Can someone explain this to me?

[_Bob Loblaw]

Let me first say I don't believe there's necessarily a nefarious cover-up or anything like this, but I truly do not understand why the White House was so adamant for 2 weeks that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest regarding an anti-Islam movie. Joe Biden and Jay Carney have both said that they had no information that there was an organized attack, which we now know is not true.

Today, CNN published emails that were sent to the White House within 2 hours of the attack, explaining how the attack was carried out and quoting Ansar al-Sharia's statement taking credit for the attack.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya- ... ?hpt=hp_t1

Please don't turn this into a partisan issue. In some ways it's a shame this happened so close to the election because it probably would have been handled differently by both the administration and the Republicans. But I would like to know the reason behind this rather strange response to the attacks,

I've heard people say there was conflicting information, so in the "fog of war" there was bound to be confusion. But in that case, why not just say they were investigating, rather than sending Susan Rice to all the networks to insist that the attack came out of the movie protests.

I know some people will probably just say I'm furthering some kind of right-wing fantasy, but I think we deserve some answers.

[_Analytics]

I've heard people say there was conflicting information, so in the "fog of war" there was bound to be confusion. But in that case, why not just say they were investigating, rather than sending Susan Rice to all the networks to insist that the attack came out of the movie protests.

The White House simply passed on to the American people the information they received from the CIA. It turns out that the CIA was wrong. That's really all there is to it.

[_mledbetter]

I've heard people say there was conflicting information, so in the "fog of war" there was bound to be confusion. But in that case, why not just say they were investigating, rather than sending Susan Rice to all the networks to insist that the attack came out of the movie protests.

The White House simply passed on to the American people the information they received from the CIA. It turns out that the CIA was wrong. That's really all there is to it.

I don't think so.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/state-dept-email-white-house-607-pm-91112-ansar-al-sharia-claims-responsibility

The worst part of this is the fact that the White House actually outsourced security to the 17th Feb Martyrs Brigade, an offshoot of Ansar-Al-Sharia an off-shoot of Al-Qaeda. This remained the case even after repeated requests from the Embassy in Benghazi for American security personnel. The White House certainly knew of this.

There was a cover up going on here. The White House had been going around bragging about killing OBL and claiming that Al-Qaida was on the run. They didn't want to look bad having Al-Qaeda slapping us around on the anniversary of Sept 11th in an election year.

[_Kevin Graham]

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/1 ... mai/190888

Emails Released By CBS Say That State Dept. Was Aware Ansar Al-Sharia Had "Claim[ed] Responsibility For [The] Benghazi Attack." An October 23 article on CBSNews.com described a series of three email alerts sent from the State Department to a number of government agencies as the attack on the Benghazi compound unfolded. CBS said one of the emails stated that "the embassy in Tripoli reported the Islamic group 'Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibilty [sic] for Benghazi Attack'... 'on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.' " The article did not cite any emails or officials who definitively stated on September 11 that the attack was led by a terrorist organization. [CBSNews.com, 10/23/12]

... And Reports Have Said Video Played A Role In The Attack

NY Times: "The Attackers" In Benghazi "Did Tell Bystanders That They Were Attacking The Compound Because They Were Angry About The Video." The New York Times refuted the notion that the anti-Muslim video was a "red herring":

What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?

According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place. [The New York Times, 10/17/12]

----------------------


I get a kick out of the Right trying to create something out of nothing here. They're really getting desperate for anything just to get the focus off of Romney's absurd lies.

Frankly, I don't understand why people are buying into this dichotomy, as if it had to be a planned terrorist attack or a response to the anti-Islam video. Why couldn't it have been both? The timeline of the events relating to the video and the public parade in Florida, can't be just a crazy coincidence. The violence escalated as that idiot in Florida began his anti-Islam presentation.

And Obama had already twice called this an "act of terror" the very next day, contrary to Romney's lie, so there is nowhere for these conspiracy theorists to go with this. This FOX News generated attack has been shot out of the water. Because how can Obama say it is terrorist while at the same time be part of a cover up saying it wasn't terrorist?

[_Kevin Graham]

n a blow to his own network, Fox News host Juan Williams debunked false narratives that Fox News has frequently pushed since the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.



In an opinion piece for The Hill, Williams offered three "corrections" for what he describes as "deliberate misinformation" from Republicans (and their conservative media mouthpieces) about the Benghazi attack.

Misinformation #1: "U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice lied to the American people in the days after the attack" when she suggested that a viral anti-Islam video sparked violence and wide-spread protests. Fox News has repeatedly pushed this narrative to make it seem like the administration was deliberately misleading the American people.

Correction: Williams debunked this false narrative, pointing to the "simple fact" that James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, "confirmed that Rice told the truth in describing the assessment of the intelligence community at the time of her remarks." Williams went on to explain that CIA Director David Petraeus briefed the House Intelligence Committee with the same intel Rice used, as did Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy in testimony before Congress earlier in October. Furthermore, as Media Matters has previously exposed, Williams noted that Rice "stressed that there was an ongoing investigation where conclusions were subject to change." Indeed, Rice appeared on all major networks and repeatedly stressed that there was an ongoing investigation into the attacks.

