Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Obama Administration Finally Admits Benghazi Was A Terrorist Attack


Yes, in other words all the nonsense we were fed by the entire administration from the President on down about this being a spontaneous attack based on some garbage worthy YouTube video was sheer bolshoi..and they're finally forced to admit it:

The Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was in fact "a terrorist attack" and the U.S. government has indications that members of al Qaeda were directly involved, a top Obama administration official said Wednesday morning. 

"I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy," Matt Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said Wednesday at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, in response to questioning from Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-CT) about the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.{...}
Committee ranking Republican Susan Collins (R-ME) declared at the hearing that she believes the attacks were planned well in advance and she referenced information she had received from U.S. intelligence officials behind closed doors.

"First, I will tell you that based on the briefings I have had, I've come to the opposite conclusion and agree with the president of Libya that this was a premeditated, planned attack that was associated with the date of 9/11, the anniversary of 9/11," she said. "I just don't think that people come to protests equipped with RPGs and other heavy weapons. And the reports of complicity -- and they are many -- with the Libyan guards who were assigned to guard the consulate also suggest to me that this was premeditated."

Collins said she was concerned by the lack of security at the Benghazi consulate, especially since there had been an attack on the mission in June and a more serious attack on the British ambassador's convoy as well. Olsen said the U.S. government was aware of the danger but not of impending attack that killed the four Americans.

"So there were reports detailing those attacks and detailing generally the threat that was faced to U.S. and Western individuals and interests in Eastern Libya from, again, armed militants as well as elements connected to al Qaeda," he said. "There was no specific intelligence regarding an imminent attack prior to September 11th on our post in Benghazi."

Just as I wrote earlier, this is using intel lingo to conceal the facts. What they had was not actionable intelligence, which is specific knowledge information that is enough to lead to proactive remedies like arrests, raids, or a drone strike. What they did have, in abundance was credible information,a warning signal that normally leads to extra precaution, vigilance and the avoidance of obvious risks.

This was an intelligence failure of major proportions.

Barry Rubin probably has the best and most plausible take on what happened in Libya:

Here’s what’s really shocking: there was so little American security presence on the ground. Why was the ambassador being taken out of his hiding place by Libyan forces that had no serious experience in counter-terrorist security and were badly infiltrated?

Here’s my theory: the Obama administration wanted to show that it was not some bullying First World government that looked down on the locals. Send in a platoon or two of crack U.S. forces? Why, that would insult the Libyans. Let them handle it themselves and that would show they were being treated as equals.

When the ambassador was killed, he was totally under the control and protection of Libyan security forces, accompanied only by two Marines. Doesn’t this strike anyone as strange? (The two Marines and the embassy public affairs officer were killed alongside him.) And after the ambassador was killed, a small force was sent in but operating only in partnership with a Libyan force (which seems to have been reasonably competent) to rescue the rest of the staff. But the Libyan commander himself noted that the terrorists apparently knew everything already about this hiding place, too.

An American security team should have been sent in to take out the ambassador and the others in a competent, professional manner rather than trusting Libyans who were: a) street guys a year ago who have had no training and experience, as well as b) deeply penetrated by the enemy force that simply could not be trusted. Remember that the on-site Libyan security forces simply ran away when the attack came.

Let’s be clear. Libya was the only Arabic-speaking country — maybe Iraq a few months ago — where the United States could have taken over protection without any political consequences. It is a real client state. And its security forces, being so new and so fully penetrated by the enemy, are probably the least competent. In contrast, when they let you get beaten up or overrun in Egypt, that’s on purpose.

So I wonder whether a serious investigation would discover that Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to show trust in Muslim allies — make them feel better about themselves, prove the United States wasn’t a bully but a real nice friend — and that led to the deaths of the Americans.

 Of course, that full investigation isn't going to happen. And if this was a terrorist attack, as the Obama Administration is now admitting, then it was obviously premeditated..unless you believe that a bunch of Islamist fighters showed up spontaneously armed with RPG's and heavy weapons.

No comments: