U.S. Ambassador Killed Over Anti-Islam Movie

[Pearl]

Getting back to the original topic...

The killing of the US ambassador to Libya is rapidly becoming election fodder, as Republicans seize on confusion over the circumstances of Chris Stevens' death in Benghazi three weeks ago and accuse the Obama administration of covering up an al-Qaeda connection.
US officials reiterated on on Friday that they regard the killing of Stevens and three other Americans working for the state department at the US consulate in Benghazi as an assault by terrorists who planned the attack. But a dearth of real information about the exact circumstances of the assault has left open the question of whether such planning was merely the work of a few hours, to take advantage of a spontaneous anti-US protest over a short internet video that prompted demonstrations across the Middle East by offended Muslims, or weeks and months, to mark the 11th anniversary of al-Qaeda's 9/11 attacks on the US.


Disagreement over that question is dividing along political lines.


Earlier this week, Republican senators wrote to the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, demanding that she explain her statement, five days after the killings, that they were part of a spontaneous anti-US protest. Four senators signed the letter, including John McCain, which said Rice made "several troubling statements that are inconsistent with the facts and require explanation".


The former New York mayor Rudolf Giuliani, who sought the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2008, went further, accusing the White House of a cover-up.
Speaking to Fox News, Giuliani said: "This is a deliberate attempt to cover up the truth, from an administration that claimed it wanted to be the most transparent in history. And it's the worst kind of cover-up: the kind of cover-up that involves our national security. This is a cover-up that involves the slaughter of four Americans."

The discovery in the wrecked consulate, by CNN, of Stevens' diary has also fed claims that the White House is underplaying a broader terrorist connection. Stevens wrote that he feared he was an al-Qaeda hit list and was alarmed by his lack of security after earlier attacks on US and British targets in Benghazi and amid what he described as a growing al-Qaeda presence in Libya.


The state department's furious reaction to CNN's reporting of Stevens' fears – calling the use of non-personal information from the diary without the family's approval "disgusting" – suggested alarm in the administration at the potential damage to its denials of a conspiracy and that it will be open to criticism that it did not provide sufficient protection to the Benghazi consulate.


There are also questions about the circumstances of Stevens death and whether Libyan militias knew he was at the consulate. However, given the large footprint American diplomats make as they move around the Middle East, it would not have been difficult to discern that an important US official had arrived in Benghazi.

Republicans accuse Obama of cover-up over death of Chris Stevens in Libya | World news | guardian.co.uk


I do think there is more to this story than what is being initially reported, and I highly doubt the film had anything to do with Stevens' killing. It does appear the ambassador was killed in a planned attack by al-Qaeda.


I see nothing wrong with CNN reporting on what his journal said, and I think its wrong for the State Dept. to say what CNN did was "disgusting" because it is the responsibility of a news organization to report the facts and get those facts as legally as possible. There's nothing illegal about reporting on what a journal said, and I haven't heard about Stevens' family complaining. Plus, Stevens' journal makes it clear the attack was not spontaneous as Americans are being led to believe. Furthermore, the fact Stevens' was killed on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 is no coincidence.


I'm not happy to see Giuliani voicing his opinions on this issue because I feel he is milking his 9/11 experience for all its worth. But I do agree there is a cover-up going on. Maybe the State Dept and the White House don't want to admit they had poor security for one of its own workers in a volatile country? Also, what was Stevens' doing in Benghazi? Tripoli is the capital of Libya, so why was he in a smaller city and not at his post where any ambassador should be? If he was visiting the consulate for some reason, wouldn't security be tighter if the U.S. government knew Libya was unstable? It had to be fully aware of a growing al-Qaeda presence if the government is supposed to keep an eye on that group. Really, there was no way it could not have known. If so, then security in America is in trouble.


There is a lot more to this story, and it makes me upset that not all the information is coming out. It also makes me upset that most Americans have forgotten about this story, and some even think that anyone who does care is a radical conservative who needs to get a life.

[maycocksean]

Sometimes the most obvious explanation is the right one, I'd suggest: Which is that there was and is a lot of confusion about what happened that day. I don't know that that suggests a great failing on the part of the administration or a cover-up. I would imagine the Obama administration is afraid to admit that more could have been done to provide Stevens with proper security, which I think is a mistake on their part, but I don't blame the administration for not knowing about this plot in advance (or worse knowing about the plot and covering up that knowledge).

