Four Media Reports From Libya That Linked Benghazi Attacks To The Anti-Islam Video

[Lakhota]

For months, the Obama administration has been subject to media criticism for its initial statements linking the September attacks in Benghazi, Libya, to an anti-Islam video that had triggered protests across the Middle East at that time. President Obama has been accused of attempting to deliberately deceive the public in order to benefit his reelection campaign. But several media reports, filed from Libya in September and October and citing the statements of witnesses, show that at the time there was a reasonable case that the video played a role in the events of that day.

Much of the media's criticism has been based on a false premise. They claim that rather than accurately identify the attacks as terrorism, the administration chose to attribute them to the film. But in addition to ignoring the fact that President Obama referred to the attacks as an "act of terror" at least twice in the days after September 11, this line of logic is a false dichotomy: it ignores the possibility that the attackers may have been terrorists, but their reason for engaging in that particular act of terror was because they were enraged by the film.

That is the conclusion that the CIA's Office of Terrorism Analysis came to in the initial draft of the much-ballyhooed talking points on the attack: They reported that the attacks had been "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" -- protests triggered by the video -- and committed by "Islamic militants with ties to al Qa'ida." The latter point was removed from later drafts in order to avoid interfering with the ongoing investigation into the perpetrators, but every version of the talking points stated that the attacks had been "inspired by the protests," and thus the video. In fact, CIA director David Petraeus criticized the final version of the talking points for not doing enough to link the attacks to the protests.

By definition, terrorism aims to further a political agenda. That means that terrorists have stated grievances, however horribly flawed those may be. Until the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack are captured, it is impossible to say for certain what their motivations were for engaging in those terrorist acts. But a review of reporting from Benghazi shows that the administration's comments suggesting that the video provided a motivation were not far-fetched.

It's no surprise that in the immediate aftermath of the conflict, reporting was often confused and contradictory. Some of the stories below state that there was a protest outside the diplomatic facility before the attack began, while others say that there was not (the State Department's review of the attacks concluded that there had been no protest).

But all four accounts provide on-the-scene reporting finding that residents of Benghazi - in some cases witnesses to the attacks citing the claims of the attackers themselves -- linked them to the anti-Islam video.

More: Four Media Reports From Libya That Linked The Benghazi Attacks To The Anti-Islam Video - By MATT GERTZ

I prefer to trust the word of witnesses rather than right-wing conspiracy theories.

 

[Lakhota]

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 the United States Mission 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 members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.

“It was the Ansar al-Shariah people,” said Mohamed Bishari, 20, a neighbor of the compound who watched the assault and described the brigade he saw leading the attack. “There was no protest or anything of that sort.”

More: Election-Year Stakes Overshadow Nuances of Libya Investigation - The New York Times

How Benghazi Is Reacting To The Deadly Attacks : NPR

US envoy dies in Benghazi consulate attack - Africa - Al Jazeera English

Libyan witnesses recount organized Benghazi attack

 

[Lakhota]

So, there is absolutely no doubt that the video played a role in the Benghazi attack - either as the reason or as a pretext - or a combination of both.

 

[BreezeWood]

But all four accounts provide on-the-scene reporting finding that residents of Benghazi - in some cases witnesses to the attacks citing the claims of the attackers themselves -- linked them to the anti-Islam video.

the reaction to the video was being broadcast throughout the Middle East and was at the time a reasonable conclusion for the attack at Benghazi.

 

[Mr. H.]

A blog, an op-ed, and a rant from NPR.

Then this from (AP):

There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad.

You really are a stupid fuck.

 

[Pogo]

An event being an act of terrorism and an event being a reaction to a video are not mutually exclusive, for what it's worth.

-- which is absolutely nothing.

 

[whitehall]

Geez, did you ever see such a desperate bunch of media a-holes? The NY Times couldn't even spell "TWO" as in two (not to) accounts from alleged Libyan bystanders.

 

[jknowgood]

What difference does it make!

 

[buckeye45_73]

You cant fix stupid

 

[Politico]

Your boy lied because there wasa election was coming up. The media ran with the story they gave them. Get over it.

 

[Lakhota]

Your boy lied because there wasa election was coming up. The media ran with the story they gave them. Get over it.

Facts obviously mean nothing to you.

 

[tjvh]

The drones are still in denial I see.

 

[Politico]

Your boy lied because there wasa election was coming up. The media ran with the story they gave them. Get over it.

Facts obviously mean nothing to you.

I'm the ony one around here that they do matter to.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Your boy lied because there wasa election was coming up. The media ran with the story they gave them. Get over it.

Facts obviously mean nothing to you.

Nobody brings that kind of firepower to a spontaneous protest on the 9/11 protest over an obscure video that had less than 200 hits. The chances of that happening are very remote. However, if they do, why then, does military and intel support then get told to stand down amid the chaos?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your boy lied because there wasa election was coming up. The media ran with the story they gave them. Get over it.

There was no political advantage to be gained. That is a classic rightwing myth invented to embellish the rightwing propaganda machine's side of this story.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Seriously? Media Matters again? Argument invalid.

 

[Pogo]

Your boy lied because there wasa election was coming up. The media ran with the story they gave them. Get over it.

That doesn't even compute. If an incumbent had an incident that could be framed either way, they would gain, not lose, support from being put on the defensive by an attack from an outside enemy. Politicians have ridden that horse for centuries. (see FDR 1944; see GWB 9/12/01). Hell, they'll even make up a false flag where no attack exists (see Tonkin, Gulf of, 1964) or exaggerate/distort current events (USS Maine 1898, Iraq war runup, Bush administration 2002) to synthesize an attack so they can exploit the momentum.

It might look good as words in a blog, until you think it through. Some of y'all are so busy salivating over the next fake Kenyan birth certificate that you forget to do that. This dog don't hunt.

But it is fascinating that y'all want to jump on an administration for failing to know what was in the minds of the attackers, and then come up yourselves with this turd about what was in the minds of the administration.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your boy lied because there wasa election was coming up. The media ran with the story they gave them. Get over it.

There was no political advantage to be gained. That is a classic rightwing myth invented to embellish the rightwing propaganda machine's side of this story.

If it were a "right wing myth" then why was the Left Leaning ABC the one who posted the story about the talking points being scrubbed of all references to terrorism? In fact they broke the story first!

Shut the hell up Carbine.

 

[Pogo]

Seriously? Media Matters again? Argument invalid.

Poisoning the Well. Fifteen yards, loss of down.

Your boy lied because there wasa election was coming up. The media ran with the story they gave them. Get over it.

There was no political advantage to be gained. That is a classic rightwing myth invented to embellish the rightwing propaganda machine's side of this story.

If it were a "right wing myth" then why was the Left Leaning ABC the one who posted the story about the talking points being scrubbed of all references to terrorism? In fact they broke the story first!

Shut the hell up Carbine.

Strawman. Fifteen more yards.

Got any actual arguments?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

The video had nothing to do with the attack on Benghazi. Your articles are jumping to the conclusion that they did based on wishful thinking.