Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
That's not the conclusion of the CIA, Senate or House investigations.
So what? Those investigations did not confirm, or prove, that it was a spontaneous protest or that the video was the cause. If you're going to require Proof, where is your proof that the video was the cause. The first CIA reports from those on the ground reported a terrorist attack and that it appeared likely that al Qaeda linked terrorists were involved. That was changed later deleting reference to al Qaeda, convenient for the administration talking points, by the CIA director in order to suposedly "protect" classified information. In the House investigation, General Ham, at the time of the attack said that defense officials did not believe the attack was from an out-of-control demonstration and had no evidence of it. And that it was certainly a terrorist attack and not just something sporadic. He relayed his info to Sec. Def. Panetta who then relayed it to Obama. Panetta said he never thought it was a protest but that it was a terrorist attack. But the emphasis of the administration talking points laid the blame on the video. And it maintained that emphasis for weeks even though the evidence was contrary.
The problem here is that you're reading judicialwatch, a conservative website run by conspiracy theorists that has a process of using FOIA requests to get "raw data" which they then take out of context and make wild claims to discredit the Administration amd stir the pot.
The problem here is that your whole sentence sounds like a uncorroborated conspiracy full of wild claims to discredit Judicial Watch.
In the same breath of the 10 day planning "finding" they also argue the CIA was shipping arms to Syria which the House Intelligence Committee found ZERO evidence of.
|
Well, you make claims for which there is ZERO evidence. Anyway, zero evidence is often in dispute regarding what is considered evidence. And, further anyway, no evidence is not proof. Neither is evidence proof.
And no-one, except God and Spence always gets it right.
And what is your proof, again, that the video was the motivation for the attack
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
There's nothing in this article that wasn't cited in government reports, and nothing that confirms this was a planned attack.
One of the few things actually confirmed in the investigations to which you like to refer, is State Dept., headed by H. Clinton, incompetence. In this article and those investigations, there is certainly no confirmation that the attack was not planned. The Obama admin. now classifies it as an ORGANIZED terrorist attack. There is such a thing as spontaneous organization in nature and to some degree in human affairs. But the implementation of it, once it occurs, requires some discussion, bargaining, and planning. There is certainly a strong implication of planning when a human activity is referred to as organized.
Just because some people including actual al Qaeda members with connections are involved, doesn't mean it was instigated, led or otherwise carried the signature of al Qaeda,
Doesn't mean it wasn't. And it is a "signature" of al Qaeda when some of those involved are not only either actual al Qaeda members or affiliated to al Qaeda and directly in contact and coordination with al Qaeda in other matters
quite to the contrary, the NCTC and DIA analysis cited in the Republican led House Intelligence report that it was rather uncoordinated and sloppy leads in the opposite direction.
|
The Senate investigation said that the attack didn't require significant amounts of preplanning. And much of al Qaeda hit and run attacks are sloppy and minimalist in planning. And none of that leads in the direction that there was no planning. Quite the contrary, when the totality of what is known, or testified to, is summed up, the notion that the attack was purely spontaneous is ridiculous.
So, in the broader picture, "What difference does it make" if the video had anything to do with the attack or not? The video was not necessary. It may have made it more convenient as a motive to stir up others to do damage to U.S. interests and to help, even in a little way, to eventually bring down the U.S. backed Libyan govt. Do you doubt that without the video, there would have been an attack?
Again, what is your "equation" as to cause and effect re Benghazi? You're the one who brought up the notion of an equation. Is your version a(the video)=x(the attack)--the video being the sole reason for the attack? Or are there other causes a+b+. . .=x? And if b were to be Islamic "extremism" which promotes various x's worldwide on a fairly regular basis, would a(the video) be necessary for an attack to occur?
And what about the even broader picture, the attempt to have a low profile of American power and influence as a matter of good will so as to pump up the Libyan govt's. feeling of control? Thus not providing more security (even though the CIA increased its security in the annex) which would be a visible presence of American power, control and interference. And the having a perception that al Qaeda was "on the run," not a threat to be protected against, in spite of various warnings and attacks, and the departure of other embassies due to the growing violence and threats which the Senate investigation concluded should have been a trigger to either increase protection of the mission or, even more so, to disband and remove it?
And the further failure of policy in supporting the overthrow of Ghaddafi leading to the predicted instability and violence, a repeat of Bush's so-called failure in Iraq?
And oh, by the way, why are you so comfortable with the idea of Hillary telling a parent of one of those killed in the attack that she promised to prosecute the video maker, even though his video was not illegal. That sounds psychopathic or sociopathic to me as defined in psychology: "Both types of personality have a pervasive pattern of disregard for the safety and rights of others. Deceit and manipulation are central features to both types of personality."
About the only thing I can think of which needs the video to be the motivation for the attack, is to use it as a cover to deflect from that only thing confirmed by "investigations," the administration's failed policy--which is what actually, and eventually, led to the Benghazi attack.