BENGHAZI BULLROAR: What actually happened!

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2012

Confusion is us, says the Post: What actually happened in Benghazi on the evening of September 11?

Second question: How reasonable was Susan Rice’s account of those events on the September 16 Sunday talk shows?

Almost surely, we’ll see another preplanned assault concerning these questions in tomorrow night’s debate. But uh-oh! In yesterday’s Washington Post, Greg Miller reported “an emerging consensus” among intelligence officials about what occurred in Benghazi.

That alleged consensus supports several things Rice said—statements for what she has been aggressively ridiculed and attacked in the past five weeks.

In our view, Miller’s report is important for the new information it conveys. But we think it’s important for a second reason: Because it displays the low caliber of mainstream reporting in our biggest newspapers.

Even as Miller’s report seems to support Rice’s statements, he displays some of the standard bungling which has dogged reporting of this topic. “Confusion is us!” the Post seemed to say as it ran this report.

Miller reports “an emerging consensus” about Benghazi among intelligence figures. In the headline and in his opening paragraphs, he paints a picture which largely comports with the things Rice said way back when:
MILLER (10/20/12): U.S.: Evidence doesn’t show planning in Libyan attack

U.S. intelligence officials said Friday that no evidence has surfaced to indicate that the Sept. 11 assault on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Libya was planned in advance, a conclusion that suggests the attack was spontaneous even if it involved militants with ties to al-Qaeda.

The description represents the latest shift in the U.S. government’s evolving account of an attack that claimed the life of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, as well as three other U.S. citizens, and has become entangled in the politics of the presidential campaign.

“There isn’t any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance,” a U.S. intelligence official said. “The bulk of available information supports the early assessment that the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.”

That emerging consensus among analysts at the CIA and other agencies could lend new support to the Obama administration, which has struggled to fend off Republican allegations that it has been reluctant to admit that the attack in Benghazi was an act of terrorism.
On those September 16 shows, Ambassador Rice repeatedly said that her account was preliminary. That said, she has been ridiculed and aggressively attacked for exchanges like this, from Face the Nation:
SCHIEFFER (9/16/12): But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

RICE: We do not—we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
Opportunistic attackers have quoted that statement by Rice without noting the question she was asked. But sure enough! According to Miller, there is an emerging consensus that the Benghazi attack was not “preplanned days or weeks in advance.”

Is that really an emerging consensus? If so, is that consensus correct? We can’t answer those questions. But as Miller continued, he noted that this emerging consensus tends to undermine the ugly assaults which have been launched on Rice.

Or did he? As he continued, Miller kept making statements we found to be inaccurate or illogical. His errors tended to tilt the tale in the ways the attackers prefer:
MILLER (continuing directly): Much of that Republican criticism has focused on U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan E. Rice, who appeared on television talk shows days after the attack and attributed it to violent protesters angered by an anti-Muslim YouTube video. The latest assessment indicates that the timing of the attack in Benghazi was triggered by protests, but also supports subsequent accounts by Obama administration officials describing the siege as a terrorist assault.

As a result, the information provided by U.S. intelligence officials on Friday is unlikely to end the controversy surrounding a narrative that has already shifted several times.
By now, Miller had written six paragraphs—and he had made or accepted at least four puzzling statements.

Confusion is us, the Post seemed to say. Do you understand these points?

Why would the attack have been “opportunistic?” In paragraph 3, an intelligence official is quoted saying that the Benghazi attackers launched their assault "opportunistically" after learned about the violence in Cairo.

The attackers may have known about Cairo. But why would that make their own attack “opportunistic?” In what way would the events in Cairo give the attackers an opportunity they didn’t always have?

To us, this statement doesn’t make sense. Miller doesn’t notice.

Must an act of terrorism be preplanned? Miller seems to say that the lack of preplanning undercuts the idea that this was an act of terrorism. But what is the logic behind that statement? Must an act of terrorism by preplanned? Preplanned for how many weeks?

The inevitable misstatement about what Rice said: According to Miller, Rice “attributed [the attack] to violent protesters angered by an anti-Muslim video.” We’re sorry, but that isn’t accurate.

On those Sunday shows, Rice said there were protesters at the scene—but she said the violence began when “militants” with “heavy weapons” arrived and “hijacked” the proceedings. Five weeks later, major journalists still can’t capture this bone-simple, two-part chronology. Sadly, that includes Miller.

In this case, his error supports the preferred story-line of Rice's opportunistic attackers.

Why is this emerging consensus “unlikely to end the controversy?” In the last two paragraphs we’ve posted, Miller describes intelligence officials supporting Rice’s account in two different ways. But, for reasons we can’t fathom, he then goes on to say this:

“As a result, the information provided by U.S. intelligence officials on Friday is unlikely to end the controversy surrounding a narrative that has already shifted several times.” (Our emphasis)

In one basic way, we agree with that statement. This new information is unlikely to end the assault on Rice—but that’s because the Romney campaign is trying to win the White House this way. But for unknown reasons, Miller makes it sound like there’s a logical connection here. In his account, intelligence officials agree with Rice in every way—and “as a result,” the controversy is unlikely to end!

