NYT: Russians paid Afghans to kill American troops

[BmorePat87]

(06-28-2020, 05:43 PM)6andcounting Wrote: What was the White House's statement? What I saw was that they weren't commenting on the intelligence itself, but denied Trump was told this specific piece of info. It may be this piece of info was never verified or lacked evidence so it was a topic being followed, but it never became a reality. 

“While the White House does not routinely comment on alleged intelligence or internal deliberations, the CIA Director, National Security Adviser, and the Chief of Staff can all confirm that neither the President nor the Vice President were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence,”


"This does not speak to the merit of the alleged intelligence but to the inaccuracy of the New York Times story erroneously suggesting that President Trump was briefed on this matter,"

[Dill]

(06-28-2020, 05:47 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Agree about the "source"

Agree Benghazi is about the cover story about a video spread by the Obama administration and not the fact that an attack happened.

Agree this would be worse than Benghazi if the story as reported is true.

Have you ever wondered why the final Benghazi investigation report by Republican led House Intel Committee doesn't expose a "cover story spread by the Obama administration"?

[Dill]

(06-28-2020, 08:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: “While the White House does not routinely comment on alleged intelligence or internal deliberations, the CIA Director, National Security Adviser, and the Chief of Staff can all confirm that neither the President nor the Vice President were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence,”


"This does not speak to the merit of the alleged intelligence but to the inaccuracy of the New York Times story erroneously suggesting that President Trump was briefed on this matter,"

Well that gets him out of the frying pan.

[6andcounting]

(06-28-2020, 08:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Have you ever wondered why the final Benghazi investigation report by Republican led House Intel Committee doesn't expose a "cover story spread by the Obama administration"?

I didn't really pay attention to the Republicans investigation. I just heard there was a sustained 12+ hour mortar attack, which shows clear coordination, planning and skill on the part of the attackers. Then I heard the President of Libya say it was a terror attack on the embassy. Both of those things I learned the day it happened.

Then a couple days later Susan Rice said it was a spontaneous protest because people were randomly made about  a YouTube video that was a couple months old at that point. 

[6andcounting]

(06-28-2020, 08:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: “While the White House does not routinely comment on alleged intelligence or internal deliberations, the CIA Director, National Security Adviser, and the Chief of Staff can all confirm that neither the President nor the Vice President were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence,”


"This does not speak to the merit of the alleged intelligence but to the inaccuracy of the New York Times story erroneously suggesting that President Trump was briefed on this matter,"

That's what I read when I saw the statements from the White House. But both of those statements support that the WH just isn't speaking on the intelligence itself either way - just that the specific info the article says Trump was briefed on was no something he was briefed on. 

But my question was posed at you saying, "The White House said in a statement that they are not suggesting that the intel is wrong".They aren't suggesting anything at all about the intel - they haven't suggested the intel was wrong and they haven't suggested the intel was right. They haven't even confirmed it is even intel they have as they refer to it as "alleged" intel. They are saying they make no acknowledgement of the intel itself. That's different that saying "hey, were not suggest the intel is wrong", because that would be acknowledging the intel, but just not confirming or denying the validity of it. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-28-2020, 09:19 PM)6andcounting Wrote: That's what I read when I saw the statements from the White House. But both of those statements support that the WH just isn't speaking on the intelligence itself either way - just that the specific info the article says Trump was briefed on was no something he was briefed on. 

But my question was posed at you saying, "The White House said in a statement that they are not suggesting that the intel is wrong".They aren't suggesting anything at all about the intel - they haven't suggested the intel was wrong and they haven't suggested the intel was right. They haven't even confirmed it is even intel they have as they refer to it as "alleged" intel. They are saying they make no acknowledgement of the intel itself. That's different that saying "hey, were not suggest the intel is wrong", because that would be acknowledging the intel, but just not confirming or denying the validity of it. 

The White House only suggested that the report was wrong when it said Trump was brief and didn’t say the same thing about the intelligence itself, specifically noting that they were not speaking to the merits of it. That’s what I said and it also pretty much confirms the intelligence.

If you don’t like the way I phrased it, just say that. There’s no need for a drawn out response.

[GMDino]

Maybe they didn't tell Trump and Pence because they've learned it wouldn't matter to them.

No one has come out and said that Trump reads or cares about his daily briefings so it wouldn't surprise me.

Trump is denying something different here than what’s been reported. Russians reportedly provided bounties to Afghani militants to kill US troops. Nobody is saying there were “attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians.” So Trump’s denial is totally meaningless. pic.twitter.com/PHucl8zIRW

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 28, 2020

 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

The White House said Trump was joking about slowing down testing for Covid 19. Trump said he wasn’t.

If Trump doesn’t believe what the White House says about Trump, why should I? Or any of you?

