When is Jim in NJ

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The report you cite was a product of the Senate Intel Committee which isn't run by democrats...it's bi-partisan. From what I've read it pretty much aligns with the independent review from a year ago.

It doesn't appear to establish anything new.

"It doesn't appear, What may be new, It remains unclear, Some intelligence suggests, attacks were likely, suggesting that these, It appears to have been, doesn't discount the idea, I don't think she was trying, Doesn't it say?, she said she misspoke."

"Flip a few words around and it all make sense."

-spence

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


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

[scottw]

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?'

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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 article you link in your next post states that Ansar al-Sharia organized the "protest" and they used the video as a reason for it. Ansar al-Sharia is, whether you like it or not, an Al Qaeda affiliate. So that "part" of the motivation was an Al Qaeda brand "catalyst," not a "spontaneous reaction to the video. what the other "part" of motivation for the "protest" would be is rather hazy.

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.

There was an initial assessment by the military, as testified by General Ham, that it was solely a terrorist attack, and that was immediately reported to the administration. Later video recordings "etc." proved that to be the case.

Rushing a process doesn't make it a scandal.

-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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The article you link in your next post states that Ansar al-Sharia organized the "protest" and they used the video as a reason for it. Ansar al-Sharia is, whether you like it or not, an Al Qaeda affiliate. So that "part" of the motivation was an Al Qaeda brand "catalyst," not a "spontaneous reaction to the video. what the other "part" of motivation for the "protest" would be is rather hazy.

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.

There was an initial assessment by the military, as testified by General Ham, that it was solely a terrorist attack, and that was immediately reported to the administration. Later video recordings "etc." proved that to be the case.

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

"When we saw a rocket-propelled grenade attack, what appeared to be pretty well aimed small arms fire — again, this is all coming second and third hand through unclassified, you know, commercial cellphones for the most part initially. To me, it started to become clear pretty quickly that this was certainly a terrorist attack and not just not something sporadic," he stated.

His testimony is pretty interesting...

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

Like this...

General Ham. Well, certainly knowing now the events that transpired on the night of 11, 12 September I think all of us who are -- who have been involved in this would likely make some different decisions. But leading up to the events of 11 September_, watching the intelligence very carefully as all of us did and post attack having the opportunity to review the intelligence, I still don't find -- I have not found the intelligence that would indicate that an attack in Benghazi was imminent and that subsequent security should have been deployed. And I think the -- in my mind the most compelling argument to that conclusion is that the one individual in the U.S. Government who knew more about security and intelligence in Libya and in Benghazi specifically than anyone else was Ambassador Stevens. And I am convinced, knowing him, while I don't think he was particularly concerned about his own safety, I am absolutely convinced that had he any indication that an attack was likely or imminent in Benghazi he would not have put others at risk by traveling to Benghazi that evening.

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?

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

It is often the case that when something is as obvious as Occam's razor would deduce, it becomes "inconclusive" to inferior minds. Or to minds who wish it to appear so.

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?

That's been answered several times already.

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.

The "labels" and "links" were already known, and would only be immaterial to those who have an agenda to deny them. And, if in the denial, there was blindness to danger simply because the "labels" and "links" were perceived to be immaterial, then the error was inexcusable. Lives were at stake. BTW Spence, what were those "labels" and "links"?

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

You quoted him as saying "To me, it started to become clear pretty quickly that this was certainly a terrorist attack and not something sporadic". I don't read that as not "just" a sporadic protest, but that it was NOT sporadic, and that it was an ATTACK, and no mention of a PROTEST as you conveniently insert in your interpretation. He has also stated that this was relayed to the administration as it was happening. Which makes the pronouncement that it was a spontaneous reaction to a video very peculiar.


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

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No, the information they had at the time did not at all conclude that it was a spontaneous protest against a video.

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

What she said was:

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

What she said was:
The beginning of what you quote her as saying was: ". . . based on the information that we have at present, is that, IN FACT, what this began as, it was a spontaneous--not a premeditated--response to what had inspired in Cairo."--emphasis mine. I don't know if a FACT is conclusive to you, but I assume that you would arrive at conclusions with facts. Maybe not. And if you're quibbling about the word "protest" as opposed to her use of the word "response" that she used to describe what "in fact" happened, the "response" was to, as she says, a "protest" in Cairo. I would assume from that, therefore, that the "response" was also a "protest." And it was untrue that the information they had at the time IN FACT corroborated that the attack was a spontaneous response to the video. For sure, they were told by Ham that it was a terrorist attack, not spontaneous, and any conflicting "reports" would have been enough to hold off on a conclusion/theory/conjecture/whatever that IN FACT the attack was "spontaneous--not premeditated."

She goes on, in your quote, to say: "We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to . . . replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo." She had already characterized that "challenge" as a "violent protest" to the video. If that was so, then this elusive "small number of people came to the embassy to" "replicate" violent protest. So it was intended to be, by her own rhetoric, violent. So how and why was it necessary to conclude (oops)--theorize--that this replicated challenge was "hijacked . . . by individual clusters of extremists" with the heavier weapons? What? . . . were the "small number who came to "replicate" the violence in Cairo going to do so without weapons? "And then it evolved from there."?


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

It's more plausible, using Occam's razor, that the simpler explanation which would remove more elements in an argument than are necessary, is that those who came to the embassy in the first place was not a small number of regular folks who merely wanted to replicate the violence of Cairo, but were folks who had intentions to do what, in fact, "evolved." And that is what further investigation has concluded to have happened.

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.

That is exactly what I have been saying. The fabricated "furor" was inspired by a video DISSEMINATED by jihadists specifically to do so. The video was not a catalyst, it was a tool. It's dissemination and use were not accidental, it was all intentional. It was a "plausible" cover as much as a fictitious instigator for what the jihadists wanted to accomplish. Exactly as you surmise--they were thinking of an attack for some time. And the "events around the region" were also not spontaneous reactions, but were also instigated by jihadist elements (Al Qaeda brand elements).

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? Which is why Ham said it was a terrorist attack from the beginning, not a spontaneous protest. 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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

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.