General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDavid Ignatius: CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks
Last edited Fri Oct 19, 2012, 10:40 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.htmlI've been in discussion with a few Benghazi Truthers on Facebook, and I've been stressing that there have been no cover-ups about what happened. David Ignatius gives us some more data about this:
The CIA document went on: This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated. This may sound like self-protective boilerplate, but it reflects the analysts genuine problem interpreting fragments of intercepted conversation, video surveillance and source reports.
The senior intelligence official said the analysts judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the consulate.
We believe the timing of the attack was influenced by events in Cairo, the senior official said, reaffirming the Cairo-Benghazi link. He said that judgment is repeated in a new report prepared this week for the House Intelligence Committee.
So in your own discussions with right-wingers in your life, you have a few more facts to talk them out of their tree, or at least get them to clam up and move on. Everything Susan Rice said the Sunday after the attacks is in these documents, including the part where there was no final word yet on what happened. Rice is only guilty of trying to inform the American people with the best data she had.
ETA: Another article on this, from the LA Times today. The headline: No evidence found of Al Qaeda role in Libya attack
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-attack-20121020,0,95514.story
The circumstances of the Sept. 11 attack have become a matter of heated political debate, with President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney clashing in their debate Tuesday about when Obama termed the assault an act of terrorism. But the emerging picture painted by intelligence officials and witnesses differs from the assertions of both sides.
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."
How about that?
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)Cha
(297,692 posts)him and back up the Prez like Candy Crowley did at the 2nd debate?
malaise
(269,177 posts)Who the fugg do the CIA thin they are when ReTHUGs have their own meme on this one
Tennessee Gal
(6,160 posts)elleng
(131,129 posts)Cha
(297,692 posts)"version" of what happened. The ghoulsOPropaganda machine rots your brain.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)protest over the movie was used for cover for a planned attack or any scenario in between. Trying to untangle this mess now is no easy task.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)DonViejo
(60,536 posts)The news is on it's way to other outlets now.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)beac
(9,992 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)They wouldn't just come out and say that Al Qaeda sympathizers had overrun the CIA station and rolled up their networks.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)I'd prefer to keep to the facts here, though.
Sugarcoated
(7,728 posts)he'll get burned again because the President has the facts on his side. No matter how hard the Con Man & his running mate FOX pound this 1) The hair splitting ridiculous, obviously so, and 2) They're coming from the Republican fantasy bubble and the President can easily defend these flimsy accusations with simple facts, ie: the memo posted above. President Obama will be so waiting for this on Monday. I really think Rmoney risks another Road Runner - Cyote debate moment.