Obama Denies Confusion Over Benghazi Attack
Obama denies confusion over Benghazi attack (via AFP)
US President Barack Obama denied on Thursday there had been “confusion” in his administration over the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi which killed four Americans. Obama, appearing on Comedy Central TV’s the Daily Show, professed confidence that he will win another four years in the White House…
Share This
What a load of obfuscation.
On the same day:
9/19
“Based on the information that we had at the time and have to this day, we do not have evidence that it was premeditated.”
-Jay Carney-
“Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. …We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda’s affiliates; in particular, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.”
Matthew G. Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, at the hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
No confusion there.
The issue isn’t whether Obama and his administration were confused, it’s whether they were deliberately putting out information that was known to conflict with facts, in order to confuse the public or deflect attention.
CS, I like the “fog of war”, by ______, it is artistically more elegant. Obama’s effort is crude and insults the intelligence.
ON the exact same day we get TWO different “assessments. LOL
Will be interesting to see if this response to Obama’s flip one-liner develops any legs……
Speaking from her home in San Diego, Mrs Smith, 72, continued: ‘It’s insensitive to say my son is not very optimal – he is also very dead. I’ve not been “optimal” since he died and the past few weeks have been pure hell.
Co- I actually think that is a bit unfair because he was repeating the phrase “not optimal” from Stewart’s question, in sort of a sarcastic way (kind of like, “well you’re damn right it wasn’t optimal, four people were killed!”) he should have known better, because it comes across sounding horrible and previously he’d already stepped in it with the “bumps in the road” comment.
Still, i hate that partisans will jump on stuff like this because it belies belief to infer that he really doesn’t care about the deaths. They were inartful statements, and I don’t think that public figures can avoid making them at all times.
BTW it’s good to see you back here.
Hi there all: Going to be posting this on several posts over the next couple weeks, some in answer to recent questions from readers.
Please stay to the topic of the post and not what you think of other commenters or writers. If you agree or not with the topic, state your case with your facts. We dont keep the comments area for what any commenter ‘mind reads’ another commenter or writer is thinking, whether any commenter thinks another commenter is having a moral failing, or is blind as a bat, or whatever other off-topic fantasy.
I encourage you, if you havent lately, or ever… to read the Commenters’ Rules, especially TMV’s policy for dealing with offtopic remarks, attacks on commenters, writers, highjacking of topic of the post, incivility, and so on. You can read too about our policy on editing and deleting comments, and banning. The Commenters’ Rules are at the top of the home page.
The TMV comments area for the last year has been often read not only by those who comment, but by others who read comments without ever posting. That has to do with our commenters not only telling and discussing, but also teaching here about their own lives and about matters they know much about– you all have done a great job at this. Many of our own commenters write to tell us so. To encourage teaching in the comments area has been a goal of mine for the comments area, and I see it often come to fruition especially in the last year and a half.
Additionally, the comments area is often highly readable because our commenters remain civil and most often keep their personal feelings about other commenters’ ways of being, out of it.
We appreciate that most know and follow that: If a commenter wants to mind read or flash-fight another commenter, a civil discussion is not the place for that. That will be taken offline. And if those two or more who want to do their own uncivil thing with one another via email or elsewhere, they are welcome to it. But not here.
One more item in response to questions about it. Occasionally, some commenters address a specific commenter by name, seemingly wanting to debate or challenge or elicit a response from that person. Or makes untoward remarks toward another commenter, also by using their name, often at the top of their comment(s). There is no requirement because a commenter addresses you by your screen name or actual name, that you have to reply. You can pursue your own course as you wish within the very few TMV rules. You can engage or ignore another commenter who solicits you by name for ill or good, as you wish.
Lastly: Just my .02, the discussions and teaching here in the comments area of TMV over the last many months are way more meaty in content and in usable ideas and insightful facts (and sometimes filled with good humor) than ANY I have seen in the so-called debates between politicians in the last few weeks.
I keep thinking how sharp the debates could be if YOU were one of the debaters. Your facts and especially your living stories of those facts that you’ve offered us here, way way outdistance generalized political rhetoric. That’s not to say you arent weird and strange and wondrous like the rest of us: You most often are.
Continuan.
Thanks.
archangel/ dr.e
Dduck is spot on. There was a clear message from the adminstration — White House and State — that this was “video retaliation”. The ineffective press did not do anything to investigate, much less refute, this meme. This includes Right AND Left.