"Confusion is us,” the Post seemed to say. Why didn’t an editor clean up this bit of illogic?

The preplanned assault on Susan Rice has been underway for five weeks. Even now, journalists seem unable to explain what she said on those Sunday shows—and their logic is frequently cloudy.

Must we note that their puzzling errors tend to support the bungled narratives driven by her attackers?

“Confusion is us,” the Post seemed to say, even as it reported a consensus which bolsters the things Rice said. Your timorous press corps knows the rules:

Even when it debunks attacks from the right, it must repeat the bungled claims which keep those aggressive attacks alive. On balance, Miller's report supports what Rice said.

But Power must be served.

21 comments:

  1. In judging the President, we should also ask what actually happened in Benghazi before the evening of September 11? We know that there was barely any security at the Embassy, despite multiple requests from the Ambassador. Furthermore common sense should have showed that security was needed there.

    Whether or not Obama personally made the decision to have inadequate security, whoever made the decision was presumably carrying out the President's policy. What precisely is Obama's policy that called for the misjudgment on security?

    BTW would the President have done better if he hadn't skipped more than half of his Daily Intelligence meetings?

    Another question is whether Obama blundered when he supported the overthrow of Gaddafi. Gaddafi was an odious leader, but he had at least bent to American will in ending his nuclear development. Furthermore, lots of observers at the time predicted that the new government was likely to be more anti-American than Gaddefi's regime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David, for Chrissake! The facility at Benghazi was NOT an embassy!

      Here's what "common sense" tells me. If there were any "intelligence" at all stating that the mission in Benghazi would be the target of an imminent attack planned carefully long in advance, then Ambassador Stevens would not have been there, no matter how strongly he wanted to be.

      He would have been at the embassy. Which, since you don't seem to know, is in TRIPOLI.

      Delete
    2. D in C, Anon. has been obseesively kicking this dead horse in this site, and it was only a matter of time before you'd chip in..

      You say "We do know" that there were repeated requests for security at the Bengazi embassy. Is that the royal "we" I for one don't "know" it. The reports say that the requests were for more security at the Tripoli embassy, not Benghazi. On a larger point, "we" you included, weren't there and there must be all sorts of complex details that you and I don't know.

      Whoever made the decision was "presumably"carrying out the President's policy.... How do you know that. It makes just as much sense to say that it's the Republicans fault because they turned down the President's request for more funds for embassy security.

      I couldn't open the website which you claim proves that Obama missed all these security briefings. By your logic, 9/11 was Bush's fault; after all he demoted the anti-terrorism chief.

      Time will tell whether the Libya action, leading to the toppling of Khadafy, was a mistake (though controversies of these things usually never get fully resolved. I don't know how you can with a straight face dredge this up as a way to fault Obama for the embassy tragedy. If he hadn't acted and there was a horrible blood bath in Libya, are you saying that Romney and you wouldn't be jumpiong down his throat about that? Are you saying that Romney is going to be better in the Middle East and in other foreign policy? There seems to be no basis for that.

      AC ? MA





      Delete
  2. "U.S. intelligence officials said Friday that no evidence has surfaced to indicate that the Sept. 11 assault on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Libya was planned in advance, a conclusion that suggests the attack was spontaneous even if it involved militants with ties to al-Qaeda."

    How does a lack of evidence of planning "suggest the attack was spontaneous"? That assumes a CERTAINTY intelligence would have been aware of the planning.

    "“The bulk of available information supports the early assessment that the attackers launched their assault opportunistically"

    It "supports" or "is consistent with"? Is there evidence that the attack was spontaneous or is there only a LACK of evidence that it wasn't?

    Would intelligence officials color a failure to gain intelligence as definitive proof something did not occur?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "U.S. intelligence officials said Friday that no evidence has surfaced to indicate that the Sept. 11 assault on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Libya was planned in advance, a conclusion that suggests the attack was spontaneous even if it involved militants with ties to al-Qaeda."

      How does a lack of evidence of planning "suggest the attack was spontaneous"? That assumes a CERTAINTY intelligence would have been aware of the planning.

      "“The bulk of available information supports the early assessment that the attackers launched their assault opportunistically"

      It "supports" or "is consistent with"? Is there evidence that the attack was spontaneous or is there only a LACK of evidence that it wasn't?

      Would intelligence officials color a failure to gain intelligence as definitive proof something did not occur?

      Delete
    2. First, I am going to agree with you that "spontaneous" was an incredibly poor and stupid choice of words for Ambassador Rice to use. This is something that Somerby can't bring himself to say.

      Now that said, it is at least as equally stupid to suggest that the only other possible alternative to "spontaneous" is an attack so long in the planning that the CIA (or whoever) should have "gain(ed) intelligence" about it, and either failed in that regard, or succeeded and their warnings went unheeded. (Take your pick. The right-wing echo chamber likes to argue both sides of that "question.")

      What we do know right now is that a bunch of militants in Libya grabbed their weapons, piled into their cars, and attacked and burned down the mission in Benghazi. Now whether that required months to plan or five minutes to plan is somewhat yet to be resolved.

