The New York Times reported Tuesday:
What he did in the period just before the attack has remained unclear. But Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video.
An earlier demonstration venting anger over the video outside the American Embassy in Cairo had culminated in a breach of its walls, and it dominated Arab news coverage. Mr. Abu Khattala told both fellow Islamist fighters and others that the attack in Benghazi was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview days after the attack, he pointedly declined to say whether he believed an offense such as the anti-Islamic video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. “From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad,” he said.
This video keeps resurfacing in conversation after conversation. Funny, how Muslims throughout the middle east were all pissed off except for those in Libya. go figure.
Riiiight….. Suddenly his story changes.
Boy, cargo. I never figured you for a conspiracy theorist. Better loosen your tinfoil hat, it’s too tight!
@Starry flights
What conspiracy?
His previous statements said nothing about a video, that when I saw it, had a total of 402 views. And this is AFTER all the brouhaha about it.
So, if this is about that video….. 402 people sure were busy.
The video may well have provided some motivation for some of the attackers. However, the use of RPGs, mortars, truck-mounted artillery indicates significant planning, which means that the attack could not have been a spontaneous response to a video.
Given the Administration’s record, one could hardly go wrong by assuming that the narrative provided is not quite “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”.
I believe you can make those observations without implying that the president is a liar. I especially think that after Dick Cheney and WMDs. I just think that it really takes a nerve to call this administration liars after the Bush people and the crocks of crap they dished out concerning Iraq, terrorism, et al.
@ Cargo – It sounds like the guy has been pretty consistent if he told people the night of the attack that it was about the video, and didn’t refute its role in an interview a few days after the attack. What’s this about “suddenly his story changes. . . .”?
It may well be that the video was a pretense for something else that was cooking for a while before it broke out, but there’s no question that it was contributing to a lot of the mob agitation in other places that week, and that people at the Benghazi attack said that that was their motivation. I fall in the school that it doesn’t much matter as to whether it was the cause or just the fuel that provided cover and got the non-terrorist populace to engage as a screen for the hardened fighters. The bigger problem is that we had a CIA operation in a place that had obvious inherent dangers and we didn’t do a smart job of defending it. It was one of a string of security stupidities in the Middle East going back (at least) to the horrific attacks on the Marine Barracks in Beirut and the embassy bombing there in the 1980s that shows our lack of imagination about how we are perceived on the ground by many of the locals in that part of the world and how much they like us dead.
Benghazi is about being careless, not about deception by the Administration. That doesn’t excuse it in my eyes. It’s probably a worse fault to be careless about lives and assets than it is to tell fibs about how feckless we can be (I don’t believe that Rice’s comments were intended to be deceptive, in any event). But it’s a typical, repetitive mistake that we make in that part of the world, a mistake that most administrations starting with Reagan have fallen into, often with far higher casualty counts. This has been going on so long that there’s no excuse for our being oblivious to the risks.
When people focus on the wrong things – like trying to make Benghazi a domestic political attack during a campaign, they miss the larger, more culpable point about out perennial, decade-spanning naivete in that part of the world. Assets like Chris Stevens and the others who died in Benghazi are jewels without price, just as were the scores of Marines that were killed in Beirut in or the people (including one of our best covert operatives) at the Embassy there in the 1980s. And yet we keep pretending that this part of the world is going to give us a break.
Double standing ovation. Scout hits it out of the ballpark.
Whatever Abu Khattala said about the video as motive is irrelevant. This was a planned attack with heavy firepower, not a spontaneous crowd demonstration which got out of hand and became violent. Washington knew that almost immediately. No excuse for the false explanation pushed by Rice and others for several days afterward. Also no excuses for leaving the mission in Libya inadequately defended in the face of threat reports or for declaring a high threat level in the Middle East because of the 9/11 anniversary and not moving rescue/evac military forces closer to the potential hotspots. Terrible crisis management. Identify the guilty parties before we entrust them again with American lives.
What he said is not irrelevant. You can’t just declare irrelevancy. I don’t think anyone ever claimed that the “demonstration” was spontaneous or was a gathering of Arabs that “just got out of hand.” What Khattala said was that the video was the motivation behind the attack. That sort of sounds very much like what I was hearing on the news at the time it happened.