Personally, I think racism is a factor. We STILL see the Arab world as a bunch of lawless heathens, so we simply accept the onsense of it all. Why we do this after 9/11 boggles my mind.
What really befuddles me is why lie about it? Fog of War applies: simply suck it up, admit you were wrong, correct it & move on. Obfuscating errors is ALWAYS worse than the error itself, ESPECIALLY in politics.
CS is right. dd is wrong. Both statements were right. According to on the ground reports, it was not premeditated or planned by a terrorist group, and it was acts of terror by a local militia group upset by the video and the demonstrations going on elsewhere; the administration were/are still investigating whether they are connected to a larger terrorist group like al Queda.
The right-wing has for some time been pushing this meme that not using the word “terrorism” is somehow a ghastly mistake when any act of terror occurs whether it is planned and executed by a terrorist group or not. There are legal definitions of terrorism and not every destructive act falls into that legal terminology. But the neo-cons and right-wing media want every possible incident that happens to be called “terrorism” so their masters can sell more weapons and gold.
If Mr. Romney is elected, he will NOT be chastised if he doesn’t call every incident “terrorism” in order to keep from stirring the
mudsands in the Middle East. He will be exempt because he will give the neo-cons full rein to pursue buying arms we don’t need, and we will be paying for it with higher deficits. And FOX will be selling even more gold (and now is selling storage units for your gold bullion) because we wouldn’t be buying more weapons if we were safe would we?re: DD is wrong.
Sept. 19th two different statements. One might even be correct.
dd
True. Both might even be correct. This falls into that “everything is either black or white” territory that eludes nuanced contemplation.
TO, how do you reconcile that one NYT story that you’ve cited with every other account which state that there were no demonstrations that night?
The closest I’ve seen to making any sense of that discrepancy (assuming no one is flat out lying) was one account I read that said the militants took advantage of the situation by inflaming the emotions of the Libyan guards so that they’d stand down. I think the same account (wish I could remember the source for this) also said that some people had gathered outside and were cheering on the militants, and again, the video was cited as the reason.
But substantively this was still a preplanned militant attack. And really there is an awful lot of info coming out showing that the administration knew that from the first day. It really seems to me that the shift (a couple of days after) to pushing the “demonstration” angle was some sort of disinformation tactic. I don’t know if that was for political reasons (because the campaign team decided that a PR effort to pin this on the video was better than people pinning it on a failed Libya foreign policy) or if the disinformation was to cover up the loss of sensitive documents and exposure of our intel operations. The latter is at least defensible for national security reasons, so I hope that was the case.
CS
I don’t need to reconcile it because that is exactly what the NYT story said. There was no demonstration in Benghazi until the militants got riled up. These were militants that after hearing about the video and demonstrations elsewhere decided to attack the compound. As they started attacking, non-militants joined in encouraging them on and taking advantage of their attack to start looting. When the review is finished we will know more.
In any case, it doesn’t seem to be an organized planned attack by an acknowledged terrorist group, but a decision taken after hearing of the video and that there were demonstrations in Egypt. If facts come out later that it was planned and executed by an outside terrorist organization, then the investigation will reflect that. I think the NYT story sounds like the most probable, since the NYT reporter was there as it happened, and the administration’s spokespersons reported the same sequence of events.
All the obfuscation is the result of FOX and the Romney machine’s hope to make this incident into something it isn’t. They might have had a chance to do some damage if they’d stuck to the lack of security of the compound both in physical fortification and in personnel. But they decided to attack through decrying the State Department’s representative in an effort to discredit three people they wish to have no further political power, President Obama, Secty. Clinton and Secty. Rice. Make no mistake, they are hoping to not have to face Ms. Clinton in the next election; or if they must, hope to damage her reputation beforehand. You can’t start too early to undermine your opponent and if making a mountain out of a molehill will work, do it.
The fact that they chose the wrong problem to attack is … their problem.
Right on, T.O.
Most cogent — and true — statement I have seen yet on this issue.
Sorry but none of that holds up to scrutiny. There’s no way that this wasn’t preplanned; the attackers knew the location of the safe house and there was an ambush there when the reinforcements arrived from Tripoli.
