Intelligence officials: We knew attack in Benghazi was terrorist act from beginning

[TomCADem]

Source: NBC

Officials said that although there was no question that the attack was terrorism, they did not know whether they were spontaneous or planned long in advance. They also did not have the suspects’ identities.

That’s why, they said, they kept their unclassified talking points for Rice vague to avoid compromising future legal proceedings.

* * *

So why were those unclassified talking points created in the first place? Officials say they were produced in response to requests from the House Select Committee on Intelligence for language that could be used in media interviews.

The main purpose was to provide talking points sensitive to the fact that there could be legal proceedings in the future, the senior official said. Initial intelligence was tenuous, and affiliations were unclear. Investigators also worried the investigation could be compromised if they provided too much information.


Read more: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/19/15289104-intelligence-officials-we-knew-attack-in-benghazi-was-terrorist-act-from-beginning?lite&google_editors_picks=true

---

The crazy thing is that the media willingly allows Republicans any airtime to spread their conspiracy theories when it has been confirmed that then-CIA Director David Petraeus testified in a closed session immediately after the attack that it was a terrorist assault, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday on Meet the Press.

Which begs the question, so what is the whole point of the attacks on Susan Rice when Republicans were briefed on the true state of affairs, which Republicans have no credible evidence to deny.

[Jasonrc42]

1. Then why the inconsistency

That's the thing that puzzles me. If the director of the CIA knew right away that it was a terrorist attack, why was it blamed on a video for so long. Why was the video even mentioned at all? Susan Rice did it, Jay Carney did it, Obama himself did it.

[hrmjustin]

2. I do not know why people are so concerned about how long it took to be called a terrorist attack.

It was an attack, and we will learn from it. You take chances when you serve the nation like those 4 men did. God bless them, and God bless our president.

[shraby]

3. To throw the terrorists off..if they thought the heat was off, they might just brag a bit in

their corner of the world.

[Jasonrc42]

7. that's the most credible reason I've heard

I'm not sure why they maintained for so long that it was the video, but your explanation is the most credible one I've heard for why they might have not made people aware of what they knew, at least for a little while. The terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia did claim responsibility for the the attack (according to Reuters and CBS News) just hours after it started, but maybe by being quiet about that fact they were hoping to smoke out some others that were involved.

[amandabeech]

9. Thank you for your reasonable post.

And welcome to DU!

[John2]

17. Not only did

Ansar al-Sharia claim responsibility according to earlier reports but there was also claims of a witness who said they saw everything that happened. That witness could have been outted too if they were working with the CIA. It was mentioned that is exactly what happened because of Issa investigation on investigating an already ongoing criminal investigation. That is just a stupid idea. The point of doing the original investigation is to gather information if you know anything about conducting investigations, information is likely to change as they gather it.

That is how stupid the Republicans must think people are and this is nothing but political on their part to go after President Obama. They still want to get the upperhand on him so they can keep obstructing. The witness also mention one of the assailants pretended they were upset about the video when they conducted the attack and personally identified attackers by name. Just how do you think they caught some already? It was an ongoing investigation if you ever did one before as a Police Detective.

[tyne]

26. Yes they did

but according to intelligence reports, they then(I think the day after) denied it.

[itsrobert]

4. What's it to you?

Does any of this witch hunt bring back the dead? These type of attacks have happen over the last 40 years. Outpost like this are sitting ducks. The State Department and the current administration requested more funding to enhance security at these locations around the world. Why did congress deny that request?

My advice to you. You are borderline with Obama Derangement Syndrome brought on by too much Fox News and a Glen Beck diet. Please seek medical help immediately for your mental well-being.

[Jasonrc42]

8. It would be good to know what went wrong

..so it doesn't happen again. It was the first time an active US Ambassador was killed in the line of duty in over 40 years, so these types of attacks don't just happen. No investigation into the killings of any individuals will ever bring them back, but that doesn't mean you classify such investigations as witch hunts and consider them not worth the effort.

Why did congress deny that request? How much more fortified would our outposts/embassies have been had they granted the request? Even without congress taking action, is there something that could have been done in response to individual requests from Ambassador Stevens related to this outpost? After the attack started, are there any actions the military and/or the administration could have taken that might have save American lives? And why spread what you know is misinformation after the fact?

Most importantly, how should all of the above parties act differently in the future in an effort to insure this doesn't happen again? We honor the four who lost their lives if at the very least we seek to understand what went wrong and handle it better in the future. It hardly seems deranged to want us to learn from this and better protect our people. But maybe it's just me...

[ciking724]

13. The best way to "better protect our people" is to find and eliminate those that

committed the murders by not giving your best intelligence to the media, especially to a bunch of loose-lipped Repukes hell-bent on discrediting the President. The CIA did the prudent thing. This happens all the time in law enforcement. I remember when the DC sniper was being hunted, law enforcement widely reported that he was driving a white minivan; it turned out to be an tan Oldsmobile auto.

[Selatius]

15. Congress hasn't been able to pass any major spending bills since Repubs took the House.

The only bills that came out of Congress since the House was retaken by Repubs in 2010 were stop-gap measures aimed at extending unemployment insurance in exchange for a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts and to raise the debt-ceiling in exchange for painful and automatic spending cuts to programs both Repubs and Dems favor.