I am still amazed that conservatives want to deny that a horrid video had anything to do with any of the uprisings.
@Moon-howler
I don’t imply that the President is a liar.
He is a PROVEN liar.
I don’t agree with you and you have not proven it to me.
The denials are sounding increasingly desperate.
I know what I heard from the very beginning. No one was desperate then or now. What are you going to do? Not vote for Obama? Just out of curiosity, what would anyone be desperate over?
I know political rhetoric when I hear it and I heard it the first day, on this blog, out of Romney’s mouth, and out of many Republican’s mouth. It didn’t take long for the denial to take on a life of its own.
Maybe play her the tape of Obama saying no one would lose their heath insurance policy or their doctor under ACA if they wanted to keep them? Either he knew many people would indeed lose those or he hadn’t read the details of the ACA and was faking it. Samo samo.
Or maybe he didn’t predict that the insurance industry would somehow come up with their usual skilled means to dodge people having decent coverage. You know, unintended consequences. I actually don’t know anyone who lost their coverage or their doctor. Not one single person.
Are there people out there who did? I am sure there are. I just don’t know them. don’t you find that strange? Maybe it only happened to Republicans. Yea, that’s the ticket.
People use the verb “to lie” quite broadly and loosely in modern parlance, Moon, and it is used to mean anything that someone with whom you disagree or don’t like says that proves not to be fully accurate or overtaken by later information. When I was a lad, the word meant something along the lines of a known untruth uttered with the intent of deceiving the listener. In a FOXed-up world, the new definition is much more fun and, because it eventually covers almost anything that any public figure says, it expands the world of poo-flinging considerably.
I once told Wolve that I didn’t find this President or this Administration particularly perfidious by the standards of the last 80 years or so and that I didn’t know of any “lie” that they told. Of course, I was using the old, traditional meaning of the word. I think I would have to amend that now a little bit based on later news reporting on what I regard as a minor point. It seems very clear that the 2008 Obama campaign probably “lied” (even by my quaint definition) when they denied that their candidate lived with his illegal immigrant uncle in Boston. It seems to me that that sort of statement had to have been known to be false at the time it was uttered and that Obama probably was consulted on what to say about it at the time. Compared to Roosevelt, LBJ, Nixon, and Clinton, that seems pretty tame to me, but it is something I can grasp objectively as an outright lie. I generally assess this president as having as high a standard of personal honor as most of his predecessors and certainly better than some. The policy problems he has contended with are ones where the sticky elements aren’t “lies”, but the underlying complexity of the issues, some of which I think this Administration has handled poorly on a substantive level. Pushing the “liar” button is just a distraction, however, to the more important policy debate, something we seem reluctant to get to.
I agree about your definition of “lie” and “liar.” Lie has always involved deliberately telling a falsehood.
I would have included Reagan, Carter and Truman in your list.
@Moon-howler
HE proved it to you.
Or do you not remember all those statements about Obamacare saving everyone money and getting more medical access to everyone while everyone being able to keep what they have.
Even AFTER it was proven not to be true.
Oh…just saw Wolve saying the same thing….
He told me the truth. I don’t know anyone who had their medical insurance altered any more than yearly increases. I got better coverage with the little bit that affected me.
@Moon-howler
You mean the decent coverage that they already had and that the ACA caused to be cancelled? That coverage. The 5 million + policies that got cancelled?
My Sister in law lost their coverage. Replacement coverage cost them premiums 3x’s higher and much larger deductibles. They had that policy for 20 years and loved it.
I have 3 other friends with similar problems.
@Scout
I’m using the traditional meaning because he does lie. He states untruths AFTER the truth has come out.
And then he changes his story, and then THAT has to be walked back.
I don’t know anyone. Most of the people I know have insurance through their employer which was not touched by Obamacare.
Maybe it just struck Republicans?
I worked in some proximity to Reagan and think his personal sense of honor was probably as high as Obama’s. He made a lot of mistakes in his statements and stories. I wouldn’t describe the inside of his head as particularly “fact-intensive.” He mixed things up and he sometimes would re-tell an anecdote that he had heard and thought was true, and it turned out to have been a snippet from an old movie or an embroidered tale that someone had told him years previously. However, I don’t think any amount of staff badgering could have ever gotten him to go out a deliberately tell a lie. I didn’t have any personal exposure to Carter, but I feel the same way about him (happy although I was to see him out of office).
