Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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?
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?
As the reports say there were no protest in Benghazi, just the attacks. The militias most certain have access to that kind of firepower and they run that part of Libya. The Islamic Extremist didn't have to watch the video to be told by the leader what to think and to be outraged. (remind you of ....... fill in the blank, partisans).
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.
That doesn't even compute.
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.
So..you just called me a Rightwinger?
That doesn't even compute.
It computes perfectly. He bragged constantly about how safe we were. The last thing he wanted was 'terrorists' and 'Alqaeda' being mentioned right before the election. So he madfe sure thhose words weren't used. It's really that simple no conspiracy.
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.
Yup, no conspiracy --- just a cover up to an ineffective job and an unwillingness to protect Americans in harms way. No need for a conspiracy if we all can agree on the simple facts of the matter.
Now on to impeachment!!
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.