[*Nately120*]

(06-29-2020, 01:54 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The White House said Trump was joking about slowing down testing for Covid 19. Trump said he wasn’t.

If Trump doesn’t believe what the White House says about Trump, why should I? Or any of you?

It doesn't seem like a good sign to me if you have to say you were joking in response to a backlash.  This isn't trying to save face after suggesting some sideways kinky stuff on a first date.  No need to look so upset I suggested that....i was um totally joking...yeah, joking.  Unless you want to do it.....no?  Yeah I was joking.  

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2020, 09:06 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I didn't really pay attention to the Republicans investigation. I just heard there was a sustained 12+ hour mortar attack, which shows clear coordination, planning and skill on the part of the attackers. Then I heard the President of Libya say it was a terror attack on the embassy. Both of those things I learned  the day it happened.

I see the problem now.  The information you received the "day of the attack" was total bullshit.  There was nothing close to a sustained 12 hour motar attack.  And the mortar attack was not even on the embassy.

The initial respnsoe from the Obama administration was that it was a protest over the same video that was prompting riots in other middle eastern countries at the same time (NOT 2 months prior), but within 10 day the administration stated that it was a terror attack.  There was no "cover up" and the Obamam administration had nothing to gain by "covering up" a terrorists attack.

[6andcounting]

(06-28-2020, 09:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The White House only suggested that the report was wrong when it said Trump was brief and didn’t say the same thing about the intelligence itself, specifically noting that they were not speaking to the merits of it. That’s what I said and it also pretty much confirms the intelligence.

If you don’t like the way I phrased it, just say that. There’s no need for a drawn out response.

No, I thought I missed part of the statement from the WH based on what you said vs what I read from the WH. It matters in this case because if he wasn't briefed and this was credible intelligence then that would be a whole issues in itself.  

[Dill]

(06-29-2020, 11:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I see the problem now.  The information you received the "day of the attack" was total bullshit.  There was nothing close to a sustained 12 hour motar attack.  And the mortar attack was not even on the embassy.

The initial respnsoe from the Obama administration was that it was a protest over the same video that was prompting riots in other middle eastern countries at the same time (NOT 2 months prior), but within 10 day the administration stated that it was a terror attack.  There was no "cover up" and the Obamam administration had nothing to gain by "covering up" a terrorists attack.

Actually, the CIA made the assessment the attack was caused by a video.  At least one of the attackers who was eventually captured confirmed that was his motivation.

The day after the attack, Obama said: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. https://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/fact-check-terror/index.html. He used the same phrase a day later. 

Susan Rice then reported the CIA assessment in a round of Sunday talk shows, and for the next 10 days the administration said let's not rush to assessment, wait and view the Consulate ground videos, etc.   That's when Hannity et al. ramped up the "cover up" story, along with numerous other false claims about stand down orders and Hillary running guns to Syria. He brought some of the victims families onto his show at one point, demanding that Hillary personally apologize to them, and then making hay on her "callous" refusal to do so.  And so came seven FRUITLESS Benghazi hearings.

As far as whether the attack was planned, or had to be if it involved mortars and armed men, People should know that organizing an armed attack in PA or OH would certainly require planning, but not in country swarming with armed militia walking the streets with AKs and RPGs. Getting an armed attack going in Benghazi in 2012 would be as easy as pick up game on a college campus.

At least two different militias were involved in the attack on the Consulate. One was already guarding a nearby hospital. How hard would it be to hop into the back of a pick up with all your weapons and drive six blocks to the consulate if you just heard people in other capitals were rioting over a blasphemous video of the prophet and people were already attacking the Consulate in Benghazi?

The fact mortars were NOT used on the consulate, but on another rally point a mile away, argues against planning.  In the midst of Consulate mayhem, some guy said "Hey, what about our mortars? Let's go back and get those too!"  By then the Consulate was toast and the action had moved elsewhere.

So there is still a lot of uncertainty about how the attack actually got going. If a 9/11 peaceful protest at the Consulate were already planned, and then armed militia jumped into it, an intel analyst would not necessarily call that a planned attack, though Hannity certainly would.

In my view the old "cover up" claim is preposterous. Obama had just killed bin Laden the year before. No reasonable person was going to think he was "weak on terror" or making false claims of success because of one consulate attack in an unstable region where unknown unknowns abound.

[BmorePat87]

(06-29-2020, 12:57 PM)6andcounting Wrote: No, I thought I missed part of the statement from the WH based on what you said vs what I read from the WH. It matters in this case because if he wasn't briefed and this was credible intelligence then that would be a whole issues in itself.  

fair

[Belsnickel]

AP has independently confirmed the NYT story: https://apnews.com/02975c59e71e65327e2f582cd1a91f43

[GMDino]

I'm quite sure THIS will clear everything up.

