaves-void-in-benghazi-furor.html?ref=todayspaper

Odd comment. The Times has been spreading the same disinformation about Benghazi as everyone else.

Why would the Times and everyone else be spreading disinformation?
Since it is impermissible to quote Fox, and anyone who disputes the narrative of the left is a hack, who remains? Where do I find accurate honest reporting?
Or is it possible, that by listening to Fox and other right leaning outlets, while at the same time listening to left wing outlets, all the while with your BS detector turned to high volume, you might arrive at some semblance of the truth?