Re: zing! White House & State Dept it was Islamic Militants in Libya 2 hrs after att
I do think that there was a deliberate attempt to portray what happened as something it wasn't: a mob action rather than a terrorist attack. That's the only way I can read the continuing line of appearances and statements by the US ambassador to the UN, Jay Carney and others to that effect. There's now ample evidence that they knew full well that it was a terrorist attack and yet for two weeks they kept saying otherwise. Why would they do that? Because an unplanned mob attack in response to a anti-Muslim video would be something that the Administration couldn't be faulted for failing to plan for. It also fit with Obama's election campaign narrative that al qaeda is on the run as a result of his administration's aggressive attacks on its leaders.
(cont'd)
Sep 16th - UN Ambassador Susan Rice goes on all five majors to explain the current administration thinking, saying that the attacks were in part a response to the anti-Islam video that had spurred protests across the region. Contrary to the beliefs of some, Rice did not give a definitive answer on what exactly took place -
"RICE: [O]ur 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’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that’s the best information we have at present."
By this time it had been reported that attackers told reporters their actions were due to the video. However witnesses also said there wasn't a peaceful protest beforehand, which contradicts Rice. We know the attackers were heavily armed but that's not evidence of premeditation since Benghazi militia leaders who know Ansar al-Shariah claim it’s capable of carrying out the attack by itself with only a few hours of planning.
On October 18th, the Wall Street Journal would report that the night Rice went public with that assessment, intelligence analysts were receiving new info that contradicted the info she had.
"Despite their growing uncertainty, intelligence officials didn’t feel they had enough conclusive, new information to revise their assessment. Ms. Rice wasn’t warned of their new doubts before she went on the air the next morning."
Sep 19th - Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said the Americans
"were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy, while also saying it was an “opportunistic attack”.
Sep 20th - White House spokesman, Jay Carney, cleared up any confusion by saying,
"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack..." That's the White House Spokesman saying that, he's a parrot for Obama. So how is that portraying it as something other than terrorism for two weeks after the attack?
Sep. 21st – Clinton appoints an independent panel to investigate potential failures in the State Department’s procedures in Benghazi.
Sep 25th - Obama on 'The View' - When asked if it was terrorism, Obama said,
"We're still doing an investigation. (true)
There's no doubt that with the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. We don't have all the information yet, so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world there's still a lot of threats out there." He added that
"Extremist militias" were suspected to have been involved." How is that misleading the public? Is 'extremist militia' so outrageously different than 'terrorists'? Only if you have an agenda.
Days later, Carney was asked why Obama hadn't labeled the incident a terrorist attack. He said,
"I think you're misunderstanding something here. I'm the president's spokesman. When the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, in open testimony in Congress, answered a question by saying yes, by the definitions we go by -- this is me paraphrasing -- this was a terrorist attack -- I echoed that, because this president, this administration, everybody looks to the intelligence community for the assessments on this. And it has been since I said so, the president's position that this was a terrorist attack." Again, how is this portraying it as something it wasn't?
Oct 18th - Ahmed Abu Khattab, a leader in the Ansar al-Sharia militia, indicates to Reuters and NY Times reporters that while he didn't participate in attack, it was in response to the video.
Oct 19th - Fox News' Geraldo Rivera and Peter Doocy both report that the video may have had something to do with the Benghazi assault.
Oct 20th - Washington Post publishes article confirming CIA provided the administration and Congress their initial beliefs that it stemmed from a protest. LA Times publishes article quoting intelligence officials as saying the assault was spontaneous, not ordered by al Qaeda, and was in response to the video.
Oct 22nd - Wall Street Journal reports that Obama was told in his daily intelligence briefing for over a week that the attack in Benghazi grew out of a protest.
So does it really outrage some of you so much that he didn't say 'terrorism' on the fucking View? Or that the video would get referenced in the following weeks? There clearly seems to have been major flaws in the intelligence communities response, and I think in the military response, but to accuse the administration of willfully lying to the public seems a bit of a stretch. If we weren't so close to election, the fingers would be pointing at those who fed Obama his info, not at Obama.
For some of you, everything that supports your position is gospel, but everything that contradicts it is spin.
Everyone has said it was terrorism for weeks now, do you all feel better? What has changed? Have the 4 dead Americans come back to life? I personally think it's pathetic and sickening that the right has decided to use dead Americans for political gain, and making the time-table of declaring this terrorism a talking point, just so their man can get a bump in the polls.
