Merged State Department admits there was no protest at Benghazi consulate

[TheSapient]

Terrorist groups have a vested interest in being associated with attacks, regardless of their actual involvement.

 

[Travis]

Again, who the **** cares?

 

[Puppycow]

This is kind of like focusing on that one intelligence memo before 9/11 and ignoring the flood of other information that said something else.

 

[applecorped]

This is kind of like focusing on that one intelligence memo before 9/11 and ignoring the flood of other information that said something else.

Yeah, like thermite did it.

 

[A'isha]

Reuters claims to have emails showing that the state department was informed two hours after that the attack on the diplomatic compund was a terrorist attack and not a protest that got out of hand.

It was common knowledge right after the attack that Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack. I even posted about it here at JREF. The email itself said that this claim came from the Tripoli Embassy merely passing on what had been found on Facebook and Twitter (EDIT: And said that the group also called for an attack on the Tripoli Embassy that, of course, never happened).

It was also common knowledge right after the attack that Ansar al-Sharia subsequently denied responsibility for the attack, which was also posted about here at JREF, and it was denied again by the group a week later.

So why you think this is some kind of damning smoking-gun evidence is a mystery to me.

 

[SkepticalDrew]

It was common knowledge right after the attack that Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack. I even posted about it here at JREF. The email itself said that this claim came from the Tripoli Embassy merely passing on what had been found on Facebook and Twitter (EDIT: And called for an attack on the Tripoli Embassy that, of course, never happened).

It was also common knowledge right after the attack that Ansar al-Sharia subsequently denied responsibility for the attack, which was also posted about here at JREF, and it was denied again by the group a week later.

So why you think this is some kind of damning smoking-gun evidence is a mystery to me.

Virus recently stated that political forums are left wing echo chambers, and stuff like this "never gets out"

He's just trying to keep it fair and balanced, y'know?

 

[dc1971]

It was common knowledge right after the attack that Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack. I even posted about it here at JREF. The email itself said that this claim came from the Tripoli Embassy merely passing on what had been found on Facebook and Twitter (EDIT: And said that the group also called for an attack on the Tripoli Embassy that, of course, never happened).

It was also common knowledge right after the attack that Ansar al-Sharia subsequently denied responsibility for the attack, which was also posted about here at JREF, and it was denied again by the group a week later.

So why you think this is some kind of damning smoking-gun evidence is a mystery to me.

Leave it to Australian conservatives to think this way!

 

[A'isha]

Leave it to Australian conservatives to think this way!

What's sad is that Virus even posted on September 14th in the second JREF thread I linked to above, two days after both my mentioning of the information about Ansar al-Sharia claiming responsibility and richardm replying to me with the information about their subsequent denial of responsibility were posted in that thread.

Did you develop amnesia, Virus? Or do you just not bother to actually read the threads you post in, even extremely short ones like that (it had barely made it into the fourth page by the time you posted)?

 

[Cylinder]

Again, who the **** cares?

 

[Virus]

It was common knowledge right after the attack that Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack. I even posted about it here at JREF. The email itself said that this claim came from the Tripoli Embassy merely passing on what had been found on Facebook and Twitter (EDIT: And said that the group also called for an attack on the Tripoli Embassy that, of course, never happened).

It was also common knowledge right after the attack that Ansar al-Sharia subsequently denied responsibility for the attack, which was also posted about here at JREF, and it was denied again by the group a week later.

So why you think this is some kind of damning smoking-gun evidence is a mystery to me.

Why did they say it was a YouTube protest gone bad if they knew it was a terrorist attack?

 

[dc1971]

What's sad is that Virus even posted on September 14th in the second JREF thread I linked to above, two days after both my mentioning of the information about Ansar al-Sharia claiming responsibility and richardm replying to me with the information about their subsequent denial of responsibility were posted in that thread.

Did you develop amnesia, Virus? Or do you just not bother to actually read the threads you post in, even extremely short ones like that (it had barely made it into the fourth page by the time you posted)?

Do you really think he'll answer.

Virus is very well known for having conversations with himself.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

So why you think this is some kind of damning smoking-gun evidence is a mystery to me.

Clutch Cargo Van Susteren was literally waving it around as if it is.

 

[332nd]

Why did they say it was a YouTube protest gone bad if they knew it was a terrorist attack?

Did they know, or did they receive information that was later verified?

 

[Molinaro]

Reuters claims to have emails showing that the state department was informed two hours after that the attack on the diplomatic compund was a terrorist attack and not a protest that got out of hand.



http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE89N02C20121024?irpc=932


If this is true, who's going to be fired?

Why should a claim of responsibility be taken immediately at face value?

 

[Virus]

Did they know, or did they receive information that was later verified?

If they didn't know, why did they say it was a YouTube protest gone bad?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Reuters claims to have emails showing that the state department was informed two hours after that the attack on the diplomatic compund was a terrorist attack and not a protest that got out of hand.

Sorry if I'm missing why this is the scandal of the century. I don't recall their being this much fuss after 241 US servicemen were killed in Beirut in 1983 (because the sentries were prohibited from keeping their rifles loaded).

 

[Puppycow]

Why did they say it was a YouTube protest gone bad if they knew it was a terrorist attack?

Because that's what they were told in their intelligence briefings.

After Benghazi Attack, Talk Lagged Behind Intelligence

Ms. Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, has said that the judgments she offered on the five talk shows on Sept. 16 came from talking points prepared by the C.I.A., which reckoned that the attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans had resulted from a spontaneous mob that was angry about an anti-Islamic video that had set off protests elsewhere. That assessment, described to Ms. Rice in briefings the day before her television appearances, was based on intercepted communications, informants’ tips and Libyan press reports, officials said.

Later that Sunday, though, American intelligence analysts were already sifting through new field reports that seemed to contradict the initial assessment. It would be several days, however, before the intelligence agencies changed their formal assessment based on those new reports, and informed administration officials about the change. Intelligence officials say such a lag is typical of the ever-changing process of piecing together shards of information into a coherent picture fit for officials’ public statements.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I recall that they said this may have been terrorists taking advantage of a protest that was happening. It appears, now, that they were correct. But no... I guess the Conservative thing to do would be to immediately blame a group and attack that group, without an investigation. Investigation is a weakness, I guess.

 

[Meadmaker]

Sorry if I'm missing why this is the scandal of the century. I don't recall their being this much fuss after 241 US servicemen were killed in Beirut in 1983 (because the sentries were prohibited from keeping their rifles loaded).

I remember a heck of a lot of fuss at that time.

However, if it had been a month before a presidential election, there would have been an order of magnitude more fuss.

 

[Meadmaker]

Because that's what they were told in their intelligence briefings.

After Benghazi Attack, Talk Lagged Behind Intelligence

That's all well and good, but looking at the information that came out later, it was clear that this was not some sort of spontaneous outburst of an out of control crowd. This was a group of people who knew where the Americans were, and set out to kill them.

The administration response didn't make that clear in the least.

I don't think this is a "scandal" of any sort, but it just made them look stupid.

The emails don't really add much to that. The only new information is just one more piece of information to show that anyone familiar with what had happened could see that this was not a spontaneous demonstration, which makes the administration's comments about a video seem very out of touch with reality.