Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Another thing I don't get.
I watched Jane Harman get eviscerated on Fox last Sunday by Brit Hume's assertion that there wasn't *ANY* evidence the attack could have been a response by the video. I'm amazed really that someone with her stature could have been so unprepared for an easy question.
How about the fact that the attack happened after an assault on the neighboring Egyptian embassy?
How about not providing adequate security to the consulate after that attack. Sept. 11 . . . Growing influence of Al Qaeda . . . The attack in Egypt . . .
How about the fact that the following week was rampant with video protests and violence towards US missions in the region?
OK. So you stick to the administration's talking points and disregard other "reports" that the violence in Egypt, as reported in Egyptian press, had more to do with other things than the video, such as the protest over the imprisonment of the blind Sheik. And that mass protests in dictatorial regimes opposed by other dictatorial and extremist opponents are nearly always instigated by one or the other of the opponents, and always by some talking point used to legitimize the violence. When a whole nation or its embassies is attacked over a video rather than retribution demanded by a fatwa against the individual who made the video, it is far, far, more likely that the video is a prop, a tool, used by, in these cases, jihadists, rather than spontaneous peaceful people upset over an isolated insult to the Prophet, or Islam. If normal peace loving Muslims can be so blindly incited to deadly mayhem by such a trifle, why would we be so stupid to trust them? And if it was more "extreme" Muslims, why were we caught so unaware? It wasn't as if there were no warnings or signals or evidence of trouble. I recall you bought the Kool-Aid that Libya was not, as I had put it, a hot bed of terrorism. And that, as the administration claimed, Al Qaeda was decimated, weakened, on the run, losing influence, and Libya or Benghazi was not a dangerous place. We based our policy on such a view?
How about the fact that the NY Times reported interviews with attackers who claimed the video was their inspiration?
That is, on one level, so laughable to believe that a reporter from the NY Times, a representative of the great Satan, was going to get the real skinny, and nothing but the real skinny, from a jihadist. Was the reporter going to be told to his face that he was an enemy. If the video was so offensive that it was cause to kill, not the video maker, but those who represented the U.S., what would the jihadist interviewed by the American reporter be expected to tell him. "Oh . . . it was just the video . . . and I like you so I'll tell you exactly what happened . . . but not in such a way that might make you uncomfortable, or feel threatened. And besides, if I were to kill you, without the aid of some anti-offensive talking point, I might be in deep trouble." And isn't it amazing that the reporter so easily found and got supposed confessions from attackers, but the administration which vowed to get them and bring them to justice has not yet done so. Again, even if the "extremist" attacker did so only because of the video, did he accidentally or "spontaneously" join in the well-coordinated attack? Wasn't there a wider group of like-minded extremists led by those who used whatever psycho babble was available to foment the desired and planned violence and killing?
Why is it so hard to believe that the attack could have been a product of both terrorism *AND* the video?
-spence
|
It is not "so hard to believe" if the video and terrorism were connected, not separate motivations. If the video was a tool of terrorists, not a separate entity that in itself would cause such mayhem.
And besides, it has been admitted that the video was not the reason for the attack on the Benghazi consulate and the killing of Ambassador Stevens. It would be kind of . . . sort of . . . OK . . . so you really, actually, did believe that it was about the video. So when you went on about the video you weren't trying to mislead the American people before an election, you were, according to the best available analysis, assuming it was the video.
Except that the initial reporting on the ground did not mention a protest. Because there was no protest. Therefore no protest could be reported as happening either before or during the attack. It was reported immediately as an attack. Even a well coordinated one. And Brit Hume was correct in saying there was no evidence that the attack was a response to the video. Your little "hows" and "why's" are not evidence of why the attack took place. The comingling of terror with the video is the marriage of two separate things that don't go together. A spontaneous riot, if such a thing exists, in response to offensive words is an act of rage motivated by revenge. An Islamo-terrorist attack is a calculated offensive, more than a response, motivated by the desire to rid infidels from Islamic domains. Now, the terrorists can use, in this case, the video as a tool to inspire some to attack, but the reason for the attack is not a response to the video, but to terrorize and eliminate the infidel.
Which is why, when in Obama's press conference he talked about the Benghazi attack being a result of the video, then later in the speech mentioned terrorism, the attack is not specifically called an act of terror. By specifying one and mentioning the other, there is an implication that they are related, even that the attack was terrorism. The response to the video could not be terrorism unless it was an instigating tool used by terrorists rather than the reason for a spontaneous "protest" gone bad.
And that's why the talking point in the new memos is so damning:
"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."
If the "protests" were rooted in the video, not in terrorism, especially in Al Qaeda and its affiliates terrorism, then it is not to be presumed as a "broader failure of policy." So it had to be
underscored that it was about a spontaneous reaction to the video, even when there was no such specific evidence. On the contrary, the evidence indicated terrorism, jihadism, the Al Qaeda brand. And policy was "rooted" on the notion that terrorism and Al Qaeda were not a viable threat.
Since it has been found that the attack was not "rooted" in the video, but was actually rooted in terrorism, and the rise of Al Qaeda, ergo, it WAS the failure of policy.