Military spending is one that isn't overlooked, though. Republicans love a good spending binge as far as war and military contractors go. Congress spends something like 700 billion a year on a war machine trying to find itself another Cold War to justify such largesse. China is a distant second at 140 billion a year. Our old Cold War enemy Russia is half that of China.

But money for defense of consulates and embassies? That's the Dept. of State. Pulling embassy detail isn't as lucrative as bombing and invading entire nations and getting taxpayers to subsidize the profit margins of your friends in the defense contractor industry like Halliburton and Dick Cheney. If it were as lucrative, every one of our embassies would be ringed by miles of barb wire fence, guard towers, land mines, and machine gun nests.

[Angry Dragon]

5. Tell us why does it matter what they said ..........

They could have said that a wall fell down and four people got killed and no one would have said a thing.......

[JDPriestly]

6. The Benghazi attack happened at the same time that attacks and

demonstrations in other countries centered on the video. They addressed both at once. I don't think they were sure whether there were at the same time in Benghazi and attack and a demonstration. They posted a video of the attack/demonstration on the internet for all to see. If people did not figure out that there was some security reason for the vague statements and confusion, it's probably because those people watch too much Fox News. Addles the brain and results in dysfunction in the critical thinking systems.

[dipsydoodle]

12. Not quite

The attack on the consulate didn't happen until after 10.30pm local time in Libya.The protests had occurred earlier that day. From memory the email notifying the US of the attack was sent just after midnight local time there. Time difference Benghazi / Washington is 7 hours - noted only in connection with dates mentioned in this connection : 12th in Libya / 11th in USA.

edit - time difference was only 6 hours 11th September. Libya doesn't use summer time.

[JDPriestly]

25. If the events happened on the same day, it is reasonable that they

were discussed at the same time and very generally.

There is no point in making such a big deal out of the statements on Benghazi by members of the Obama administration.

The big question is why the two ambassadors were meeting in the consulate far from the embassies on that day, on that evening. That, to me is very strange.

[TomCADem]

10. I Guess We Could Just Announce To The Attackers...

...what we knew and did not know. It seems that the real question at the time was whether the terrorist attack was spontaneous or planned long in advance. In other words, did the terrorists know that the video was being widely distributed and was there a connection to the video? Indeed, if you recall, when the video first came out, several media organizations initially reported that the video was funded by an Israeli, so I don't understand why Republicans are saying that the U.S. should have immediately showed all of its cards even as it was trying to uncover the truth.

[dipsydoodle]

14. did the terrorists know that the video was being widely distributed that day ?

I would doubt that. It was broadcast by the Salafist tv station in Egypt which is where the protest started earlier that day.

Planned in advance is more likely , not necessarily with 11th in mind and the protest coincidental.

[Igel]

19. It seems that we can find where the inconsistency crept in.

The analysts said one thing.

"Officials" said another.

The analysts are professional and rose through the ranks. The officials are typically political appointees. (This would have been obvious 6 years ago.)

A terrorist attack against the US has political ramifications unless immediate action can be taken. If it's a huge, unifying attack, then it's a political opportunity for the folks in charge. If it's something small, like a barracks bombing in Beirut or attack on a mission, then it's probably not not a good political opportunity.

There might be perfectly good reasons for masking what we knew, but what was masked was mostly what we didn't know. Better to obfuscate for a few days until you can say what we do know.

The confusion--that it was a protest gone wrong hours after the protest ended--wasn't something that anybody looking at the time stamps on reports would have engaged in had they been aware that Libya and the US occupy different time zones. Those mid-level had to miss the confusion.

A fairly obvious, if damning, question is: During a heated election season, who would care about giving out information about an assault on US personnel that might have political ramifications? If this was reported up the chain of command as quickly as you'd think, why would the information originating from just about where the break between professional and political appointees occur suddenly change from unhelpful and demonstrating lack of knowledge to helpful and showing that things are understood?

[Uncle Joe]

22. The first sentence in the OP answers your question.

Officials said that although there was no question that the attack was terrorism, they did not know whether they were spontaneous or planned long in advance. They also did not have the suspects’ identities.

The incendiary video sparked riots throughout the Middle East, logically speaking that would represent the spontaneous terrorist attack theory.

[behindenemylins]

11. We all know what this is...

The Republicans in their never ending quest for Obama scandal. That's all they know how to do...piss, moan, complain and collect cash.

[aandegoons]

16. Seems like the defintion of propaganda.

The media is pretty much the propaganda wing of the republican party.

[yurbud]

18. I still don't understand why it matters when they said the magic word

[qwlauren35]

20. I think it's a normal American thing.

We like to believe that our media reports the truth/facts, and we like to believe that we have the facts.

And as a country, there are many are quick to call conspiracy. On both sides.

[yurbud]

23. that doesn't answer the question what exactly the "conspiracy" would be here

there was no particular gain to the Obama administration to say this was or wasn't terrorism right off the bat.

[qwlauren35]

21. I would also point out that we don't like being duped.

I think there were a lot of people who didn't buy the whole: Iraq has WMD, no - but we need to get rid of Saddam Hussein - well, now we need to help them secure democracy - well, now we need to do some damage control... and on and on, we stayed in Iraq for stupid reasons.

We are not happy with the idea that the government keeps secrets from us, and we now have a vast information network that occasionally leaks out something different from what the government tells us. We don't take it well at all.

[yurbud]

24. I don't like to be duped, but in this case, it's hard to see a reason for duping us

[Rosa Luxemburg]

27. So how did McCain know it was terrorist act from the beginning?