There always seems to be an urge to finger-point when terrorists strike and I always find it appalling (felt the same about those who wanted to blame Bush for not stopping 9/11). It's the nature of the beast for terrorists to find a weakness and take advantage of it. We do our best to not have any areas of weakness but every now and then they manage to get through too.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by INDY500

And what is the desired effect of telling the American people these attacks were spontaneous when the Libyan president, the circumstances and the facts all say something different, confussion?

Some of us were noticing the administration's inconsistencies weeks ago. I posted that on 9/17.

Now even Jon Stewart is commenting:

Jon Stewart Mocks Obama for Blaming Ambassador's Death on YouTube Video

Why, the mainstream media may actually take notice now.

Naaaaaaa.

[INDY500]

Oh yeah, remember this thread?

U.S. Ambassador Killed Over Anti-Islam Movie !!

Hey Pearl, where'd you get the idea this was caused by a movie if the president said it was "an act of terror" the same day you started it? Sept 12th

The thread that would be on page 98 rather than page 18 if a Republican president was this dishonest with the American people for his own political gain.

Here is the report of Candy "Can you say that a little louder" Crowley's own network CNN after W.H. Press Secretary called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack on Sept 20th.

CNN's Reporting Contradicts Crowley, Vindicates Romney | MRCTV

"This is the first time the White House has characterized this as a terrorist attack."

The video is from Sept 21st, 9 days after the president and Candy "Can you say that a little louder" Crowley claim the president called the attack "an act of terror" in the Rose Garden.

Who needs more dots connected?

[Jive Turkey]

How is this such a big deal? So they thought one thing, then over the course of investigation, discovered it was something else. Isn't that how a lot of stories play out? If this is your big win, Indy, I think you might be in trouble

[indra]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

How is this such a big deal? So they thought one thing, then over the course of investigation, discovered it was something else. Isn't that how a lot of stories play out? If this is your big win, Indy, I think you might be in trouble

Because some people think it's un-American not to jump to conclusions, of course.

[Moonlit_Angel]

I was going to say, that's how it comes off to me, that they were perhaps working on getting all the facts before jumping to conclusions about ties to terrorists.You know, just on the off chance that the tragedy DID happen to be over some stupid video and wasn't terrorist-related, so as not to make volatile situations with certain areas of the world even worse?

I honestly don't know what the administration's reasoning was for handling this as they did. I certainly do think that any mistakes or failures that were made should and must be dealt with and acknowledged, but I also don't think anyone here would dispute that, INDY-I don't know what exactly you expect us to say. You've been around us long enough to know that if we are wrong on something, we'll acknowledge it and say so, so you can chill with this whole, "Well, well, well..." thing.

I also know that the Republican Party should shut the hell up on military-related cover-ups, because they have absolutely NO room to talk here. I have no problem at all with demanding answers on issues of this nature, that's fine and absolutely necessary, but the GOP getting on some sudden high moral horse about this is just laughable.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Candy "say it louder" Crowley says that she added during the debate that it took them (Obama admin) weeks to say it was an act of terror, that specific one. The rose garden, he apparently referred to acts of terror as more of an umbrella term to include that. I believe it was these acts of terror, not sure. There was applause at the time she claims she said that so I don't know. Maybe we can get audio and video and sit here and enhance it.

I have questions about it, as citizens we all should, but I can also see plain as day that the GOP is using it for political purposes.

Pearl was just going by what was out at the time she started the thread. Don't think she's in on any conspiracy-she's not Candy Crowley. I think she probably started the thread pre Rose Garden, no?

So Bush lied about WMDs, or was it what he thought at the time. Obama lied about Libya, or was it what he thought at the time. Bad intelligence or something more sinister? Depends, I guess.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Also I just quickly Googled that mrctv that you posted, I'm on my phone so it was quick. They are a CONSERVATIVE media analysis group. Biased perhaps? Assuming that's the same MRC.

[BVS]

It's the "grasping at straws" or "throw and see what sticks" syndrome.

It's very popular in politics, but the GOP has become masters of it in the last 5 years.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Pearl was just going by what was out at the time she started the thread. Don't think she's in on any conspiracy-she's not Candy Crowley. I think she probably started the thread pre Rose Garden, no?

I began this thread on the morning of September 12th, back when the reports indicated that the ambassador was killed over the movie.

For those who are up in arms over Obama not mentioning that this was a terrorist act, how do you feel about GWB not admitting Iraq never had WMDs? Sounds like a double standard there.