Misinformation #2: "[R]equests for extra security in Benghazi were denied by the administration," coupled with the suggestion that the "attack would have been stopped, and the ambassador still alive, if the requests had been granted." Fox News pushed this myth on multiple occasions.

Correction: Williams pointed out that requests for extra security were focused on the embassy in Tripoli, not Benghazi, and State Department officials believe that even if the requests had been granted, they would likely not have changed what happened in Benghazi because the consulate would have been ill-equipped to respond to such a large-scale assault (again echoing a previous report by Media Matters):

It is being charged that requests for extra security in Benghazi were denied by the administration.

The suggestion is that the attack would have been stopped, and the ambassador still alive, if the requests had been granted.

But at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee this month, Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and head of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, testified that the request was for added security in Tripoli, the capital of Libya, and not Benghazi.

The added manpower would have been based 400 miles away from the violence.

In addition, U.S. security officials report more guards could not have repelled heavy weapons used by the attackers.

Misinformation #3: "[T]he attack on Benghazi is evidence that al Qaeda is resurgent." Fox News has pushed this myth multiple times, suggesting on October 11 that one of the reasons for violence toward U.S. officials overseas is a "resurgence of Al Qaeda attacks" in the Middle East and North Africa. In another segment on October 12, notorious warmonger John Bolton suggested that the Libya consulate attack shows a "resurgence of Al Qaeda" and "evidence that the War on Terrorism is still very much with us."

Correction: Williams explained that the Obama administration has successfully diminished Al Qaeda, including the removal of leader Osama bin Laden, with targeted drone strikes and anti-terror policies:

The reality is that missions authorized by the Obama administration have killed the top commanders of the terrorist group, including bin Laden.

In addition, President Obama's drone strikes targeting al Qaeda members have decimated the remaining members of the group.

Tommy Vietor, a National Secretary Council spokesman, explains the impact.

"Our assessment that we have decimated al Qaeda leadership is unchanged. Dozens of their senior leadership have been taken off the battlefield as a result of the president's anti-terror policies," Vietor said.

"We know affiliates like al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula will seek to target us and that's why we go after them relentlessly."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/22 ... iam/190827

[_Bob Loblaw]

I'm not saying anyone lied. If that was the CIA's assessment, it makes sense to me.

[_Analytics]

The White House simply passed on to the American people the information they received from the CIA. It turns out that the CIA was wrong. That's really all there is to it.

I don't think so....

According to the Wall Street Journal,

President Barack Obama was told in his daily intelligence briefing for more than a week after the consulate siege in Benghazi that the assault grew out of a spontaneous protest...

New details about the contents of the President's Daily Brief, which haven't been reported previously, show that the Central Intelligence Agency didn't adjust the classified assessment until Sept. 22.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 32288.html

The CIA was wrong, the White House relayed to the American people what it learned from the CIA, and right-wing spin-masters have been trying to portray this as the president blatantly lying in order to...to what? As if it would somehow be advantageous to the president to blame this on crazy Muslim demonstrators rather than crazy Muslim terrorists? Their conspiracy theory doesn’t make sense, which is what motivated the OP.

[_Bob Loblaw]

The CIA was wrong, the White House relayed to the American people what it learned from the CIA, and right-wing spin-masters have been trying to portray this as the president blatantly lying in order to...to what? As if it would somehow be advantageous to the president to blame this on crazy Muslim demonstrators rather than crazy Muslim terrorists? Their conspiracy theory doesn’t make sense, which is what motivated the OP.

That's why I was asking. If that happened--and it appears it didn't--I couldn't figure out what the motivation was.

[_honorentheos]

Any current conversation about the Benghazi attack should include the name Ahmed Abu Khattala. See this news report from this last weekend -

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/10/2012101921132197668.html

Early reports by militia leaders on the ground, including Abu Khattala, described the attack as coming out of a spontaneous demonstration against the video. These early reports were part of the fog building around the information collected and delivered by the CIA. However, it seems more clear that Abu Khattala and others were likely feeding misinformation while having had direct involvement in the planned attack.

There are many failures of the Obama administration regarding this sad event that should be questioned. Accountability is not a partisan issue. I suspect poor judgment in not qualifying descriptions of the early reports is a legitimate one. So are questions about how the threats were being assessed prior to the event and the decisions regarding who was providing security and why.

But describing the initial reporting as a cover-up? Benghazi-gate? This is piling on addition failure of judgment with despicable politicizing on the part of Fox News and their peers.

[_Analytics]

The CIA was wrong, the White House relayed to the American people what it learned from the CIA, and right-wing spin-masters have been trying to portray this as the president blatantly lying in order to...to what? As if it would somehow be advantageous to the president to blame this on crazy Muslim demonstrators rather than crazy Muslim terrorists? Their conspiracy theory doesn’t make sense, which is what motivated the OP.

That's why I was asking. If that happened--and it appears it didn't--I couldn't figure out what the motivation was.

That's cool. I appreciate the sincerity of your question and your willingness to consider different points of view.