      But I also wonder why such a supposedly poweful terrorist network who would take months or even weeks to plan their attack would choose the mission in Benghazi at night rather than a much more high-profile target, with the potential of a much higher body count.


      Delete
    3. The question of preplanning isn't the most important except in deciding how far the administration will go in insisting there was none, apparently to hold that lack of evidence-evidence up as proof there were no failures.

      This is some of the "evidence"

      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.

      If that's evidence it's weak. And there is also this

      The political debate has focused on whether the attack was spontaneous or planned, but the official said there’s evidence of both, and that different attackers may have had different motives.



      Delete
  3. The attackers may have known about Cairo. But why would that make their own attack “opportunistic?” In what way would the events in Cairo give the attackers an opportunity they didn’t always have?

    Precisely. It makes more sense that the "opportunity" they seized was the date of 9/11, but all of the statements in the aftermath were designed to distract us from that obvious consideration.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob, it's kinda hard to tell, but are you suggesting that if the Washington Post had reported this story exactly YOUR way, that the controversy would be over and the right-wing echo chamber would be forced to shut up?

    Let me help you here. There are still people who believe the earth is flat. There are still people who believe that the universe was created in six, 24-hour periods, 6,000 years ago. There are still people who believe the globe isn't warming. There are still people who believe Great Depression II began on Jan. 20, 2009, and keeps getting worse.

    No amount of "new evidence" is going to shake them out of what they already "know" to be "true."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And people who believe the earth is flat are laughed at. Only a stone cold moron convinced of their own brilliance, like yourself, believes that in order to win an argument you have to get 100% agreement with your position. Christ, where do people like you come from?

      Delete
    2. +1 til

      We also laugh at the people who believe press criticism is the same thing as "having it exactly YOUR way".

      We laugh even harder at the ones who think criticism is only valid if implementing it would definitively "shut up" all naysayers.

      Look, Anonymous, you're wrong about everything you post, it's been shown several times -- but you still come around repeating the same things: You're the perfect example of the phenomenon you described!

      "Bob has to have it EXACTLY his way"
      "Bob worships Al Gore"
      "Bob only talks about MSNBC"

      No amount of new evidence, and no lack of evidence for your propositions, is going to shake you out of your reflex Somerby hatred.

      So, we laugh at you.

      More in pity than in anger, though.

      Delete
  5. Miller seems to say that the lack of preplanning undercuts the idea that this was an act of terrorism. But what is the logic behind that statement? Must an act of terrorism by preplanned? Preplanned for how many weeks?

    He is helping us to accept the false choice of an unknown period of planning versus no planning as determinants of failure in the administration.

    We are helped to ignore the questions of security and existing capabilities (oh these weapons are all over the place now) and focus only on what there is a "lack of evidence" for and helped to realize a lack of evidence of planning is evidence of spontaneity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again, there is a wide gap between spontaneous and weeks, if not months, in the planning.

      How much planning and how long does it take for a bunch of militants to grab their weapons, pile in their cars, and blow up the closest U.S. facility they can think of?

      Delete
    2. It's not even clear why the administration has seized on the question of planning, when the idea that it would take little or no planning to kill An ambassador and 3 others, especially on 9/11, could be at least as damaging.

      Delete
    3. I don't know that the "administration" has "seized" on anything beyond Obama's orginal statement that there will be a full investigation, and that the perpetrators would be identified and brought to justice.

      Please don't let the peanut gallery chattering classes on both sides of this issue define what the "administraion" is "seizing on."

      Delete
    4. I guess we'll know tomorrow night whether the question of planning is seized on as a defense against allegations of failure, red herring though it may be.

      Delete
    5. Oh, I am fairly confident that Obama is smart enough to let Romney dig whatever hole he wants to crawl into.

      And at the same time, I am confident that Obama is smart enough not to say things he either shouldn't be saying or is not 100 percent certain of.

      Delete
    6. Like that Romney's pension is bigger than his, or that he has no Chinese and Cayman investments?

      Delete
    7. Or that Obama's pension fund and how it is invested is somehow morally equivalent to the hundreds of millions Romney has stashed all over the globe in various "investments" besides his $100 million 401(k).

      Of course, Mitt will never let us know about all his financial dealings, not even his tax returns. Why, if he did that, all those mean Democrats would do is start attacking him.

      And wouldn't that be just so awful?

      Delete
  6. You know, this may be somewhat off-topic, but after I read the comments here, I am reminded of a person (whose name I can't recall) speaking of the various JFK assassination conspiracy theories.

    This person said that at least to some people there is comfort in thinking that it takes a grand conspiracy involving vast numbers of highly skilled "professionals" to kill the president of the United States, rather than some nutcase perched in a window with a mail order gun.

    Likewise, maybe we don't think the world is such a dangerous place if we believe that the attack in Benghazi took such a long time in the planning that the CIA did know, or should have known about it, and we could have taken some action to prevent it.

    Unfortunately, the world is neither that simple nor that safe.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Romney/Ryan = Plutora.. er, Plutocrats ! Read Chrysta Freeland 's book by the same name to know why.

    ReplyDelete