The Afghanistan briefing this afternoon at the White House is for House Rs only.

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) June 29, 2020

 

[masonbengals fan]

"The press secretary said the White House had invited eight members of Congress from both parties to be briefed on the situation Monday afternoon."

[6andcounting]

(06-29-2020, 02:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: AP has independently confirmed the NYT story: https://apnews.com/02975c59e71e65327e2f582cd1a91f43

If both the sources for the NYT and the AP are an anonymous, then how do we know it has been independently confirmed?

[BmorePat87]

(06-29-2020, 02:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: AP has independently confirmed the NYT story: https://apnews.com/02975c59e71e65327e2f582cd1a91f43

and CNN is now saying it was part of the president's daily brief a few months ago, but Trump is known to skip those.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/politics/russia-bounties-presidential-daily-briefing/index.html?utm_content=2020-06-29T23%3A26%3A04&utm_term=link&utm_source=fbCNNp&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2c6FSuWBh2BKt3_Rv5OEdj8YUs_0lKaMf5jZtgEDoruAOJL8SfoZMua7A

[6andcounting]

(06-29-2020, 11:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I see the problem now.  The information you received the "day of the attack" was total bullshit.  There was nothing close to a sustained 12 hour motar attack.  And the mortar attack was not even on the embassy.

The initial respnsoe from the Obama administration was that it was a protest over the same video that was prompting riots in other middle eastern countries at the same time (NOT 2 months prior), but within 10 day the administration stated that it was a terror attack.  There was no "cover up" and the Obamam administration had nothing to gain by "covering up" a terrorists attack.

Yeah, your right. It wasn't the day of the attack the President of Libya told Face the Nation it was a planned and orchestrated attack. It was September 16 - so 5 days later. And the mortar attack was not 12 hours long - the mortar attack happened about 12 hours after the initial attack. As well, the promotional trailers and bits an pieces of the video were released over 2 months prior, the full Arabic sub-title version was just released in Septe,ber.

However, there were no protests around the consulate. It was gun fire and explosions from the attackers that created that started it all. They weren't hidden amoung protestors as there were no protestors there.The Obama administration publicly said it was because of protesting a video, but internally they were saying the exact opposite.

Privately Clinton said "officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al-Queda-like group" and told the Prime Minister of Egypt "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the flim".  Both of this statements came less than 24 hours after the attack. At the same time Clintons deputy chief of staff said in an internal email "We're not saying the violence in Libya erupted 'over inflammatory videos'".

Less than 3 days after the attack officials in the state department were emailing each other "'it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence. It is our opinion that in our messaging, we want to distinguish, not conflate, the events in other countries with this well-planned attack by militant extremists.” "


Below are more details on the above quotes, as we'll as other statements said internally that contradicted the public statements.





9/11/2012
[b]11:12 p.m.[/b]: Clinton sends an email to her daughter, Chelsea, that reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.” (The email was discovered in 2015 by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. It is written to “Diane Reynolds,” which was Chelsea Clinton’s alias.)

[b]Sept. 12:[/b] Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, sends an email prior to Obama’s Rose Garden address to Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security advisor for strategic communications at the White House, and others that says, “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’”

[b]Sept. 12, 3:04 p.m.[/b]: Clinton calls then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil and tells him, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.” An account of that call was contained in an email written by State Department Public Affairs Officer Lawrence Randolph. The email was released by the House Benghazi committee.

[b]Sept. 12, 6:06 p.m.[/b]: Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East, sends an email to top State Department officials that reads in part: “[T]he group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.” (An excerpt of Jones’ email was read by Rep. Trey Gowdy at the May 8, 2013, House oversight hearing.)

Sept. 13: CNN reports that unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi was a “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie.

Quote:CNN: “It was not an innocent mob,” one senior official said. “The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.”

[b]Sept. 14:[/b] A State Department public information official writes in an email: “t is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence. It is our opinion that in our messaging, we want to distinguish, not conflate, the events in other countries with this well-planned attack by militant extremists.” (The email was released Oct. 31, 2015, by the House Select Committee on Benghazi, and was contained in the Benghazi committee report issued June 28, 2016. The name of the person who sent the email and the person or persons who received the email were redacted. However, the person who wrote the email is identified in the committee report as a “public information officer from the Embassy in Tripoli,” and the email says it reflects “our view at Embassy Tripoli.” It also says, “I have discussed this with [name redacted] and he shares PAS’s view.” PAS stands for Public Affairs Section.)




https://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

[BmorePat87]

(06-29-2020, 03:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm quite sure THIS will clear everything up.

The Afghanistan briefing this afternoon at the White House is for House Rs only.

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) June 29, 2020

 

Nancy was invited for a briefing tomorrow.