And the idea that thos was all a Fox News generated story doesn’t hold either when you consider how many journalists outsidenof that network were also questioning the narrative- notably the foreign press like the UK Guardian and BBC.
Here is information from the ODNI on September 28, 17 days after the attack when they changed their mind about it being a terrorist attack. Note the information that had been given Secty. Rice during her Sept. 15th talk show appearances 4 days after the attack.
http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/96-press-releases-2012/731-statement-on-the-intelligence-related-to-the-terrorist-attack-on-the-u-s-consulate-in-benghazi,-libya
Mr. Issa’s committee calling her statements false and demanding she be fired were pure political opportunbism based on the upcoming election. No doubt F & f will be hounding Secty. Rice, Secty. Clinton and the Administration until election day. We will see if they do the same for a Romney administration.
Senator Feinstein is planning to hold hearings and I would suggest you watch those rather than Mr. Issa’s.
TO- to be clear, it’s not that I dispute that partisans are jumping all over this and creating more distortions. My point is that that doesn’t mean that the smoke is just smoke instead of real fire. And frankly if anything, some truth may eventually come from hearing ALL accounts and putting together the parts that make sense….because the Congressional Dems are not more trustworthy IMO and have just as much motive to put the spin in a direction to protect the president and their party.
CS
Can’t disagree with that. They all need to be held to our standards, not theirs. When egregious spin occurs we all need to jump on it. Which is why I have such a hissy fit over Dem. Alan Grayson – and informed them that none of my contributions were to go to his campaign – ever.
CS is correct. And Ohio, to suggest one watch one hearing above the other instead of watching both, suggests deep seated partisanship or not wanting all the available information. When is that Feinstein hearing, please.
And please a link to the: “I think the NYT story sounds like the most probable, since the NYT reporter was there as it happened, and the administration’s spokespersons reported”
Thanks
dd
I base my opinion on how the hearings are conducted. Mr. Issa’s have been less than satisfactory. Ms. Feinstein’s may be as well, I don’t remember any, but they couldn’t be worse, again in my opinion. By all means, both should be watched and any difference in style and substance taken into account.
The Feinstein hearing is after the review process is completed, which is when they all should have been I’m sure you will agree (unless one wishes to have an effect on the election?), probably next month.
The NYT reporter was a Libyan journalist for the Times. And I gave the link earlier, but will try to find them. Oh, yes, all you have to do is type in “New York Times Benghazi attack” and you will find all kinds of information.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
Ohio, so this reporter was there during the attack, correct? Please try and find that link, it would be good to know and I’m sorry I missed its original publication.
Glad you will be watching both hearing, I was really pissed when the Dems didn’t show up at the Issa hearing to give more balance.
So it’s possible the Feinstein hearing could be after the election, but that should be more comprehensive. At least we got to hear from the State Dept. people during Issa’s hearing, and it may have caused some good if some preventive measures are put in place at the foreign posts.
I just gave it to you in the last comment. I won’t be watching both hearings, but will read the NYT to see what they said. I do have to watch my stress level in my old age.
I thought Mr. Cummings was there, I seem to have seen some video of his speaking there.
Obviously some better security would be in order, but if you read all the reports you find by typing in the words I gave above, it is not an easy thing to do in that part of the world. The ME seems to be a combination quicksand and tar pit. There are reports today that the Libyans were upset that there were CIA people there that they didn’t know about before the attack.
I think we should give any administration a good bit of leeway when trying to get good intelligence from that area – it ain’t easy as this episode proves. We couldn’t even get FBI agents in to investigate right away in this case. I never faulted the Bush administration about their confusion over all the intel coming in pre 9/11. Nor did I think Bush should have rushed off from the school room before they had all the security in place for his departure. It’s a superhuman task to sort it all out.
Secty. of Defense Rumsfeld is another matter altogether. Having a family member in the first invasion of the second war, I know first hand how incompetent that operation was. Disgracefull and distressing.
Ohio, I guess you meant this as the NYT reporter was at the actual attack; “and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist working for The New York Times that they belonged to the group. And their attack drew a crowd, some of whom cheered them on, some of whom just gawked, and some of whom later looted the compound.” Not exactly a first hand account.
Yes Cummings was there, alone< and I felt sorry for him. He did his best.
Looking forward to the Feinstein hearing about Nov. 7th or so.