[Caleb8844]

BENGHAZI: Documents show Stevens worried about security threats, al-Qaeda | Special Report | Bret Baier | Fox News Channel

Across 166 pages of internal State Department documents – released today by a pair of Republican congressmen pressing the Obama administration for more answers on the Benghazi terrorist attack – slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and the security officers assigned to protect him repeatedly sounded alarms to their superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and violence in Eastern Libya, where Stevens ultimately died.

On September 11 – the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed – the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

In the document, Stevens also cited a meeting he had held two days earlier with local militia commanders. These men boasted to Stevens of exercising “control” over the Libyan Armed Forces, and threatened that if the U.S.-backed candidate for prime minister were to prevail in Libya’s internal political jockeying, “they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi.”

Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” Writing on August 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time, “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape…The individual incidents have been organized,” he added, a function of “the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.”

By September 4, Stevens’s aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong Revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.

Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against western [sic] interests.” “Until the GOL [Government of Libya] is able to effectively deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely to continue and worsen.”

After the U.S. consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing, had “described the attack as ‘targeting the Christians supervising the management of the consulate.”

“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the ambassador wrote, adding that “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities…”

The documents also contain evidence that the State Department’s denials of requests for enhanced security in Benghazi in the months leading up to 9/11 may have contributed to the ability of the attackers to plan their assault on the consulate and annex grounds without being detected.


Read more: BENGHAZI: Documents show Stevens worried about security threats, al-Qaeda | Special Report | Bret Baier | Fox News Channel

[INDY500]

“every piece of information that we get, as we got it we laid it out to the American people. The picture eventually gets fully filled in.”
-President Obama on the Jon Stewart Show Oct 18

Expect Jon Stewart to get mentioned in the 3rd debate on Monday as this is clearly a whopper.

A little quiz. From whom has the president not taken questions from regarding the ambassador's murder?

1) The ladies of the View
2) Jon Stewart
3) David Letterman
4) The White House press corp

[Irvine511]

This "whopper" reeks of desperation by the GOP who have NOTHING else when it comes to foreign policy.

Obama flattened Romeny when it came up last week and even got the audience to applaud in his favor. Expect him to crush the governor again.

Romney will painfully try to put light between himself and Obama on these issues, but it's a mirage -- everyone knows that American foreign policy has made enormous improvements since the historical nadir of Bush/Cheney, even Romeny, because if you listen closely, he largely has followed Obama on all the major issues.

Benghazi is such a minor point, but it's all the GOP has. It's incredibly sad how they've tried to exploit this tragedy.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Let me guess-the WH press corps

What do I win?

That was a stunner, the biggest underdog of the day in the league

Yes, if you want to believe conspiracy theories Obama was covering all of this up in order to preserve his record on the war on terror before the election. If he did to that intentionally, on his own or following advisers, well he certainly is not the man I thought he was.

[MrsSpringsteen]

abcnews.com


By JOHN PARKINSON (@jparkABC) , DANA HUGHES (@dana_hughes) and SUNLEN MILLER (@sunlenmiller)
Oct 24, 2012

After the White House and State Department downplayed the significance of email alerts sent to national security officials in real-time during the assault on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi last month, top congressional Republicans are pouncing on the email alerts, one of which suggested a known terrorist group claimed credit for the attack in its immediate aftermath.

In light of the emails, Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire teamed up today to write a letter to question President Obama why his administration "consistently described the attack for days afterward as a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam video."


"These emails make clear that your administration knew within two hours of the attack that it was a terrorist act and that Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan militant group with links to al Qaeda, had claimed responsibility for it," the trio wrote. "This latest revelation only adds to the confusion surrounding what you and your administration knew about the attacks in Benghazi, when you knew it, and why you responded to those tragic events in the ways that you did."

In a separate statement, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said the email alerts "undermine any administration claim to have ever believed in good faith that our ambassador and three other American officials were murdered in a 'spontaneous reaction' to a film trailer posted on the Internet.

"I again call upon President Obama to release any intelligence reporting which led his administration to characterize the firebombing of our consulate and the assassination of our ambassador as a spontaneous demonstration against a movie clip," King wrote. "The White House should also release the intelligence analyses which finally convinced them that this was a terrorist attack."

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, also questioned what the White House and State Department initially knew.

