KILLING THE PIG: The AP bungles some new information!

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2012

Gets helped by baboons at Salon: Yesterday, right around noon, new information surfaced about the killings in Benghazi.

The AP’s Kimberly Dozier reported. Here’s the way she started:
DOZIER (10/19/12): CIA found militant links a day after Libya attack

The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.
In her first paragraph, Dozier said that the CIA reported, within twenty-four hours, that the Benghazi killings were “carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob.”

Forgive us for standing aside from the mob. But that’s pretty much what Susan Rice said on that week’s Sunday programs!

On Face the Nation, Rice stressed, several times, that she didn’t yet have all the facts. But when gave the current assessment, she seemed to say that the serious violence started when extremist elements (i.e., militants) arrived on the scene with heavy weapons:
RICE (9/16/12): But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what— It began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video.

But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
In Rice’s account, a spontaneous protest was underway when heavily-armed extremists showed up—militants. That’s when the real violence started.

In fairness, there is one point of ambiguity in Dozier’s opening paragraph. Was “a spontaneous mob” on the scene at all? Or was no one there but the militants?

What was the CIA saying about that point in the early days after the killings? A good deal later in Dozier’s report, she seems to clear that up:
DOZIER: U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that "it was clear a group of people gathered that evening" in Benghazi, but that the early question was "whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd," and it took until the following week to figure that out.
According to Dozier’s new information, Rice’s statement on Face the Nation seems to have comported with the state of the intelligence. Within the first week after the attack, intelligence still seemed to think that a spontaneous crowd may have present before the militants arrived. Intelligence said it was the militants who carried out the attack.

That’s pretty much what Rice said on the Sunday shows—unless you read Dozier’s report. Remarkably, this is the fuller start to yesterday’s report:
DOZIER (10/19/12): CIA found militant links a day after Libya attack

The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went. The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.
That highlighted statement is hard to parse. Obviously, the Benghazi killings weren’t carried out by “the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world.”

It’s hard to know what Dozier meant by the word salad she oddly produced. According to Dozier, the administration maintained that the murderous attack in Benghazi “was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks.”

We have no idea what that could mean—but sometimes, word salad serves a purpose. Plainly, Dozier makes it sound like the administration was contradicting the state of the intelligence.

That doesn't seem to be true. But that's sure the way it sounds at the start of Dozier's report.

We’re sorry, but it’s just as we’ve told you: When ugly right-wing attacks gain purchase, compliant journalists frequently bend to their will. They may produce strange jumbles of words—salads designed to make it sound like the right-wing claims have merit.

So it seems to have happened with Dozier. In just the second paragraph of her report, she makes it sound like the administration was contradicting intelligence in the early days after the attack. But as we’ve shown you, Ambassador Rice went on TV and repeated the state of the intelligence, at least as it is described in Dozier’s new report.

Rice isn’t mentioned in Dozier’s report. For the most part, Dozier examines what the CIA was reporting to Congress. She focuses on testimony by CIA head Petraeus.

But last night, on CNN, a flash mob seized what Dozier wrote—and they spent the next twenty minutes trying to kill a pig named Ambassador Rice. (Real target: Obama.) Before we return to the bad things they did, let’s look at yesterday’s new information as it’s presented by David Ignatius, who writes more clearly than Dozier.

We'll review Ignatius in our next post. At any rate:

On September 16, Rice seems to have comported with the state of the intelligence, as least as it is reported by Dozier. Unless you let yourself get tricked by familiar jumbles of words.

How dumb is the career liberal world: How dumb is the career liberal world?

Can we start with hopelessly dumb? Yesterday, Salon simply reprinted Dozier's report, without a word of comment. Be sure to note the incriminating headlines the baboons at Salon dreamed up:
SALON (10/19/12): CIA found militant link a day after Libya attack

Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack came by spontaneous a [sic] mob

WASHINGTON (AP) — The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press...
Yes, Salon actually posted those headlines. Even ignoring the typo, the Romney campaign couldn't have penned headlines which were more incriminating.

The administration did not maintain publicly for a week that the attack came from a spontaneous mob. Just go back and read what Rice actually said.

But that's what Dozier hoped you would think—and the apes at Salon were buying!

Good God! Our liberal team is just helpless! We tell you our team is hopelessly dumb—but your lizard brain won’t believe us.

9 comments:

  1. The problem is the deliberate and repeated mentions of the video and mobs it ignited. There is no reason to mention it unless the intent is to use it to try to establish that the attacks were something other thanb foreseeable planned terrorist attacks (on 9/11).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I happen to think it's not just an either/or case of "spontaneous mob" or "forseeable planned terrorist attack."