@ Cargo – I think I have enough to work with on the policy level without resort to personal attacks on this president. Sorry that you feel you lack that advantage.
I haven’t worked with any of them but I think you and I agree about the lie part, Scout. Deliberate lies? Cheney and Nixon perhaps. Mixing up, or making a wrong assessment of a situation isn’t a lie, in my book. Its making a mistake. Intent is different.
For that matter, Kennedy and Johnson lied about their personal life. Did anyone ever ask them directly? Not to my knowledge. I am of the opinion Clinton shouldn’t have been asked that question and that no sitting president should be dragged through court case like that until after his/her term of office is over. Most people would lie about sexual encounters to people when its none of their business. I probably would.
Everyone lies about their personal lives, alas, to some degree or another. But my view of LBJ is that he had no personal inhibitions about lying about almost anything if he thought enough people would believe it. He did a lot of good on the domestic front by pushing through a strong civil rights agenda, but Viet Nam was a debacle and the degree to which the Government failed to level with the people fit my definition of lying pretty much to a tee.
I think there is merit in your idea that a sitting president should be immune from civil suit until after he/she leaves office (his tenure in office would toll the statutes of limitations). However, there was never a doubt in my mind that Clinton perjured himself and did so calculatedly. The violation of the oath to tell the truth in litigation struck me then and now as an offense worthy of impeachment and conviction. I think he should have served time for that. The Republicans got themselves so ginned up about him generally and so excited at the smell of blood in the water that they failed to concentrate on that narrow issue.
I have just always felt Clinton shouldn’t have been asked. I can’t get past it. It really was between him and his wife–not him and the United States. I would have lied also. How many of us would have told the truth when asked about a extra marital liaison? I would not have.
I am no fan of LBJ. I do like Chuck and Linda Robb a lot and I liked Lady Bird. I do think LBJ was actually more than a liar. I think he was a coarse, gross man who twisted and turned the truth to suit his ambitions.
Oh, and I suppose that there is NEVER any political rhetoric out of the mouths of the Dem/liberal side.
I don’t believe we were discussing political rhetoric from Dem/liberals were we?
You’re a hoot, Scout. Always splitting hairs to try to cover Obama’s derriere. A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. And this administration has repeatedly lied, not to mention engaging in coverups led by their own members of Congress and especially by Holder. Give me the answers, fellows. Who was the final approving official on Fast and Furious? Who was the final approving official on the nyet to the requested Benghazi security enhancements. Who was the final approving official on the false Rice statements about Benghazi? Who gave the final nyet about any rescue attempt at Benghazi? Who was the final approving official in the IRS scandal? No need to ask about the ACA lie. Steny Hoyer blew that one by admitting that they all knew the promises were not true.
Yep. Lots of presidents have told some lies and tried some coverups. But this administration appears to be making a habit of it.
I believe you might have to walk back your statements on Susan Rice.
Cargo and Wolve
You are right. I see the light now. Obama is in bed with the terrorists. The angry muslim world wants to see Obama succeed so that they can, shoot, they can stop the drone attacks? No, that isn’t right. Hmmm, they want to see Obama exonerated from Benghazi so they can take over America one day? Yes, that’s it! I finally see the light, thank you.
Now, now, Elena, just calm yourself. We are only trying to make you understand that you hitched your loyalties to a very flawed POTUS. His support is starting to melt away even on your side of the political equation.
Talking down in a patronizing tone to Elena is probably not one of the smartest things you could have done. I wouldn’t want to be you.
Well, I certainly think, in the spirit of fairness, that we ought to do so. We can start with the inanities coming out of the mouths of the Dem members of the Congressional committee where the head of the IRS was on the hot seat about all those missing Lois Lerner et al emails. Sounded like another “dog ate my homework” excuse to me.
I suggest you do that discussion on some other blog or talk to yourself about it on the open thread.
