Benghazi Attack: No Anti-Video Protest

[jsteele]

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/09/state_department_no_video_protest_at_the_benghazi_consulate

"Prior to the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi late in the evening on Sept. 11, there was no protest outside the compound, a senior State Department official confirmed today, contradicting initial administration statements suggesting that the attack was an opportunistic reaction to unrest caused by an anti-Islam video."

I want to draw attention to this because it has numerous implications. I really think the Obama administration threw Muslims under the bus when it initially linked the attack to anti-video protests. That immediately led to much anger -- and multiple DCUM threads -- about Muslims' alleged inability to act rationally in the face of an insulting video.

It now appears that this was a well-planned attack by an al-Qaida affiliate. It was not the spontaneous act of a crazed mob unable to understand the 1st Amendment. In fact, the only mob action connected to the attack was by Libyan Muslims who attacked and burned the headquarters of the group blamed for the attack on the consulate.

I hope those individuals who were quick to condemn Muslims and perpetuate negative stereotypes will have a moment of reflection and act a bit more cautiously next time.

[Anonymous]

+1.

I also hope that when dealing with such serious matters as the killing of our Ambassador and others, the Obama administration will consider the consequences of placing blame where none is due in future.

[Anonymous]

Jeff,
I rarely agree with you but I have to give you credit for this one. The administration's first reaction of blaming Muslims and portraying Benghazi as religious fanaticism was sad and insulting.
It was terrorism plain and simple and they knew it. Thanks for telling it like it is

[Anonymous]

+1.

I also hope that when dealing with such serious matters as the killing of our Ambassador and others, the Obama administration will consider the consequences of placing blame where none is due in future.

While we are on this topic, why did our Ambassador, at work, have less security in Libya on 9/11 than Valerie Jarrett had on vacation in the US?

[Anonymous]

The Administration really did a huge disservice not only to Muslims but to the American people. They knew from the start this had nothing to do with the video but were happy to keep trotting out people claiming it was the video again and again.

The worst part is that I don't think they actually had a clue what was going on. It reminds me of the Clinton 2 a.m. commercial!

Or did they know what was going on but didn't want to cancel the campaign trip the next day? I just don't get it all and it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

[Anonymous]

The lack of coverage on the Libya story amazes me. Forget politics and who you cheer for. You have an attack on 9/11 on a Consulate where people die and there is barely a peep about it? We make a big deal every 9/11 since 2002 about the possibility of an attack and when one happens, we just shrug and act like it was nothing? Again, dont respond to me with Obama hate and Romney would do better. I dont care about Dem or Republican on this. This is absurd period.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:While we are on this topic, why did our Ambassador, at work, have less security in Libya on 9/11 than Valerie Jarrett had on vacation in the US?

I am quite sure that this is not true. According to Breitbart article, Jarrett had "five or six" secret service agents protecting her. According to the latest State Department account, Stevens was protected by "Five U.S. agents and four local militiamen."

I think attempts to politically exploit the Benghazi attack by any party are equally reprehensible.

[Anonymous]

Completely sucks.

[Anonymous]

Everyone should be watching this hearing and should review the testimony of Ms. Lamb which is on the Committee website. Completely amazing that this happened. Completely amazing the reaction from the administration afterwards too.

[Anonymous]

I am impressed the media has found a the cure for Stockholm Syndrome. The cure was been recently discovered at the University of Denver. The secret formula was a great debate between two candidates but, one candidate didn't participate. The cost: $16 trillion dollars. The value: priceless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1.

I also hope that when dealing with such serious matters as the killing of our Ambassador and others, the Obama administration will consider the consequences of placing blame where none is due in future.

To me this seems more of a serious campaign issue than whether Romney has released tax returns prior to 2009. Another example of Obama's failed leadership.

[Anonymous]

Obama tends to shoot his mouth off before he knows anything. Romney turned out to be right in the first 14 hrs. Obama wrong ...again just like "the police acted stupidly". Obama is very dumb.

[Anonymous]

Almost everything B O "knows" or believes turns out to be inaccurate , dumb, ineffective , blatantly false and moronic.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Obama tends to shoot his mouth off before he knows anything. Romney turned out to be right in the first 14 hrs. Obama wrong ...again just like "the police acted stupidly". Obama is very dumb.

I obviously don't support the Obama administration's reaction to the attack. But, if you think Romney turned out to be right, you are completely loony.

Think about it. Romney said that Obama was siding with those protesting the film. The Obama administration suggested that film protesters attacked the consulate. So, by extrapolation, Romney accused Obama of being on the side of those who killed Ambassador Stevens. If you think Romney was right about that, you are quite a few bricks short of a load.

As it turns out Obama wasn't on the side of the film protesters as Romney suggested. Rather, Obama was falsely accusing them of an attack they didn't commit.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While we are on this topic, why did our Ambassador, at work, have less security in Libya on 9/11 than Valerie Jarrett had on vacation in the US?

I am quite sure that this is not true. According to Breitbart article, Jarrett had "five or six" secret service agents protecting her. According to the latest State Department account, Stevens was protected by "Five U.S. agents and four local militiamen."

I think attempts to politically exploit the Benghazi attack by any party are equally reprehensible.

ITA with your last statement. Although your response does not negate my point, I perhaps could have been clearer. "Why did our Ambassador, at work, have fewer US security personnel in Libya...than Valerie Jarrett." While local militia are certainly considered security, they are not the same as US servicemen protecting US personnel and I find the discrepancy with Jarrett's detail distasteful.