As Eli Lake has previously reported, the basis for blaming the Benghazi assault was a single communications intercept. Take it away, Mr. Lake.
The Daily Beast first reported that the intelligence behind the initial public assessment that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam film was based in part on a single intercept between one of the attackers and a middle manager in al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the group’s North African affiliate. 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. But that intercept was one of many that suggested an al Qaeda link to the attack, none of which were mentioned in the initial eight days.
The Cairo riot was itself a pre-planned attack, but let’s not get lost on that for now. The Libyan branch of al Qaeda might or might not have known whether Cairo was pre-planned or not.
Let’s state this very clearly for the record: The intercept that Lake describes is proof that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. That intercept is proof that it was a pre-planned terrorist attack. That intercept is proof that the movie was nothing more than an opportunistic association, to the terrorists themselves. The Obama administration had that intercept, and used it to explain Benghazi to the American people.
But that intercept also provides evidence that runs hard against an Obama campaign narrative, which is that al Qaeda is “decimated.” Not only is it not “decimated,” according to Lt Col Andrew Wood, al Qaeda is more established in Libya now than it was prior to the 2011 intervention, and it is more established in Libya than the United States is. The evidence provided by another part of the story backs this up: While America was limited to flying a drone helplessly above our besieged consulate, al Qaeda had heavily armed troops on the ground sacking said consulate. While al Qaeda attacked us at a time and place of its choosing, America couldn’t even get investigators to the site for three weeks. If it all seems obvious now, it’s only because the terrorists won the battle and we lost. Oh, it’s also obvious because the Obama team spent a couple of weeks lying about everything.
Now, according to Eli Lake that intercept was among many pieces of evidence the Obama administration had in hand when it came time to explain Benghazi. But that intercept was the one upon which the administration relied to turn a terrorist attack into a riot in response to a film.
When the government rousted a filmmaker at midnight for questioning, it was relying on the convenient part of that intercept. When US government officials asked YouTube to “review” the film and possibly take it down, they were relying on that part of that intercept. When Rice and Clinton and Obama and Carney blamed the film, they were all together using the convenient part of that intercept and ignoring the other evidence that pointed toward al Qaeda terrorism.
Let’s say this clearly: The Obama administration went farther to blame the film than the terrorists did.
Isn’t that interesting.
Ace has more on this. Who developed the administration’s talking points remains an open question. The CIA was involved, which points at Petraeus.
It can’t be said clearly enough: One or more officials in the Obama administration knew from the beginning that the film was not the reason for the attack in Benghazi. They knew that the whole time. The American people deserve to know who, and what they were up to.
Chris Stevens is dead, and al Qaeda is alive. Take it away, Mr. Vice President.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama stood over Stevens’ coffin and lied.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama stood in front of the American people and lied.
Barack Obama stood in front of the United Nations as our representative and lied, blamed non-existent intolerance, and attacked our First Amendment rights. He also declared his support for those who would violently protest if they were ‘insulted’ standing firmly on the side of those who killed Ambassador Stevens.
Treason?
Obama upon being informed that the Ambassador was missing, went to bed. And slept through that 3a.m. call that Hillary said he’d sleep through. Of course she slept through it, too.
Joe Biden couldn’t understand why we didn’t “come together in a crisis”. Stephanie Cutter blamed “Romney and Paul are using Benghazi for political purposes”. Could that have been their plan all along, not to waste a crisis and pull together as a nation “behind Obama”? Backfire.
Romney spoiled it by nailing them on it so quickly – so the media meme for over a week was a complicit lie. Still waiting for them to call it an ‘ungaffe’ by Romney. The WH reaction has made no sense and still defies understanding.
This is magnitudes more horrific than Fast and Furious.
Ambassadors are there to maintain peace. When they are killed it is a declaration of intent. Jello Obama cannot be reached for comment.
Meanwhile, job openings in the state department should read: WANTED: cannon fodder.
Obama lied, the ambassador died.
Could Hillary in some strange way be exacting revenge on jug ears?
Please, please. This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let’s not argue and bicker over who killed who.
Obama has lied
Stevens has died
Obama then made a mad dash
to Vegas for some cash
This criminal needs to be tried.
It’s all pretty obvious to people who aren’t suckling at obama’s breast, but when the President and Vice President of the United States are lying though their teeth, and the rest of the US government is changing it’s story minute-by-minute, it seems to me that a lot of fence sitters will accept the lies at face value.
But I still think there will be a lot of people who will be apalled becasue of the gruesome death of the Ambassador, and highly septical of the way it has been handled.
If Romney can’t use this to utterly destroy the Fraud’s moronic, anti-American “foreign policy”, he’s a worse candidate than even I have thought.
So now Romney has the Economy, the Fraud’s dangerously naive foreign policy, the Fraud’s abysmal debate, and Biden’s bizarre debate in his favor. Who would have thought so many factors would swing strongly in his favor so soon before the election?
Mr. Preston perhaps you can confirm this, I have seen a report that shows CNN’s Nic Robertson interviewing the brother of al-Qaeda on Sept 11th. They were preparing to protest to try to gain the release of the blind sheik. It would mean that at least some of the protesters were there with pre-meditation and not because of the video.
So Nic Robertson interviewed al-Qaeda’s brother for CNN. What’s his name fred-Qaeda? Or bill-Qaeda? Or george-Qaeda? Or sue-Qaeda?
Your are missing the point, the brother of Ayman Al Zawahiri, leader of al-Qaeda was interviewed as he was preparing the Embassy protests, not because of some obscure internet video, as claimed, but to demand the release of the blind sheik, that morning.