What are you saying here? That Elena is allowed to post patronizing remarks and nobody can reply in kind? Hardly sounds like fairness. I call blogging foul!
Which Susan Rice statement might I have to walk back? The claim about an anti-video demonstration in Benghazi which never happened? Or the one about Bowe Bergdahl having served with “honor and distinction”?
I saw this commercial for a new FX series called “the strain”. I feel like that is what has happened to far too many republicans. You are infected Wolve and it prevents you from seeing how ridiculous you sound. I may not have liked Bush’s false war into Iraq, and I hate to say I effing told you so (not you personally, but many around me) that it would end in disaster. But on some level that is what happens in a democracy, he got elected, he got to the “decider” and not enough people had the gonads to call bullshit to Dick Cheney’s fabricated yellow cake story.
My fear is that people like you feed into the nuttiness, clouded by your hate for a President you did not vote for. I didn’t vote for Bush, but I NEVER behaved like a TEA party delusional Cretan. I read that there are house republicans who actually would like to attempt to impeach Obama, and if the Senate falls in the hands of the GOP, they very well may do that. What kind of insanity is that???
The paranoia of people like you feed into that insanity, it is a growing cancer that will ultimately destroy this democracy. You may not like losing elections, I know I don’t, but the amount of time wasted on chasing conspiracy theories is astounding. Really astounding. We have real problems in this country, but because of people like you, supporting craziness, real Americans are suffering. Real income inequality is growing, and has been for decades. For too long we depended on the housing market and defense spending to be the back bone of our economy, that won’t work anymore.
It is you who is trapped in Plato’s Cave my friend. Watching the shadows dancing on the wall, created by the fire, believing that is reality.
Well, thank you so much, Elena. I appreciate your kind sentiments and concern for my welfare. One seldom encounters such an endearing person who exudes so much sweetness and light. You are an example to all with your words of loving tenderness and your sweet disposition. I am overwhelmed by it all. And so beautiful too. Sigh…….
I warned you. You dish it out you gotta know how to take it back in stride.
More, please, more, I beg of you. I cannot get enough of it. So stimulating and so exciting. Such uplifting sentiments one seldom hears in this age of anger and harshness. I crave the sweet words from those ruby lips. Please do not stop. I am becoming enchanted, enchained…
That’s sick. totally sick. Maybe you need a vacation from blogging.
I am waiting, Elena.
Well. I am sorry that you failed to recognize the Petruchian tactic in those responses. Let me give it another shot then:
I saw this Shakespeare comedy called “The Taming of the Shrew.” I think that the character of Katrina is what has happened to far too many Obama supporters. You are infected by that, Elena, and it prevents you from seeing how ridiculous you sound. I did not like Obama’s approach to ending the war in Iraq and I hate to say I effing (sic) told you so, that it would end in disaster. But on some level that is what happens in a democracy, he got elected, he got to be the “decider” and not enough liberals had the gonads to tell him he was screwing the whole thing up.
My fear is that people like you feed into the Obama nuttiness about governance, clouded by your hate for conservatives like me. I did not vote for Obama, but I never have imitated the delusional cretins of the left by calling either of you blogmeisters nasty names. I read that there were Republicans who would actually like to attempt to impeach Obama. Well, maybe that pen and telephone and bypassing the constitutional legislature might just earn him such a dubious honor. Better than being hanged, as your nutcake liberals were calling for in the streets when GWB was in the Oval Office.
The paranoia of people like you feeds into that liberal insanity which accepts lies and lack of transparency in governmental affairs as if it was quite proper behavior by this POTUS. It is a growing cancer which is starting to tear our political fabric apart. You may not like losing elections, I know I don’t, but the amount of time wasted by this guy by insisting on his way or the highway and never learning to forge actual working relationships either at home or abroad is astounding, especially to someone who worked for every POTUS from Kennedy to Clinton. Really astounding. So astounding as to have found its way into even the liberal press. We have real problems in this country, but, because of people like you, supporting the hate for those who have honest disagreements with you, the national debt is towering, the economy is still dragging, and record numbers of Americans have left the work force permanently. For too long we have let this Oval office diddle around with spending with no regard for fiscal common sense, to a point where countries are starting to use Chinese currency to pay for oil, vice the US dollar, and we are using overcharged credit cards.
