Was Ambassador Rice Mostly Right?
This is a follow up to my Benghazi post yesterday.
Ambassador Rice has been vilified for saying this:
“What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video,” Rice said.
According to David D Kirkpatrick at the New York Times she was at least mostly right.
To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence. (bold mine)
So it was in response to the video but was it spontaneous?
Other Benghazi militia leaders who know Ansar al-Shariah say it was capable of carrying out the attack by itself with only a few hours’ planning, and as recently as June one of its leaders, Mr. Zahawi, declared that it could destroy the American Mission.(bold mine)
So spontaneous might not be that far off. But is Ansar al-Shariah al-Qaeda?
“It is a promiscuous use of ‘Al Qaeda,’ ” Michael Hanna, a researcher at the Century Foundation, said of those charging that Al Qaeda was behind this attack. “It can mean anything or nothing at all.”
Are they terrorists? Without a doubt! Are they al-Qaeda? Not so much. It also appears they have no interest in attacking the West in the West only keeping Western influence out of the region.
Yes the political rhetoric and kangaroo hearing in congress are little more than political hackery.
Cross posted at Middle Earth Journal
Libya via Shutterstock
Share This
Sorry, she was given the incorrect message to peddle, and whoever prompted her was stupid. No amount of equivocating can change what really happened.
Just ask her already.
I can’t believe not one reporter can’t ask her why she said what she said.
Maybe she is mostly pregnant or is mostly busy.
Why should she be fired for being right given the information she had? Why a sexist comment about her? Why defend a House committee that is obviously trying to affect the election with innuendo and a dearth of facts (or a deliberate misreading of facts)? Just because their righteous indignation is becoming a millstone around their political neck is no reason to continue to defend them.
@The-Ohioan
Thank you,I was trying to figure out how to respond to dduck but you did it for me a better than I would have done.
RB
You’re welcome, but I’m sure dd will have more fuel to pour on the fire. He’s really quite stimulating.
Ohio, the fuel came from the people who said it was a video, not from Issa, or Fox, or the Easter Bunny.
Are you guys saying the witnesses lied? Are you saying that State listening live to the attack didn’t know there was NO demonstration all day up till 9:30 Pm when a coordinated heavily armed and video verified swarm breached the compound walls?
Please do not fire Rice, because then it would be harder to have her as a sworn witness if she is on vacation.
WHO TOLD RICE WHAT TO SAY AND WHEN? If no one can answer that then you don’t have a case, you have a cover up.
Why is it so hard for some people to grasp why it’s wrong to spin and exploit tragedies of this nature? I understand why Mitt does it, afterall he wants to win at ANY cost, but ordinary citizens have what excuse exactly?
dd
No, here is what the witnesses said.
[To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.]
See same answer above.
What Susan Rice said (from FOX news):
“What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet,” Rice said on “Fox News Sunday.” “It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.”
She also repeated the administration’s message that the attacks, which started Tuesday in Egypt and spread to more the 20 U.S. posts in the region, were “spontaneous,” not planned or timed for the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks.
“The best information and the best assessment we have today is that this was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack,” Rice also told Fox News. “What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. And those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya, and that then spun out of control.”
This makes it sound like a protest like was happening in other areas. That is not correct. The article above says it was not a gathering protest but local Islamist militants struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video.
So Ms. Rice’s statement is almost exactly what the informants from Lybia said. I’m sure the State Department told Ms. Rice what to say if not when to say it. I can’t fire Ms. Rice but Messers Issa and Burton would seem to wish to and they have certainly mis-characterized her statements to gain political points just before an election. Or so I see it.
But this is simply more sand in the voters eyes prior to an election and really not worth considering any further. Just accept it for what it is as I do and if we disagree, so be it. It’s not worth the time to discuss it further until new information comes to light.
Now if you want to discuss why there was not more security at this site or a more fortified structure, those are questions that should be addressed, again, when we have more information. But not at this thread.
Sorry, Ohio, we “mostly” don’t agree, and that’s that.