More history is interesting, but not so timely.
FYI: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/live-video-house-committee-hearing-investigating-attack-in-benghazi/
dd
The NYT article is a first hand account to me. The guy was there and is a NYT employee. What would be more first hand? If you’re going to pick nits finer than that, I will have to give up.
Yeah, if the review is finished by Nov. 7.
Wow! I just watched the first part of that hearing 10/10/2012.
No video involved.
A definite 9/11 terrorist attack.
No (local) demonstration before the attack (at least they got that right).
Citizen watchdogs – shiver.
I see where you are coming from if that hearing is what you consider a serious attempt to get to the facts (prior to the official review). Not my cup of tea. I’ll stick to NYT, but thanks anyway. Bon appetit’
-The “reporter” was NOT there DURING the actual attack. Do we agree, or not?
-Since you are relying on the NYT so much, I guess you read the front page article yesterday on Mitt: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/us/politics/romney-as-a-manager-unhurried-and-socratic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 What a bunch of malarkey, eh.
I think that article just had background provided by a reporter who has spent time there, rather than being an eyewitness account. It was confusing though.
Whoops I take that back- just reread and caught this paragraph:
Now that I’ve read this several times, the picture I’m getting is that the militants who,planned and carried out this attack coapted locals, and fanned their emotions by talking about the youtube video. That led to people on the ground speaking about it as though that was the rationale for the attack, even though there was no spontaneous demonstration and even though this wasn’t the real reason for the attack.
Thanks, CS, for being open to objectivity and to the remote possibility that the administration acted properly in this case.
dd
No we do not agree that the reporter wasn’t there.
No we do not agree that the Romney piece is a bunch of malarkey.
I must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed, I’m so grumpy this morning.
TO- as I pointed out, it is true that there was information provided by a NYT employee who was present during the attacks. I do think it’s worth noting that that person wasn’t a trained journalist, but a “fixer”:
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news-features/-wherever-there-was-news-we-went–libya-s-a-team-fixers-on-getting-the-story-out/s5/a546770/
Apparently journalists are relying on these man on the street reporters. That doesn’t discredit the facts provided by such people, but it should be put in context IMO that these aren’t people who are trained to objectively seek out all sides of a story.
What is your opinion on the synopsis that I hypothesize above?
Thank you, i guess, Dorian, though I don’t understand your comment in the context of this discussion. I don’t think we know enough at this point to know if the administration acted properly. If you’re simply pointing out that we should be open to all possibilites, then I do appreciate your noting of that and hope it also applies to those whose inclination is to assume that the administration definitely acted properly.
CS
Thank goodness. I thought I was the barmy one. Now if we can get to the point that the attackers were a militant group that were agitated by the video and hit the compound, pre-planned or not (we still don’t know-there probably was some planning, just to get everyone together if nothing else, but it doesn’t seem, yet, to be directed from an outside group), maybe we can begin to judge the Issa committee’s version with a few facts. I’m sure you read the whole NYT piece, but here’s what I took away. The militant group attacked because they took great umbrage about the video. It wasn’t planned by an outside terrorist group. They were upset by the video, learned about it and the Egypt protests going on, and decided to act.
Again from the NYT piece.
[They (the attacking militants) profess no interest in global fights against the West or distant battles aimed at removing American troops from the Arabian Peninsula. ]
We will have to wait for the Accountability Review Board to make the facts known, then we can discuss the whole thing again with those facts. My problem is that the Issa committee seems not to be interested in facts, indeed seems to ignore fact they don’t like, and is busy making hay without them. But I admit I’m jaundiced having seen how they operate before.
TO- IMO those parts of the NYT piece are putting a slant on it.
I don’t think one can conclude that the reports from local Libyans about their beliefs of the attackers motives prove what the attackers motives really were.
Think about it- if an al Qaeda linked group planned this and wished to carry it out with help from locals, this is exactly what they would do….they’d get those people on their side by appealing to their sensitivities, and hide their true motives.
One reason I feel very suspicious that this is what happens is that other stories I’ve read say that our intel was eavesdropping on some Al Qaeda groups saying that this is what they were doing. I don’t recall where I read this but will try to track it down if you would like.
CS
I would agree with your hypotheses with the exception of calling these people reporters, the article indicates they are “cameramen and women, fixers, drivers or translators”. My impression is that fixers are people who can make contacts and arrangements for meetings, transportation, etc. for the western reporters.