"These emails add to the growing list of serious questions about what top officials from the Obama administration initially knew about the attacks on Americans in Benghazi and about who was responsible just hours after the assault began," Price wrote in a statement. "At the very least, they demand that, on behalf of the American people, we continue to ask why the Obama administration attempted to so adamantly and publicly push an alternative narrative about the attacks for more than two weeks after four Americans were killed. It is a narrative that appears to have been, from almost the very beginning, in doubt."

But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today disputed any notion that the email alerts should be viewed as conclusive evidence.

"Posting something on Facebook is not, in and of itself, evidence," Clinton told reporters. "I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be."

Clinton reiterated that the State Department's internal investigation is ongoing and is examining all the evidence, "not cherry picking ... one story here or looking at one document there." She called a full investigation the "appropriate approach" before drawing any conclusions about the attack.

At least one congressional Democrat came to the administration's defense, urging lawmakers to afford investigators ample time to review the incident.

"We shouldn't do anything to compromise the ongoing effort to hunt down the attackers or the ongoing review of this attack by the independent accountability board," said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "We need to let these investigations go forward and only then draw conclusions."

White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters today, "There was a variety of information coming in" in the aftermath of the attack as the intelligence community assessed strands of information to "make judgments about what happened and who was responsible."

White House officials added that the alerts were not definitive, noting that Ansar al-Sharia denied responsibility for the attack six days later.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland confirmed that the email mentioning Ansar al-Sharia was sent by the State Department's operations center, whose role is to collect public, unclassified information and disseminate it to senior administration officials in "real time."

Nuland added that the operations center sends tens of emails each day to keep administration officials informed of "what's out there in the public," and though it uses some judgment in sending out summaries of what various extremist groups and press reports are saying, the summaries should not be considered analysis.

"They report what they get. So if they reported, 'embassy in Tripoli says,' then it is based on something that embassy in Tripoli said," she said. "Whether that can be right or that could be wrong is something to be evaluated later."

Nuland confirmed that assessments on the reports are made by the intelligence community.

[nathan1977]

Was there a variety of information coming in? Absolutely. Was it confusing? Absolutely. Were there conflicting reports? Sure. But why the hell did the Administration keep insisting for two weeks that a YouTube video was to blame? Just say "we don't know, we're still assessing, etc."

I don't get the moral hand-wringing over this, but at the same time, the Administration needs to admit this was a fuck-up.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Was there a variety of information coming in? Absolutely. Was it confusing? Absolutely. Were there conflicting reports? Sure. But why the hell did the Administration keep insisting for two weeks that a YouTube video was to blame? Just say "we don't know, we're still assessing, etc."

I don't get the moral hand-wringing over this, but at the same time, the Administration needs to admit this was a fuck-up.

This sums up what I believe about this issue. There certainly was a failure of communication with all offices - State Dept, CIA - and it killed people. Everyone needs to own up.

[Pearl]

The day after Bell's, ahem, creative repackaging of the CBS story, fringe conservative blogs found themselves off and running with the fantasy. Hate radio personality and probable Wikipedia entry self-author Lars Larson went on Fox News to more or less repeat the claim, thereby entering it into the conservative canon. You'll now find stories at World Net Daily and on various smaller, fringe blogs, as well.

But mostly, you'll find graphics polluting social media. They present images that, if indeed taken from the videos, were acquired three weeks later. They are presented with shocking text claiming it was watched live by a callous U.S. President who sat and... what? Cracked open a bottle of champagne, laughed diabolically and twirled his handlebar mustache? Thought about how the death of an American ambassador on his watch would surely seal his re-election and, therefore, his secret bid to turn America into a Muslim theocracy where white men are slaves to the African master race and white women are forced to abort their babies at eight months under penalty of sex change? I can only imagine so, as that is exactly the level of thinking we're dealing with in these lies.

And, sadly, it's a level of thinking that we must occasionally address.

Larry Womack: How a Real News Story Became the 'Obama Watched Them Die' Meme

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Was there a variety of information coming in? Absolutely. Was it confusing? Absolutely. Were there conflicting reports? Sure. But why the hell did the Administration keep insisting for two weeks that a YouTube video was to blame? Just say "we don't know, we're still assessing, etc."

I don't get the moral hand-wringing over this, but at the same time, the Administration needs to admit this was a fuck-up.

This is a perfectly reasonable reaction. But one thing that has continually bothered is the tone used when mentioning "the youtube video" as if it would be absurd to think that could've been the cause of the attacks... it should be absurd, but the reality is that it was responsible for a lot of violence in two dozen other countries