Libya Attack Timeline Simmering as a Campaign Issue
The issue of the timeline involving the Libya attacks and whether the adminstration knew more than it was saying is now simmering as a political issue. I need to preface this by saying that on this I’m not going to read left and right blogs since you know how they’re going to spin this. You can also glance at headlines of some of the more ideological mainstream media news sources and predict how it will be explained.
I prefer to read — and pass on to readers — this story from the Washington Post’s Fact Check so they can read and decide themselves. Here’s the intro:
In any kind of confused overseas event, initial reports are often wrong. But the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans were killed, including the ambassador, is a case study of how an administration can carefully keep the focus as long as possible on one storyline — and then turn on a dime when it is no longer tenable.
For political reasons, it certainly was in the White House’s interests to not portray the attack as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead the administration kept the focus on what was ultimately a red herring — anger in the Arab world over anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube. With key phrases and message discipline, the administration was able to conflate an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt — which apparently was prompted by the video — with the deadly assault in Benghazi.
Officials were also able to dismiss pointed questions by referring to an ongoing investigation.
Ultimately, when the head of the National Counterterrorism Center was asked pointblank on Capitol Hill whether it was a an act of terror — and he agreed — the administration talking points began to shift. (Tough news reporting — as well as statements by Libya’s president — also played a role.) Yet President Obama himself resisted using the “t” word, even as late as Tuesday, while keeping the focus on the video in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly.
On Wednesday, however, White House spokesman Jay Carney acknowledged also that Obama himself believes the attack was terrorism — and so more than two weeks after the attack the Rubicon finally was crossed.
As a reader service, we have compiled a comprehensive timeline of administration statements, showing the evolution in talking points, with key phrases highlighted in bold. Many readers sent suggestions for this timeline, for which we are deeply grateful.
We will leave it to readers to reach their own conclusions on whether this is merely the result of the fog of war and diplomacy — or a deliberate effort to steer the storyline away from more politically damaging questions. After all, in a competitive election, two weeks is a lifetime.
Read the story in full an decide for yourselves.
Or you can go to an ideological radio or cable show or your favorite left and right website and before you get there know you’ll read something that fits in with your political preference on this story, perhaps missing or downplaying a few facts that don’t advance one party or the others’ agenda…
However, if there’s an issue that may be a “break out” issue that would couple the media and the Romney campaign, this would be it. Enough to tip the election? I doubt it: a)too many voters being turned off by Romney and the most assuredly non-moderate version of the Republican Party, b)too many Democratic constituencies being activated with each passing day, c)continued evidence that Romneys 47% secret video has extremely negative impact and the Dems will make sure it’s in many many many ads between now and election day.
You can follow blog reaction on this story HERE.
Share This
I’m not trying to minimize the deaths of those American citizens in Benghazi, but this issue would have been MUCH bigger and MUCH MORE damaging to President Obama if a US warship was attacked (i.e. USS Cole) or a large terrorist attack happened here on home soil. Right now, Benghazi doesn’t have the same “reach” into American hearts and minds I think (even though it’s a tragedy). Also there are those international laws about the host country being the security for embassies even if there was some knowing before the Benghazi attack. If the host nation would have repelled this attack, this wouldn’t be a small story. But in all honesty, Libya is a flaming hornets’ nest of volatility. I wouldn’t even have set up an embassy there for awhile.
I suggest a read of today’s NYT article on this North African issue: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/09/27/world/terror.html
You can only hide an elephant in the fridge for so long until people see his foot prints in the cream cheese.
Contrast this article with yesterday’s NYT editorial: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/opinion/president-obama-at-the-un.html
Funny how Obama is reluctant to use the terrorist word in describing the attack and also funny how there is a belief that a terrorist attack would hurt Obama’s political fortunes.
Bush never failed to utter the “t” word and used terrorists and even conjured up non-existent terrorists threats and activities to be re-elected.
I believe that Obama proceeded cautiously. I also believe that he took all the appropriate steps beforehand that were reasonable to ensure the safety of Americans at home and abroad. We ARE talking about an even that happened on 9/11 in the Middle-East. The administration did consider safety precautions. Unless you ship everyone home for a day or put a blast proof shield (were it technically possible) around the embassy, there is almost no way you can prevent attacks from happening. Where there is a will, there is a way.
I do not know the details of the precautions the Obama administration undertook to protect Americans on the anniversary of 9/11, and I think such details are top secret. After all if we broadcast our plans for protection, then the terrorists would know what to do to be successful.
So my feeling is that precautions were taken which, due for national security purposes, cannot be divulged by the Obama team.
As Obama said of Mitt: “shoot first, aim later”. Thanks Mr. President for that apropos quote.
dduck this link should work better:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/world/africa/clinton-cites-clear-link-between-al-qaeda-and-attack-in-libya.html?ref=africa&gwh=3F6BAE384E5D9ECE142F2E0181FF63FF
This will not hurt Obama in the election, but it’s pretty clear he was either wrong or lying when he said the Libya attacks were due to the anti-Muslim movie. Either way it’s a concern. I don’t see a good explanation besides either there was terrible communication with the White House or Obama was trying to deflect the blame from himself. I don’t think he is dumb enough to try to push through a lie that would clearly be found out, so I have to think his administration just fouled it up. The buck still stops at Obama tough.