The ones cited seem preternaturally interested in the truth whether it is good or bad for themselves, but I expect when someone is in a war zone and your life is on the line, the truth becomes more important if your life is forfeit anyway.
Whether the NYT mislabeled the reporter is unknown. They called him a Lybian journalist, not a source or an associate, but he could very well have been a fixer. Whether his information is correct is all that matters. The NYT has too much on the line to report as accurately as possible otherwise their reputation will be damaged. Just my .02 as Dr. E. says.
TO- i don’t question that Zway is likely trying to be objective- just that it doesn’t sound like he’s been trained to be able to look at all angles of the story. And there’s also the issue of sometimes being too clse to a story; that’s useful for getting access and contacts but can lead to loss of objectivity too.
IOW i don’t doubt that what he reports about who and what the locals thought is accurate, but I think the author should then put that into the greater perspective- were those participants and witnesses correct, or were they being duped by members of a foreign aligned Islamist milita with al Qaeda ties?
CS
Again I agree. I suspect the few that had al Queda contacts were influenced by their calls for killing westerners on the 9/11 date, but that’s a far cry from being a terrorist group devoted to and directed al Queda to attack any western target available on 9/11. I suspect the video was of more importance to them.
But again, it’s important to allow the review to progress and to not make assumptions without all the information. Even if the election process makes it tempting to do so.
” I don’t think we know enough at this point to know if the administration acted properly. ”
Exactly! Just as we don’t know enough at this point to accuse the administration of acting “improperly.”
Ohio, “No we do not agree that the reporter wasn’t there”
Two part question: was the “reporter” a NYT employee/contractor/part-timer, or some other official connecting status, associated at the time with the NYT on Sept. 11, 2012?
Was he there at the actual attack and if he did was he there at the actual start. Did he see a peaceful demonstration that preceded the military style attack, or did he arrive after the attack had commenced?
I realize you can’t answer those questions, but maybe somewhere in the DK articles they were discussed; I am trying to drill down through the fog of war to get a better understanding of this affair.
TO, Ok, but we don’t have to wait to seek out other sources that aren’t partisan, such as this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/16/libyan-president-magariaf-military-action
dd
As you say I can’t answer those questions. I’m not sure what the DK articles are. Daily Kos? I don’t depend on them for a reasonable or factual view of things, but I do trust the NYT to get things right as much as possible.
The NYT article reads like he was there talking to the attackers. You can read it and make your own judgement. He said there was no peaceful demonstration. You can read it and make your judgement. He said they were agitated by the video You can read it and make your own judgement. I don’t know when he arrived, only that it was during the attack and he talked to the attackers according to the article. You can read it and make your own judgement.
You can watch the Issa committee and make a judgement about how many facts are making it to daylight (or not). And you can re-read the NYT account and make a judgement about how many facts are making it to daylight (or not). I’m not willing to be an interpreter for you. You can make your own judgements. I can disagree with them. Nothing we think will change the facts so if we disagree on the facts, nothing we say can change that.
Also, don’t forget that a few days after the attacks, Tens of thousands of Libyans stormed the compound of Ansar al Shariah. They did so in part because they knew Stevens had been a friend to Libya but also because they believe that this militant group is tied to foriegn Islamist extremists of the al Qaeda network.
OK
I’m done. You all can accept or deny all the information you come across. I’m going to wait till the review is finished. I just want to remind you that there are hundreds if not thousands of Islamist groups and some have contacts with al Queda and some are directed by al Queda. Their actions in either case is what matters.
You can accept everything the Issa committee accepts and rejects or not. You are mature adults with the ability to judge what is happening with that committee which is more important to our political process than what happened in Benghazi.
It’s been fun, but I’m getting tired (and bored) with this discussion so, again, bon apetit’.
I agree it is wearying. Personally I can’t take the approach of listening to one commision or another though, as all parties have an agenda. I want to track down sources looking at things from all different perspectives. I!m fine with leaving this conversation as it stands though I won’t be lumped in with anyone who is basing opinions on the current House investigation. I haven’t been doing that at all, in fact haven’t watched or followed it clisely at all. And really I don’t see anyone here doing that so i don’t get your annoyance.
I’m out also, but tomorrow night we start again.