It is you, my friend, who is trapped in a liberal Pollyannish cave, watching a POTUS who thinks, for some reason, that, when he opens his mouth, action is accomplished immediately but then finds that his own people never tell him that sh*t is happening in his programs. Or he never asks. Take your pick.
Is that better?
If you talk down to women on this blog, expect a smack down. Lame attempts at blaming Shakespeare aren’t going to soften the blow. We aren’t in English lit class. You must have forgotten yourself for a moment and got called on it.
Most of the men on this blog also are 21st-century men who don’t tolerate or admire anyone patronizing women. I don’t expect you will find veiled attempts at male chauvinism to be in very friendly territory.
Wolve,
I don’t have anymore to say. When Megyn Kelly recognizes the utter craziness of Dick Cheney offering advice on the Iraq war I start to have a little hope.
I recognize that we are all human beings, all infallible, even presidents. I recognize that most of us see that there is an extreme faction in the right wing of the republican party that is dangerous. The republican party in South Dakota voted to pass a resolution to impeach the president. I guess if you can’t win by elections, if you can’t win by disentrancing voters, you impeach the president?
Since Obama won, and people began protesting within two months of his inauguration, the craziness has fed itself, like a rat in maze who keep pressing the lever even though he will eventually die of obesity, it feels good to feed and feed. This is what is happening to a portion of the GOP. The hate and paranoia has become an addiction.
I never called for Bush to be hanged, but if you want to talk about damage to our moral fabric, torture sure is a good starting place, invading a country on false premises is a good start, orchestrating the outing of a CIA agent is a good start.
Utter nonsense. Whenever self-annointed “feminists” try to kneecap a male verbally and get return fire, they fall back on the “poor little us” and “don’t you dare patronize us” and “you are no gentleman.” Or maybe the contemporary “sexist” and “misogyny.” Well, if you are going to shoot off things like #30, #32, #37, and #39, you had better expect a nasty counterattack. Or maybe a tad of light mockery like the Petrucio bit. (“Lame” my eye, You didn’t even recognize it.)
I repeat a previous posting: I am detecting a note of political desperation here, noticeable especially in the inability to deal with any honest disagreement without some kind of insulting return slam in the margins, so to speak.
BTW, #32 almost made me fall off the chair in laughter. Who do you think I am? Corey Stewart?
Wolve, put down the shovel and stop digging. You were the aggressor. Self-appointed feminists? Do you have any notion or clue just how offensive that statement is? No one said feminist, or poor little anyone. Again, you are being patronizing.
Elena was sarcastic to you and Cargo and you decided that gives you the right to be patronizing to her. I warn you that she is going to fire back and you take offense? There should be no nasty counter attack. You should have changed your tone. Stick to your point but weed out a lot of the talking down to people and that includes some of the men on here.
As for Petrucio, perhaps you flatter yourself too much. Mr. Wolverine, you are no Shakespeare. (once again you are on a supercilious high horse)
What on earth does Corey Stewart have to do with any of this discussion? I am sure he would thank you to leave him out of this one.
@Elena
I do not think anyone really thinks that Obama is in bed with the terrorists. But most of us with military experience cannot understand his decision-making. The strategic map appears to be more unstable than ever, yet Obama has chosen to reduce the military to its smallest size in 50 years and has withdrawn from world leadership when it is needed most.
The U.S. strategic position in the Middle East is the worst it has been in over a generation. As others have mentioned, tribal loyalties take precedence over national boundaries, so not all of this is Obama’s fault. Yet his handling of Iran, Libya, and Egypt has put the U.S. in a weaker position than before he took office. His failure to successfully extend the SOFA to keep troops in Iraq was truly a strategic blunder (Iraq was relatively stable in 2009).
We now have the Russian Bear to contend with again. In some ways, this was probably inevitable, but does he think budget cuts to the DoD will be magnanimously matched by Putin? I think not.
I am not a big fan of Obama, but do try to give presidents the benefit of the doubt on national security. His decisions to unilaterally declare wars to be over and then hope for the best make no sense to me. We are truly getting “Hope and Change”, but the change have mostly diminished US national security under his watch.