When did calling someone a Democrat become offensive?
If you stall releasing information or refuse it outright that’s the definition of not coming clean. It’s not rocket science to produce the information asked for in a timely manner. It wasn’t that big of a political problem. I can see stalling it past the election cycle. that’s just politics. But after the election Hillary was thrown under the bus so there really wasn’t a point to stalling it any further unless they promised her something if she stepped down.
I have said nothing about the motivation for the attack, as I would not see the attackers’ motivations as a “fact” to be obtained via Congressional inquiry.
My point is that the US intelligence/diplomatic/political apparatus fabricated an event (a “protest”). I do not believe that the public knows how that fabrication occurred, or why it occurred, and I believe that it is a useful subject of Congressional inquiry to determine the answer. If you like, compare it to an inquiry into Nigerian uranium or Iraqi WMDs; the questions may be fundamentally the same.
I would paraphrase the Senate report, which I’ve read, as saying, “Our security/diplomatic eyewitnesses say that there was a surprise attack. But the New York Times quotes AAS as saying there was a ‘popular uprising.’ Let’s go with AAS, and call it a ‘protest.’” Sure, that’s being flip, but it’s not far off. And hopefully you agree that amounts to an intelligence failure - seeing as the US has now apprehended the head of AAS and all.
Useful contemporaneous account:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024
Note that you’re respond to a post that was directed at Magiver, not you.
That’s not a fair characterization at all. It ignores that there was also conflicting signals intelligence and DOD reporting, among other sources including the media accounts.
But in any event, saying that they relied on the wrong intelligence is quite a far cry from your claim that they “fabricated an event.” At most, even under your strained reading, it amounts to an intelligence failure, the nature of which we understand quite well.
“Fabricated” is the only word. Our intelligence said that there was a protest, when there wasn’t. Someone, somewhere imagined an event that never took place. Perhaps it was malicious, perhaps it was political, perhaps it was just a bad day on the job. You and I agree that there was “an intelligence failure” - but we do not know who, why or how that failure occurred.
Saying “SigInt” or “DoD reports” is question-begging. How did we misread the SigInt? What/how did the DoD misread?
Now, on the former, personally I don’t actually believe that there was SigInt supporting the “protest” conclusion, because (a) that would suggest a counterintelligence effort on the part of the attackers, which I don’t think is likely, and (b) there was roughly contemporaneous reporting of at least some of the SigInt and it does not support a “protest” assessment.
I also am skeptical that the DoD assessed that there was a protest, because (a) there wasn’t one, (b) I am unaware of any DoD personnel on the ground (was the ambassador’s protection detail DoD-assigned? the drone that arrived on station?), and (c) no specifics are given in the Senate report. But these all seem like questions worthy of review. I’m not claiming a right to see the intel, but I think that Congress is entitled to understand the error mechanisms that shaped the public statements and policies of the West Wing.
As it stands, the only actual sourcing supporting the “protest” assessment that I can trace arises from media interviews with AAS members.
All you’re really arguing is that a bipartisan Senate committee with access to the classified info completely mischaracterized it in the public report. I am not persuaded by your speculation that Rubio et al. are in on it.
According to [a report about] the guy we just captured, at least part of the motivation for the attack was the online video that attacked Islam.
Certainly possible, or even probable, as one of many motivations, depending on the attacker.
Some points to consider. One, Khattala is not the most reliable witness:
More storytelling at the link, which is the old “strawberry frappe” NYT story.
Two, perhaps by pure coincidence, the coordinated Benghazi attack came one day after al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri released a video calling for attacks on US interests in Libya in revenge for the drone-strike death of Abu Yahya al-Libi. The link below describes a prior video featuring graphics of explosions behind the Benghazi consulate.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/index.html
Three, in another one of those “small world” events, the largest of the September 11 video protests, in Cairo, was led by Ayman al-Zawahiri’s brother, Mohammed, who thereafter was immediately available for a detailed interview with the western press.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/14/brother_of_al_qaeda_leader_offers_peace_plan
There is ample evidence that the video played an important role in motivating attackers, including new evidence released today.. Anyone who doesn’t know this isn’t paying attention. I have posted other such evidence in this very thread. The reason it won’t be addressed by the adherents of a conspiracy involving President Obama and Susan Rice and heaven knows who else is because it destroys their ridiculous “case.”