This a comment to the WP article: “It is silly to argue that the FBI could not go to the crime scene for security reasons when unarmed, female reporters and others were able to wander around freely and pick up evidence like the Ambassador’s diary. The State Department should have gotten the Marines, SEALS, or someone to secure the crime scene.”
Very interesting.
My personal opinion is that there were warnings, but there was not enough security in place to protect against possible threats. Where the fault lies is an unknown. Did the embassy relay these fears to Washington? Was it even their job? Whose job was it? Who failed and why? Our embassadors should never be in a position where they do not have enough security. Ever. We have the most powerful military to ever walk the face of the planet….protecting our people should be easy.
It seems that some are still trying to sell the idea that we should all “Be Frightened Beyond Reason”… It worked for Bush why not try it just one more time.
I agree ShannonLeee but then our embassies essentially become military outposts in foreign lands. Will that become our modus operandi? Then what if China wants to send in some of their troops to their embassy in the USA? Yes we could say there is no threat to your embassy here but China can shoot back with the classic “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” line.
What did know, when did they know it, and when did they send Rice on a suicide mission. This was handled with all the talent of a Bush operation.
Rice was convincing, Carney sounded like he was choking on it a little.
P.S. If we posted 100 marines, AQ and pals would just attack with 200 guys. It is practically impossible to protect a site like in Libya without good local police/army protection. However, they could have done a little better protection wise especially if Steven’s was possibly worried about some kind of trouble.
And, thank goodness for the brave CNN people kicking around and finding the journal, the local police or the FBI should have found.
T, I believe embassies are considered sovereign landon that country. If China wants to stick a platoon in their embassy in the US, I don’t have a problem with it.
“If China wants to stick a platoon in their embassy in the US, I don’t have a problem with it.”
I actually think a lot of Americans would have a problem with it. In theory I don’t have a problem with the Chinese posting troops at their embassy. But I would want to know why and what the Chinese want to do with those troops. I’d be very suspicious and I think most Americans would wonder why the Chinese military was “invading” Washington DC. I bet the Republicans would be all over that, calling for the withdrawal of Chinese troops from DC if Obama was president. They would use it as proof that Obama was a commie sympathizer.
I also would like to know what those Chinese troops are doing in Washington. This is serious can you give us a link or citation, please.
And, do you know if there are troops at the NYC consulate or just in D.C.
Concerned citizen.
Tragic as it is and as it may yet be proven that the Obama administration dropped the ball somehow with respect to the Benghazi attack, and while Republicans scream bloody murder, many seem to forget the 1983 U.S. embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 63 people, including embassy staff, CIA members and several military including one Marine.
What did the president at the time do or say?
U.S. President Ronald Reagan on April 18 denounced the “vicious terrorist bombing” as a “cowardly act,” saying, “This criminal act on a diplomatic establishment will not deter us from our goals of peace in the region.”
On October 23 of the same year, under the same president, two truck bombs struck U.S. and French military installations in Beirut, Lebanon. The attack on the US Marines barracks killed 220 US Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers, “along with sixty Americans injured, representing the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World War II, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II” (Wikipedia)
What did President Reagan say or do?
U.S. President Ronald Reagan called the attack a “despicable act” and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon. There was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the US except for some shelling of Syrian targets in Lebanon.
In February 1984, President Reagan ordered the Marines to begin withdrawing from Lebanon.
Now, as to the security at the Benghazi consulate, I am not an expert, but could nevertheless regurgitate what the experts are saying about how easy or difficult it is to secure our diplomatic facilities in foreign countries, especially in undeveloped, unstable yet independent countries, but I will just provide a link to a report by the prestigious Stratfor Global Intelligence, a report that starts as follows:
And continues:
Read the full report here
Now Dorian there you go again…
Injecting facts that prove that this brouhaha is just another unsubstantiated (childish?) Republican attack on the Obama Administration.
The Republicans know they’ve nowhere else to go so they attack no matter how stupid it makes them look and just watch… If it gets worse they’ll just double down.
Great comment by the way.
I don’t question the security at the consulate so much as Obama’s odd handling of the matter afterwards. It’s either a cover-up or a screw-up.
or simply just the right thing to do. This is a diplomatic and intelligent move by the Obama Administration and the Republicans, who are so far behind in the polls, are trying to make it an Election Issue.
Didn’t your momma used to tell you it was just common sense not to jump to conclusions, especially on important matters, without taking time to get the facts? Why didn’t you listen to your mamma?
And I imagine your momma thought national security was an important matter too.
I realize that this concept is something completely foreign to Republicans who for years have jumped when told to jump… And snapped when told to snap.
This is getting embarrassing.
