instead of arguing what the NY Times says the report says, how about simply reading the freakin' report...it DOES establish quite a bit that may be new for you and the NY Times and the troubling realization that the attack was inevitable and if you were to randomly pick a date for it to possibly occur....Sept. 11th would be a good place to start .... it is quite startling and troubling, contradicting many of your(administration) talking points :uhuh:


NY Times- "This dovetails with an investigation by The Times, which found that the attack was triggered in part by spontaneous anger over an anti-Islamic video. "

REALLY???? there is no evidence of this

Senate Report

"Contrary to many press reports at the time, eyewitness statements by U.S. personnel indicate that there were no protests at the start of the attacks.

On September 18,2012, the FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit
television video from the Mission facility that showed there were no protests prior to the attacks.

Other reporting indicated there were no protests.
Fot lC Qpt~ined closed circuit television video from the Mission
facility and there were credible eyewitness statements of U.S. personnel on the ground that night

As a result of evidence from closed circuit videos and other reports, the IC changed its assessment about a protest in classified intelligence reports on September 24, 2012, to state there were no demonstrations or protests at the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks."

the administration and state even walked this back

HUFF PO- "The deadly September attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya was not precipitated by an anti-American protest, as had originally been reported, the State Department disclosed Tuesday night. According to reports from ABC and the Associated Press, the State Department now acknowledges that "gunfire and explosions near the front gate" were the first signs of danger precipitating the attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

This revelation stands in contrast to the story originally reported by the Obama administration and others, who claimed that a protest against the anti-Islam film "The Innocence of Muslims" outside the American consulate was co-opted by violent extremists."

Huff Po-WASHINGTON — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

what we are/were supposed to believe I guess is that a bunch of guys were sitting around a 10 inch black and white tv in their hut one afternoon watching al jezeera's coverage of protests breaking out across the arab streets one of them yelled...mohammeds!!....this our opportunity...we are deeply angered over an anti-islamic video which we have never seen........ during the commercial break we will coordinate an uncoordinated but very well armed assault on the loosely guarded compound of the great satan that is just down the street....quick...gather all of the mortars that you can carry....they will never expect that we are coming....what's that you say???? this is September the 11th!!!??? why this is truly a message for allah!!! make haste my brothers....we must kill everyone inside and burn the infadel's evil outpost to the ground...


Andy McCarthy had a great article regarding the Cairo rioting that was supposed to be caused by the video as well...

"As I said above, there is a kernel of truth to the claim that the video factored into the Cairo rioting. On September 9, two days before, the Grand Mufti publicly denounced “the actions undertaken by some extremist Copts who made a film offensive to the Prophet.” This denunciation led some of the Cairo hooligans to inveigh against the video.

It was, however, only one item in a broad list of grievances Islamic supremacists lodged against the United States. Many of the rioters focused on demanding the release of the Blind Sheikh and other jihadists. More to the point, many of them expressed their support for al Qaeda. They gleefully chanted, “Obama, Obama, there are still a million Osamas!” They tore down the Stars-and-Stripes from our flagpole, replacing it with al Qaeda’s notorious black jihad banner.

The claim that the Cairo rioting was over the video traces from the fact that the State Department – specifically, the U.S. embassy in Cairo – put out nauseating statements in the hours before the rioting started, deriding “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims,” and indignantly condemning “religious incitement.”

Then, in the days after both the Cairo rioting and the massacre in Benghazi, President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Ambassador Susan Rice, White House spokesman Jay Carney, and other administration figures repeatedly cited the video as the catalyst. The Obama-friendly press, naturally, ran with this spin: the video caused the rioting at the embassy in Cairo, which seamlessly spilled over into neighboring Libya, where a similar “protest” spontaneously erupted into deadly violence."

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/348125/print

bringing this back around to Christy...Jonah Goldberg has a great perspective about this in a recent column...

WHAT DIFFERENCE IT MAKES

'And that leaves out the <sarcasm> little </sarcasm> issue of Benghazi. The Senate Intelligence Committee report is at once a fascinating and utterly banal artifact of Washington. It identifies a huge mistake. It denounces said mistake. It concludes that the mistake could have been prevented. But nobody is responsible for the mistake. The bureaucracy did it!