And even if there weren’t such evidence, there were reasons at that time for thinking so. Even if it were wholly wrong…it was not an unreasonable conclusion to leap to.
The fact of this evidence is great, but it isn’t the basis of the anti-conspiracy viewpoint. The basis of this viewpoint is…there wasn’t any conspiracy.
(And even if that weren’t true…so what? A bunch of politicos got together and decided how to present an event to put the best face on it? If that’s an offense, then there isn’t a President in history, or a Senator sitting today, who isn’t guilty of it!)
This is one of those “summary dismissal” issues: even if every single thing claimed by the opposition were true, there isn’t any significant wrongdoing involved. You might as well have tried to impeach Richard Nixon for claiming we had “Peace with honor” in Vietnam, when, in fact, we had neither.
There isn’t anything here, and never has been.
Ahmed Abu Khattala has made several contradictory statements about what he had done and the reasons for the murders. Which story is actually true? Perhaps it’s the one you want to believe?
*During the assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Mr. Abu Khattala was a vivid presence. Witnesses saw him directing the swarming attackers who ultimately killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Afterward, he offered contradictory denials of his role, sometimes trying to say that he did not do it but strongly approved. He appeared to enjoy his notoriety.
…In several hours of interviews since the attack, Mr. Abu Khattala was happy to profess his admiration for Osama bin Laden and other leaders of Al Qaeda. He insisted that American foreign policy alone was to blame for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
…“He is sincere, but he is very ignorant, and I don’t think he is 100 percent mentally fit,” Mr. Abu Sidra said. “I always ask myself, how did he become a leader?”
…As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. “From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad,” he said.*
It’s almost like sometimes conflicting reports happen, and people aren’t sure of what happened.
If only we could extrapolate this knowledge into the larger issue of the RW Derpathon about Benghazi.
Thanks for the quotes, but I fail to see where he contradicted himself. The first quote is about 2001, not 2012, so no, the video didn’t have anything to do with the WTC attack. The second quote sheds no light whatever on the video issue, so I don’t know why you bothered with it. The third quote explicitly says the video was indeed a factor. The fourth quote doesn’t say the video wasn’t a factor, it just says he’s not sure whether he overreacted to it.
Absolutely nothing in any of the four that rules out the video being a factor in the 2012 attack, and an explicit declaration that it was.
My mistake, I misread the first quote. The 2nd quote suggests that Khattala ain’t quite right in the head. The 3rd quote was from 3rd parties reported as - according to people who heard him. The 4th quote doesn’t say the video was or was not a reason for the attack but Khattala did have an opportunity to clear up any confusion during that interview, if he had wanted to.
There is indeed no contradiction, I still think the early idea I had was correct: there is no reason to think that both (A planned terror attack, and outrage from a video) reasons were not part of the whole thing.
There is good fishing in troubled waters.
We needn’t report it to Mods, but we needn’t let it slide either.
I don’t “want” to believe anything. This implies an active desire to think that a particular thing is true in the face of contradictory evidence, rather than to look at the evidence, weigh it, and make a decision about what makes the most sense. In any case, you quoted part of the story saying there were witnesses to Khattala directing attackers. That is known as evidence, but not surprisingly, you try to throw up a smokescreen with other quotes that aren’t relevant to the above mentioned fact. Perhaps Khattala is mentally unbalanced, certifiably insane even. This wouldn’t contradict what witnesses reported.
Another fact that gets completely ignored by people here, and the press.