Going back to the original article, I fail to understand why the need to spin or obfuscate on this one. This would not need to be damaging to the Obama administration if they only knew how to report it. This was an attack, this was a tragedy, and we don’t make our embassies armed camps, especially when we’re trying to foster fresh new democracies. Even if they had weaknesses in security or missed some intel, it’s not that damaging.
If they are indeed manipulating the story and withholding facts, they are certainly taking a dangerous path without having a need to do so. Put another way, history has shown us politicians are more likely to be punished, not for making mistakes or committing wrongs, but for covering up those mistakes or wrongs. This could still blow up on them.
respectively @ Stockboy
“I believe that Obama proceeded cautiously. I also believe that he took all the appropriate steps…Unless you ship everyone home for a day or put a blast proof shield…I do not know the details of the precautions the Obama administration undertook to protect Americans on the anniversary of 9/11, and I think such details are top secret. After all if we broadcast our plans for protection, then the terrorists would know what to do to be successful…So my feeling is that precautions were taken which, due for national security purposes, cannot be divulged by the Obama team.”
What you believe and what happened, well, are two totally different things. The terrorists believe they have a bunch of virgins waiting to greet them once they press the switch.
To make the statement that Obama “took all the appropriate steps” to most people in the military, especially Marines guarding an embassy anywhere in the Middle East should include allowing live ammo. No, Obama relied on other governments to defend our embassies. My first instinct is that the other governments are susceptible to corruption and not to be trusted. But we saw when Obama took office what his instinct was, he thought by talking nicely to everyone that they’d all play nice. Now our enemies think we’re bigger pansies than ever.
You think I’m wrong about corruption? Then how’d the terrorists find the safe house so quickly? BTW, those are much easier to use than installing a blast shield, much less conspicuous too, usually. Those are kept so secret that even the New York Times hasn’t divulged their whereabouts.
If somehow you got mixed up with your meaning of “due for national security purposes” and meant due to he is in a campaign and this is embarrassing, then we agree. The precautions are that his administration will lie until November 7th because this was another terrorist attack on his watch that he can’t afford to call a terrorist attack. He avoids the word terrorist at all cost. It hurts him here because it means he hasn’t done his job. It hurts him abroad with his Muslim brothers that he wants to appease, so much so that he becomes the 5th Wallenda brother.
Like Romney or not, Obama has to go. This Libya debacle was a big fat lie and cover-up. He’s thrown allies under the bus. He’s weakened our positions abroad, never mind here. Foreign leaders don’t think much of a guy who is willing to give away everything, most times before negotiations have even begun. Who knows if Romney is going to be tougher, but the rest of the world doesn’t either. He would give us a badly needed reset. I can’t remember the exact quote, but we need to be feared again rather than respected, because it seems that the pendulum is about to swing in the wrong direction.
M
respectively@DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist
“Republicans scream bloody murder, many seem to forget the 1983 U.S. embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 63 people, including embassy staff, CIA members and several military including one Marine.”
In 1983, did the intelligence community, military, or president have a significant anniversary date such as 9/11 upcoming? And only days before that anniversary did the leader of the free world go on television and remind the enemy that we had killed their leader Osama Bin Laden? Shouldn’t that have warranted some beefed up security, maybe not in all embassies, but at least those in the hottest regions? Is that really too difficult to understand why Republicans are having difficulty with the stonewalling. Especially if it seems it’s for political gain at this time, some 40 days before the election? Sir, I see by your title that you’re a military affairs columnist, so maybe you’ve had some insight from a higher level than I’ve been privy to, but from a peon’s view, these were two totally different dilemmas. BTW, Beirut, was why I joined, Obama was why I retired.
In 2001, did the intelligence community, military, or president have advance knowledge that 9/11 was upcoming?
Here I go again: “shoot first, aim later”.
respectively@dduck
“Here I go again: “shoot first, aim later”.”
You’d be surprised how accurate one can be shooting instinctively.
Hi Monster,
First, thank you for your service.
Second, thank you for your comments.
I stand by my comments, especially with the “Republicans scream bloody murder, many seem to forget the 1983 U.S. embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 63 people, including embassy staff, CIA members and several military including one Marine.” part and, with your permission, I would like to borrow from you,and add, “[e]specially if it seems it’s for political gain at this time, some 40 days before the election.”
Finally, no I am not “privy to” insight from a higher level. At my peon level, I try to express my honest opinions, backed up whenever possible by facts and insight from those experts who do have such insight — as in this case from the experts at Stratfor Global Intelligence.
Thanks again.
respectively@DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist
Your welcome sir, it was really an honor to serve. If my body were willing and the boss were someone I could believe, I’d suit up tomorrow.
I just want to clarify that my point about the possibility of guys like you (read:correspondents) having more access than guys like me in the field wasn’t me being snarky. I think you being a retired AF officer probably gives you an inside track more than most wouldn’t it? Depending on what your job was while active anyhow.
And sir, thank you for your service.
M
Montster, with a firearm yes, mouth not so much.
@ Monster
Now that we expressed mutual respect for each other’s military service, perhaps we can leave at that.