Okay, you ask, who was in charge of that bureaucracy?

Shut up, they explain.

Liberal pundits and reporters are utterly contemptuous of the idea that the Benghazi scandal will be a problem for her. Eugene Robinson writes today that the Senate Intelligence Report is a total exoneration of the administration. This is bizarre on many levels. It’s also hard to square with the fact that the White House is livid with the Democrats who signed on to the report (or so a couple of Hill folks have told me). Why get furious at an exoneration?

The lack of curiosity about the report from the mainstream media is really remarkable. Why, exactly, aren’t reporters camped outside Clinton’s home demanding a reaction? I mean I understand that she didn’t close a couple of lanes on the George Washington Bridge, but four murdered Americans, including a U.S. ambassador, is important, too. Maybe if she had joked about putting traffic cones in front of the embassy on September 11?'

The NYT reporting asserts the attackers themselves were in part motivated by the anti-Islam video. You can't say there's no evidence of this as you don't really know.

The initial reporting was that there was a protest, the video camera recordings etc... weren't available until later. The talking points were based on information at the time, and the Senate report found there was no effort by the Administration to cover up or manipulate the process.

Rushing a process doesn't make it a scandal.

-spence

If every CEO was fired for a problem within their organization you'd have monthly turnover. In this situation did Clinton's strategy or directive lead to the shortcomings? I've not read this was the case.

Also, the Ambassador appears to have had a lot of control over the security situation and seemed comfortable with local militias providing security at the Mission. From what I've read at least the problems were communication within the CIA and State that prevented the deteriorating situation from being fully understood by even those beneath the Secretary.

Many regard Clinton as a very strong and positive Secretary of State. Does the event in Libya make her unfit to serve? I don't think anyone has connected those dots yet.

Nobody has ever claimed that. Remember that in fact thousands of Benghazi's protested the attackers in support for the Ambassador and the USA.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/world/...unter-protest/

For some reason people keep forgetting to include this fact in their assessment of the "situation on the ground."

Ultimate, a complex and confused situation like this will never be clear once it's politicized.

-spence

So why did the administration rush to the judgement that the video was the reason for the attack? And stick to that in spite of incoming information to the contrary?

None of the warm and fuzzy that we're supposed to get from your article has lessened the Al Qaeda brand jihadist activity in Libya. The final two sentences of the article are an amazing beatification of a dangerous and ugly "event." John McCain is quoted as saying
"Somewhere Chris Stevens is smiling . . . This is what we knew . . . about Libya."

Apparently, we didn't "know," at least other than some Pollyanna types, what we needed to know . . . about Libya.

I think the Senate report found the motivation for the attack inconclusive, perhaps other than just an American presence would make operations in the area difficult.

This is an area that I think the Times report gets right. What does it mean to be an "affiliate?" What does alQaeda mean anymore? It appears as though there were some links with individuals but there doesn't look to be much that's material. Just some of the more extreme militant factions branding themselves with a label.

No, that's not what he said. Ham didn't exclude a protest, rather he stated it wasn't "just" a sporadic protest.

His testimony is pretty interesting...

http://armedservices.house.gov/index...D-2DB9B53C3424

Like this...

It looks like they were telling the story based on the information at the time, information that even today isn't totally wrong...but has evolved.

-spence

Let's remember that the video was made by an American citizen. In other words, the administration was more than willing to throw an American citizen under the bus, and invite Al Queda to declare a fatwah on that man, in order to minimize the political fallout.

No, the information they had at the time did not at all conclude that it was a spontaneous protest against a video. But then, if a fish can eventually evolve into a monkey, it doesn't mean it wasn't a sort of monkey all along. But, then, words, and excuses, and motivations, and all such human fabrications evolving into reality are not quite the same, are they? Unless lies evolving into truths is the same as fishes evolving into monkeys. I've heard that if you repeat a lie often enough it takes the place of truth.

The Rice comments that caused such a fluppor never "concluded" it was a spontaneous protest...

