[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

he beginning of what you quote her as saying was: ". . . based on the information that we have at present, is that, IN FACT, what this began as, it was a spontaneous--not a premeditated--response to what had inspired in Cairo."--emphasis mine. I don't know if a FACT is conclusive to you, but I assume that you would arrive at conclusions with facts. Maybe not. And if you're quibbling about the word "protest" as opposed to her use of the word "response" that she used to describe what "in fact" happened, the "response" was to, as she says, a "protest" in Cairo. I would assume from that, therefore, that the "response" was also a "protest." And it was untrue that the information they had at the time IN FACT corroborated that the attack was a spontaneous response to the video. For sure, they were told by Ham that it was a terrorist attack, not spontaneous, and any conflicting "reports" would have been enough to hold off on a conclusion/theory/conjecture/whatever that IN FACT the attack was "spontaneous--not premeditated."

The word "fact" can represent something known to be true or something said to be true...based on the evidence today, the fact is...

She goes on, in your quote, to say: "We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to . . . replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo." She had already characterized that "challenge" as a "violent protest" to the video. If that was so, then this elusive "small number of people came to the embassy to" "replicate" violent protest. So it was intended to be, by her own rhetoric, violent. So how and why was it necessary to conclude (oops)--theorize--that this replicated challenge was "hijacked . . . by individual clusters of extremists" with the heavier weapons? What? . . . were the "small number who came to "replicate" the violence in Cairo going to do so without weapons? "And then it evolved from there."?

It was reported at the scene that outrage over the video was a reason for the attack. If this was just an excuse or a deke doesn't make is do the reporting never occurred. Given the events of the day -- I think there were multiple video related protests -- the storyline is certainly plausible.

It's more plausible, using Occam's razor, that the simpler explanation which would remove more elements in an argument than are necessary, is that those who came to the embassy in the first place was not a small number of regular folks who merely wanted to replicate the violence of Cairo, but were folks who had intentions to do what, in fact, "evolved." And that is what further investigation has concluded to have happened.

What's the significance of the difference?

That is exactly what I have been saying. The fabricated "furor" was inspired by a video DISSEMINATED by jihadists specifically to do so. The video was not a catalyst, it was a tool. It's dissemination and use were not accidental, it was all intentional. It was a "plausible" cover as much as a fictitious instigator for what the jihadists wanted to accomplish. Exactly as you surmise--they were thinking of an attack for some time. And the "events around the region" were also not spontaneous reactions, but were also instigated by jihadist elements (Al Qaeda brand elements).

This is precisely the problem Michael Scheurer explores in his book Imperial Hubris. That the inclination to lump various opposing factions together without regard for their individual motives inhibits our ability to respond effectively against any of them.

The militias have various interests and range from moderate to extreme. Calling for Sharia law doesn't make you alQaeda, it makes you an Islamic fundamentalist. Hell, Saudi Arabia's legal system is based on Sharia.

Now, it would be logical for disparate extremist groups to share some common brand identity. Certainly make marketing more efficient. If any one of these groups acts in their own interest that happens to be a shared interest does that make them alQaeda...is that what it means now? Does using violence to advance a goal of imposing Sharia Law make you alQaeda?

Certainly the influence of outside extremists, including alQaeda, has been increasing. That doesn't mean they directed the attack.

Why would the "heavily armed, battle hardened veterans of the civil war" want to "assemble rapidly" to torch the embassy which housed the people who were ostensibly on their side of the civil war? Unless they were actually opposed to those in the embassy? As is, and was and will be, Al Qaeda and its "affiliates."

Pssssstttt...because they were extremists. Don't tell anyone.

If anything, veterans of the civil war against the Qaddafi regime, if they were that rather than anti-U.S. jihadists, would have PROTECTED the embassy from the supposed "small number of people" who came to the embassy to "replicate" the Cairo violence.

Veterans of the civil war represent both moderates and extremists. For some time it appears Stevens felt they would offer adequate protection. Why is the idea that Khaddafi's opponents could have differing objectives beyond his overthrow so difficult to grasp?

-spence