Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
The article you link in your next post states that Ansar al-Sharia organized the "protest" and they used the video as a reason for it. Ansar al-Sharia is, whether you like it or not, an Al Qaeda affiliate. So that "part" of the motivation was an Al Qaeda brand "catalyst," not a "spontaneous reaction to the video. what the other "part" of motivation for the "protest" would be is rather hazy.
|
I think the Senate report found the motivation for the attack inconclusive, perhaps other than just an American presence would make operations in the area difficult.
This is an area that I think the Times report gets right. What does it mean to be an "affiliate?" What does alQaeda mean anymore? It appears as though there were some links with individuals but there doesn't look to be much that's material. Just some of the more extreme militant factions branding themselves with a label.
Quote:
|
There was an initial assessment by the military, as testified by General Ham, that it was solely a terrorist attack, and that was immediately reported to the administration. Later video recordings "etc." proved that to be the case.
|
No, that's not what he said. Ham didn't exclude a protest, rather he stated it wasn't "just" a sporadic protest.
Quote:
|
"When we saw a rocket-propelled grenade attack, what appeared to be pretty well aimed small arms fire — again, this is all coming second and third hand through unclassified, you know, commercial cellphones for the most part initially. To me, it started to become clear pretty quickly that this was certainly a terrorist attack and not just not something sporadic," he stated.
|
His testimony is pretty interesting...
http://armedservices.house.gov/index...D-2DB9B53C3424
Like this...
Quote:
|
General Ham. Well, certainly knowing now the events that transpired on the night of 11, 12 September I think all of us who are -- who have been involved in this would likely make some different decisions. But leading up to the events of 11 September_, watching the intelligence very carefully as all of us did and post attack having the opportunity to review the intelligence, I still don't find -- I have not found the intelligence that would indicate that an attack in Benghazi was imminent and that subsequent security should have been deployed. And I think the -- in my mind the most compelling argument to that conclusion is that the one individual in the U.S. Government who knew more about security and intelligence in Libya and in Benghazi specifically than anyone else was Ambassador Stevens. And I am convinced, knowing him, while I don't think he was particularly concerned about his own safety, I am absolutely convinced that had he any indication that an attack was likely or imminent in Benghazi he would not have put others at risk by traveling to Benghazi that evening.
|
Quote:
|
So why did the administration rush to the judgement that the video was the reason for the attack? And stick to that in spite of incoming information to the contrary?
|
It looks like they were telling the story based on the information at the time, information that even today isn't totally wrong...but has evolved.
-spence