What she said was:

Which given the NYT article and the recent Senate report (and so much other reporting) seems quite plausible.

What I don't understand is, what prohibits a terror attack's timing from being linked to furor over a video? Isn't it quite possible they've been thinking of an attack for some time and the events around the region -- there was more than just Egypt -- gave them some inspiration? Ham's remarks about no specific intel on the attack would certainly back this thinking.

Also, isn't it quite believable that a bunch of heavily armed, battle hardened veterans of the civil war would be able to assemble rapidly and coordinate an attack with RPG's and accurate small arms fire as Ham describes? Hell, that's exactly what they had been doing against the Libyan army for the past year. Didn't the civil war actually start in Benghazi?

-spence

Why would the "heavily armed, battle hardened veterans of the civil war" want to "assemble rapidly" to torch the embassy which housed the people who were ostensibly on their side of the civil war? Unless they were actually opposed to those in the embassy? As is, and was and will be, Al Qaeda and its "affiliates."

If anything, veterans of the civil war against the Qaddafi regime, if they were that rather than anti-U.S. jihadists, would have PROTECTED the embassy from the supposed "small number of people" who came to the embassy to "replicate" the Cairo violence.

The word "fact" can represent something known to be true or something said to be true...based on the evidence today, the fact is...

It was reported at the scene that outrage over the video was a reason for the attack. If this was just an excuse or a deke doesn't make is do the reporting never occurred. Given the events of the day -- I think there were multiple video related protests -- the storyline is certainly plausible.

What's the significance of the difference?

This is precisely the problem Michael Scheurer explores in his book Imperial Hubris. That the inclination to lump various opposing factions together without regard for their individual motives inhibits our ability to respond effectively against any of them.

The militias have various interests and range from moderate to extreme. Calling for Sharia law doesn't make you alQaeda, it makes you an Islamic fundamentalist. Hell, Saudi Arabia's legal system is based on Sharia.

Now, it would be logical for disparate extremist groups to share some common brand identity. Certainly make marketing more efficient. If any one of these groups acts in their own interest that happens to be a shared interest does that make them alQaeda...is that what it means now? Does using violence to advance a goal of imposing Sharia Law make you alQaeda?

Certainly the influence of outside extremists, including alQaeda, has been increasing. That doesn't mean they directed the attack.

Pssssstttt...because they were extremists. Don't tell anyone.

Veterans of the civil war represent both moderates and extremists. For some time it appears Stevens felt they would offer adequate protection. Why is the idea that Khaddafi's opponents could have differing objectives beyond his overthrow so difficult to grasp?

-spence

Yes ,and isn't it amazing there were no consequences for the underlings or anyone else for the screw up? Seems like in this current administration all you have to say is "the buck stops here" and "we are looking into it." No, that is not the way it works in the real world, when people screw up there are consequences.
I would hope in the Super Bowl O'reilly interview with our President, he would be asked, where were you, who were you with, and what was your response the night of the attack.

I think the Administration's theme song is, "Time is on our side, yes it is, time is on our side" LOL,but really not funny.

This circularity is maddening. Al Qaeda is not an "outside" extremist org. It is a non-geographically specific ideological "base." It is an ideology, and anyone who shares that ideology is ideologically affiliated. Whatever name you wish to call them, or they wish to call themselves, they are an ideological family. The very family, the very "children of Islam" who Bin Laden spoke of. And "Al Qaeda" has evolved into a diaspora of groups and individuals of who may or may not have local aspirations, a federation if you will, but very similar ultimate models.

Why is that so difficult to grasp?

As for Stevens' perception of adequate protection and his responsibility of what happened, there's this:

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201.../?subscriber=1

And this is why Busch said we were at war with Terrorists and that it had to be fought in a completely different way than traditional war. That is why he called it like it is, "A War on Terror." He called for new methods and said this would be a long extended war because he knew it would be spread out over the world by different groups trying to destroy us.

Obama down played it and called it something else, more PC., forgot already!
"Al Qaeda is on the run", pfft, Al Qaeda and it's tentacles, including similar and unattached groups, or as you say" a diaspora of groups" will be trying to do us in for the foreseeable future. It's their only goal.