re: New York Times claims they had a reporter on scene at Benghazi

quote:

---

In the call, the alleged attacker said the locals went forward with the attack only after watching the riots that same day at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.

---

This suggests nothing other than the attacks occurred after the riots in Cairo. Not that they were related.

quote:

---

But the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaeda’s international terrorist network. The only intelligence connecting Al Qaeda to the attack was an intercepted phone call that night from a participant in the first wave of the attack to a friend in another African country who had ties to members of Al Qaeda,

---

But you just posted this

quote:

---

The mob included members of the Ansar al-Sharia militia, about four members of al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, and members of the Egypt-based Muhammad Jamal network, along with other unarmed looters.

---

And you interestingly left out this from your post.

quote:

---

However, the intercept was one of several monitored communications during and after the attacks between members of a local militia called Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM, which, taken together, suggest the assault was in fact a premeditated terrorist attack, according to U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials not authorized to talk to the press.

---

quote:

---

And you interestingly left out this from your post.

---

Damn man, you're getting good. While I was slowly and carefully writing my post, which included the very same thing you posted just above me, you were taking care of business. Nevertheless, we both looked at his link and were both immediately struck by the obvious contradiction of the consecutive paragraphs. (Have you been secretly copying my Benghazi files? - j/k

quote:

---

Because your quote is immediately followed by this (why did you stop at the word "Cairo"? :

---

quote:

---

"However, the intercept was one of several monitored conversations during and after the attacks between members of local militia called Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM, which, taken together, suggest the assault was in fact a premeditated terrorist attack, according to U.S. intelligence counter-terrorism officials not authorized to talk to the press.

---

Officials have said there was evidence of both, and I'm sure Lake's sources were pushing the "premeditated" angle (if the rest of his reporting is to be considered here). Last I heard officials say there was no evidence of much pre-planning.

quote:

---

It's unclear why the talking points said the attacks were spontaneous and why they didn't mention the possibility of al-Qaeda involvement given the content of the intercepts and the organizations the the speakers were affiliated with.

---

I don't know why Lake thinks this is necessarily mutually exclusive, if a few people associated with AQIM participated with a large group of AAS for an "opportunistic" attack.

quote:

---

Your Kirkpatrick quote does not support your Daily Beast quote.

---

I'm not so sure of that

If you have any more info regarding the intercepts we got then I'm more than happy to consider it.

You stingy bastard.

<<<@gmail.com if you're ever feeling generous.

More reporting, this time from Ken Dilanian of the Los Angeles Times

quote:

---

Republicans have zeroed in on possible Al Qaeda ties to the Sept. 11 attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, and have criticized the Obama administration for not saying early on that it was an act of terrorism. But after five weeks of investigation, U.S. intelligence agencies say they have found no evidence of Al Qaeda participation.

The attack was "carried out following a minimum amount of planning," said a U.S. intelligence official, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a matter still under investigation. "The attackers exhibited a high degree of disorganization. Some joined the attack in progress, some did not have weapons and others just seemed interested in looting."

A second U.S. official added, "There isn't any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance." Most of the evidence so far suggests that "the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" earlier that day, the official said.

The lack of a firm Al Qaeda link could constrain U.S. military options. The administration believes it has the right under international law to use lethal force against Al Qaeda operatives who kill Americans, but that case would be harder to make against members of a Libyan militia.

The description by witnesses also differs from some of the administration's recent statements. Officials, most notably Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, at first said they believed the attack was motivated by a controversial anti-Islamic video produced in the United States. More recently, officials downplayed any connection. But in Benghazi, witnesses said members of the group that raided the U.S. mission specifically mentioned the video, which denigrated the prophet Muhammad.

Tarek, an off-duty police sergeant who asked that his full name be withheld to shield him from reprisals, said he came to the scene about an hour after the attack began and found militants blocking the road leading to the compound.

"They drew their guns on me and they told me that the Americans were abusing our prophet," he said. "That's why they said they had come to fight."

He and others described the attackers as a mob rather than a team of commandos. It included some organized elements, they said, but its intelligence was less than precise. A caretaker at the villa adjacent to the U.S. mission said the attackers initially threatened to raid his compound until he and a guard barred the gate and shouted: "Private property! Women inside!"

Libyan guards who served as the security force at the U.S. compound said the mob was made up of disparate types, some who appeared to be experienced fighters and others who were not. There were long-bearded men whose faces were obscured by scarves in the style of practiced militants and called each other "sheik." But there also were younger men, some who looked like teenagers with wispy beards on their uncovered faces.

"There were civilians there, and many were carrying weapons," said Sheik Mohamed Oraibi, a hard-line Islamic preacher who arrived soon after the attack began. He said the attackers arrived in about 20 pickup trucks, many of which had machine guns mounted on them in the style favored by rebels during the Libyan revolution last year.

Multiple witnesses said the accents and vernacular used by the attackers sounded Libyan, not foreign. They were extremely well armed, but Libya is awash in weapons. In Benghazi, machine guns and shoulder-fired grenade launchers, many pilfered by rebels from Kadafi's stocks during the revolution, are sold on the streets.

---

LINK

quote:

---

I just don't see how anyone can fault the CIA for putting this stuff in the initial intel assessment.

---

I understand why and how it happens, and don't "fault" it.

It's just that's it's such a minor and largely insignificant aspect of any investigation into the Benghazi events, it creates unnecessary confusion in the mind of the casual reader/citizen/voter. It's a matter of connecting the dots over a 19-day period. Jonathan Karl and the over-hyped "talking points memo", the Lara Logan fiasco and that entire bushwhack job that occurred on "60 Minutes", and now this surprisingly weak Kirkpatrick attempt to kill the Benghazi story only fuels the fire in the direction they don't want it to go.

Kirkpatrick, the NYT and the people at CBS all want the public to focus on the shiny object - the CIA in Benghazi. That shiny object is a very real but peripheral issue in the Benghazi investigation.

Kirkpatrick wrote all those words but really wanted the reader to walk away remembering one sentence subtly slipped into the final page, with no premise attached, but intended to deliver a sledgehammer blow to distract the reader. That sentence reflects both Kirkpatrick's and the NYT's longstanding obsession with blaming the CIA for everything that has gone wrong in American foreign policy since the Kennedy administration.


"Other Benghazi Islamists insist, bizarrely and without evidence, that they suspect the C.I.A. killed the ambassador." - This sentence is thrown down onto the page with absolutely no lead-in and no exit. Completely standing apart from anything else in his report. "bizarrely and without evidence" he makes sure to say, but if that is the case, why say it at all, especially since the story gives it no context, nor do the sentences preceding it or following it? Its purpose is beyond clear, and it's aimed right at the conspiracy-theory dunces. It's there to distract them, i.e., the "shiny object" some of that crowd can't resist. Kirkpatrick wants a Hannity or a Billy Cunningham type to run with something like that, to illustrate that those questioning the Administration's Benghazi explanations are right-wing nut jobs.

Since the suggestion is "bizarre" and "without evidence", why not just say something like "Other Islamists believe, bizarrely and without evidence, that the fricking moon is made out of cream cheese and iguana eggs"?

Plant a crazy idea, watch a few run with it, brand those few as being representative of those pursuing the Benghazi story, thus discrediting the pursuit itself, and yuck it up over martinis somewhere in Manhattan.

Fortunately (or unfortunately if you're Kirkpatrick or the NYT), no one bit into the apple (at least so far), and the Benghazi story lives on, completely unscathed by the NYT's "boom", which turned out to be a "splat", like a bug on a windshield.

They're trying to rein in a wild horse with a lasso made of yarn.