Merged State Department admits there was no protest at Benghazi consulate

[Roger Ramjets]

So it took the full force of the US government the lion's share of a month to determine

It took a full scale war causing half a million deaths, and years of finding nothing before Bush finally admitted that Saddam did not, in fact, have a huge stockpile of WMD's poised to use against us. And yet you gave him a pass. Do you know what the phrase 'partisan hack' means?

Tell me, is that hope or change?

Unless the current administration allows faulty intel to cause as much damage as Bush with his non-existent WMDs, I think we can answer 'yes' to that question.

 

[A'isha]

Someone needs to face the ambassador's family in person. These animals dragged Ambassador Stephens' corpse through the streets of Benghazi and the State Department tried to sell that optic as concerned bystanders rendering aid.

Cite?

 

[WildCat]

So, the Obama Administration revised its statements regarding what happened from what they initially stated during the confused early aftermath, based on new details learned as the investigation into events has progressed?

And this is a bad thing...why, exactly?

The State Dept. is on record as saying they never believed the attack was related to the film protests. That they always believed it was a planned attack.

 

[WildCat]

So her statement was wrong, but it was based on the information they (or she) had at the time. Because the attack in Benghazi happened on the same day as protests over the film in Cairo, it was not an entirely unreasonable theory at the time.

No, it wasn't. Because the information they had at the time, from the State Department, was that it was a planned attack unrelated to the film protests.

The State Department now says it never believed the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was a film protest gone awry, giving congressional Republicans new fodder for criticizing the Obama administration's initial accounts of the assault.

The State Department's extraordinary break with other administration offices came in a department briefing Tuesday, where officials said "others" in the executive branch concluded initially that the protest was based, like others in the Middle East, on a film that ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad.

That was never the department's conclusion, a senior official told reporters.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20121010/c121b48f-b1df-4307-88f4-d6d2e7d370fd

 

[Puppycow]

Another very detailed article here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-10/ambassador-died-in-smoke-while-agents-searched-for-him.html

The two officials said yesterday they still don’t know how Stevens, 52, made it to the Benghazi Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead. He was brought to the city’s largest hospital in a private car driven by unknown Libyan civilians some time after 1 a.m. on Sept. 12, hospital director Dr. Fathi al Jehani said in an interview with Bloomberg.

Hospital staff members informed the embassy of his death after they picked his mobile phone out of his pocket and dialed numbers on it, the two State Department officials said.

No mention in this or any other article I've read of the Ambassador's body being dragged through the streets.

However, it does seem that Susan Rice needs to answer some questions.

 

[WildCat]

However, it does seem that Susan Rice needs to answer some questions.

Why should Rice be on the hot seat for repeating what her boss told her to say? Or does the buck stop at Susan Rice?

 

[Cylinder]

No mention in this or any other article I've read of the Ambassador's body being dragged through the streets.

So what were they doing in the photo?

 

[A'isha]

So what were they doing in the photo?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/w...ns-retrieving-envoys-body.html?pagewanted=all

http://news.yahoo.com/libyan-witness-stevens-breathing-found-144944917.html

 

[A'isha]

No, it wasn't. Because the information they had at the time, from the State Department, was that it was a planned attack unrelated to the film protests.


http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20121010/c121b48f-b1df-4307-88f4-d6d2e7d370fd

From your link:

A concurrent CIA memo obtained by The Associated Press cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi "were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" and "evolved into a direct assault" on the diplomatic posts by "extremists."

So, the State Department believed one thing, and the CIA reported "intelligence" suggesting another thing.

 

[Puppycow]

No, it wasn't. Because the information they had at the time, from the State Department, was that it was a planned attack unrelated to the film protests.


http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20121010/c121b48f-b1df-4307-88f4-d6d2e7d370fd

Upon further reading of the articles that came out today I think that I have to agree that Susan Rice has some 'splaing to do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nt-contradicts-original-Benghazi-account.html

 

[Puppycow]

So what were they doing in the photo?

What photo?

 

[WildCat]

From your link:



So, the State Department believed one thing, and the CIA reported "intelligence" suggesting another thing.

"Concurrent" in this case being 5 days after the attack, when Rice gave her interviews.

So the initial response by the Obama Administration could not have been the result of the CIA memo which came out days later. And we know the State Dept. never believed the attack was related to the film or the protests.

So the White House ignored the reports from the State Dept. officials at the scene and made their own conclusions. For all I know the CIA memo was from some lackey telling their bosses what they wanted to hear.