      Good grief, if there is one thing we should have learned by now about these small scale attacks that do big damage, is that there are all kinds of militias and terrorist cells all over the place and if you want the CIA to know what each and every one of them is planning, well, good luck.

      And moving it even closer to home, Timothy McVeigh's bombing in Oklahoma City was quite well-planned and he had a lot of help. Foreseeable? I don't see how unless you are willing to give up a lot of the rights we all hold dear.

      Remember also that Libya just went through a revolution and there are all kinds of militias out there will all kinds of military hardware.

      But at the same time, I am not willing to let Rice totally off the hook. She should have said, "There is an investigation underway, we'll get to the bottom of this, find out who is responsible and hunt them down." Then shut her yap.

      Instead, she keeps talking about what the incomplete investigation has shown "so far" knowing full well that the investigation is far from complete, while still trying to qualify that as some sort of escape hatch in case further information completely contradicts what she knows "so far."

      Delete
  2. I will agree that you are right on the details and analysis. I have been angry however because from the beginning I thought President Obama both fooled the United Nations Security Council into thinking a no-fly zone would not mean a war on Libya and Obama never asked Congress for approval of a war on Libya. I thought the war was illegal and still do, and that makes for no sympathy for Susan Rice or Hillary Clinton who supported the fooling of the UN and illegal war we waged.

    Also, the Ambassador should have been properly protected and was not and it was clear Libya was still chaotic and violent after the war.

    I am distressed with Obama on foreign policy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. KILLING THE PIG: The AP bungles some new information!
    SATURDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2012

    *Gets helped by baboons at Salon:* [* emphasis mine]
    -----

    >>> joan walsh has not been in a management position at salon since 2010 in case somerby is making an allusion to her with the use of "baboon" as a dog whistle substitute for americans-with-irish-catholic-heritage to bigots in his readership. i forget the new persons name but it isnt iriish-catholic sounding. he could have some green in him, but its at least not obvious, which is what the bigots like somerby play on.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dubious:

    "Baboon" is clearly meant as the pejorative that it normally stands for, as a person with below-average intelligence.

    Bob has used the term before: "Have we mentioned the fact that cable “news” hosts treat us rubes like baboons?"

    Substitute "americans-with-irish-catholic-heritage" in there and then substitute it with "persons of below average intelligence" and see which one makes more sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, you must be new here. dubious, aka, "lower case guy" is legitimately insane. It's best to ignore his "contributions."

      Delete
    2. Anon 8:42,

      as the sheep says, you sound like you might be a new howler reader. this is somerby-world -- youre being much too logical. and get a little meaner for god sake. anybody who disagrees with the star is either stupid or crazy, or both in my case, got it?

      if you notice, i used the qualifying phrase '*in case* somerby is...”. im not a mind reader and you could be right that somerby had no such intention. on the other hand, to my recollection he has singled out walsh much more than he has spoken about salon *even after she left management there in 2010*. my impression is that he has intentionally continued to wrongly evoke walsh as a symbol of salon. [i think her status now is as a editor-at-large. she can contribute as she wishes, but is no longer editor-in-chief with editorial control of others work.]

      further, and very importantly anon, the simian image has traditionally been used to denigrate americans of irish-catholic heritage.

      last week i politely mentioned her current status to another commenter who seemed to believe she still had a level of control at salon. . . . beware reading sophists or long form bs artists like somerby and brooks in the same way you would most people. they are *very* clever and will sneak nonsense into your head if you dont read with a critical attitude. you can be very intelligent and still get suckered by them if youre not on your guard.

      if you wonder why im as harsh as i am in my assessment of somerby, you only have to search the incomparable archives of this site, including the *pre-combox* version, 2011 and before:

      google:

      site:dailyhowler.com irish catholic

      he is and has been for many years a flamboyant and proselytizing anti american-with-irish-catholic-heritage bigot. but at the same time, in fact because of this, he is a patriotic american to be fair, but a very small man. he is particularly offensive to me owing to his claims to have irish-catholic heritage himself, on his mothers side.

      beyond the overt bigotry, i believe he *may* be a trojan horse right winger, capitalizing on his reputation as a liberal which hes accrued wrongly thru his sophistry.

      if he is not a right winger ideologically, i feel he *may* be on the payroll of interests who wish to whitewash the medias (and posssibly others) *true* role in the damage which they have been a party to inflicting on the country. he does this principally by blaming the front people instead of the management of the media companies who hire and then can fire at will any journalist who doesnt cooperate with them.

      Delete
    3. OK, good!! The octoroonist is still on the case!

      Keep us posted, we eagerly await your next racist screed!

      Delete
  5. Your style is very unique compared to other people I have read stuff from.
    Thank you for posting when you've got the opportunity, Guess I'll just book mark this site.


    my website ... merino wool clothes

    ReplyDelete