 

[A'isha]

"Concurrent" in this case being 5 days after the attack, when Rice gave her interviews.

So the initial response by the Obama Administration could not have been the result of the CIA memo which came out days later. And we know the State Dept. never believed the attack was related to the film or the protests.

The initial response was also not that direct. The statements cited by Kessler before Rice's comments mostly treat all the events of September 11-12 collectively, and one unnamed official was quoted as saying that they couldn't say much about the perpetrators of the "complex attack" because an investigation was ongoing. Carney's statements to the press corps on September 13th never mentioned the movie in connection to Libya, and only talked about the movie in connection with a question about protests at the embassy in Yemen. Clinton's own statement on September 14th, when the ambassador's body was returned home, clearly separates the attack in Benghazi from the embassy attacks sparked by the video.

So the White House ignored the reports from the State Dept. officials at the scene and made their own conclusions.

That does not appear to be the case. It appears that the administration didn't say much of anything specific regarding the causes of the Benghazi attack, until Susan Rice made a direct comment. And even then, the day after her comments, both a State Department official and the press secretary, when about those comments, said only "we're still investigating".

For all I know the CIA memo was from some lackey telling their bosses what they wanted to hear.

And for all you know, it wasn't.

 

[godless dave]

According to a senior State Departmment spokesman, instead of being the results of a spontaneous protest of a obscure, amatuer film insulting Islam, the attack was a coordinated and unprecendented attack against a US embassy.

Unprecedented? Al Qaida bombed two embassies in 1998, remember?

More precedents:

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-embassy-attacks-and-bombings-recent-history-782665

As for the Benghazi attack, I remember the press saying there was a protest, but I don't remember that coming from the US government.

 

[A'isha]

This whole "the administration claimed the Libya attack was the result of a spontaneous protest over the film" thing appears to hinge almost entirely on Rice's statement.

 

[WildCat]

The initial response was also not that direct. The statements cited by Kessler before Rice's comments mostly treat all the events of September 11-12 collectively, and one unnamed official was quoted as saying that they couldn't say much about the perpetrators of the "complex attack" because an investigation was ongoing. Carney's statements to the press corps on September 13th never mentioned the movie in connection to Libya, and only talked about the movie in connection with a question about protests at the embassy in Yemen. Clinton's own statement on September 14th, when the ambassador's body was returned home, clearly separates the attack in Benghazi from the embassy attacks sparked by the video.



That does not appear to be the case. It appears that the administration didn't say much of anything specific regarding the causes of the Benghazi attack, until Susan Rice made a direct comment. And even then, the day after her comments, both a State Department official and the press secretary, when about those comments, said only "we're still investigating".



And for all you know, it wasn't.

Make all the excuses you want, but it's quite clear now that the State Dept. insisted all along, from Day 1, that it was a terrorist attack unrelated to the film protests. And that the White House spun it as a film protest despite this, as shown by this press release dated 10:43 AM Sept. 12:

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Clearly tying the attack to the film the very next morning, days before the CIA memo you ascribe as being the basis for the White House announcement.

 

[Puppycow]

Why should Rice be on the hot seat for repeating what her boss told her to say? Or does the buck stop at Susan Rice?

What do you base that claim on?

I suppose you also agree that Poindexter and Ollie North were just doing what their boss told them to do? It seems the buck stopped with them in that case.

 

[WildCat]

What do you base that claim on?

I suppose you also agree that Poindexter and Ollie North were just doing what their boss told them to do? It seems the buck stopped with them in that case.

Do you think that US ambassadors to the UN just go rogue and give their personal opinions instead of the official positions of their boss?

And what is it with you and tu quoque fallacies?

 

[Puppycow]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/w...ns-retrieving-envoys-body.html?pagewanted=all

http://news.yahoo.com/libyan-witness-stevens-breathing-found-144944917.html

Thanks. Finally got around to reading those.

Labeled the work of Fahd al-Bakkosh, the video centers on what appears to be the same tall, narrow window that witnesses have described as Mr. Stevens’s last exit. The witnesses said residents drawn to the scene had forced open the window and found Mr. Stevens behind a locked iron gate, pulled him out and taken him to the hospital. In the video, none say anything that shows ill will.

 

[Cylinder]

This whole "the administration claimed the Libya attack was the result of a spontaneous protest over the film" thing appears to hinge almost entirely on Rice's statement.

You're leaving out the President's comments on the "hateful" film.