Here is an account from the recent documents released about the attack in Benghazi.
According to Reuters, here is the timeline of information give to Washington:
The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began - carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning "Sensitive But Unclassified."On October 25, 2012, I heard John McCain call it a "dereliction of duty."
The text said the State Department's regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was "under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well."
The message continued: "Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four ... personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."
A second email, headed "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi" and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that "the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared." It said a "response team" was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.
A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."
The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."
While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president's secure command post.
Other addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used by the FBI command center, the source said.
It was not known what other messages were received by agencies in Washington from Libya that day about who might have been behind the attacks.
Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.
By the morning of September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, Reuters reported that there were indications that members of both Ansar al-Sharia, a militia based in the Benghazi area, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African affiliate of al Qaeda's faltering central command, may have been involved in organizing the attacks.
Dereliction
1. Willful neglect, as of duty or principle.
2. a. The act of abandoning; abandonment.
b. A state of abandonment or neglect.
None of us knows at this point, of course.
· Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” Writing on August 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time, “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape … The individual incidents have been organized,” he added, a function of “the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”
“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.”
· By September 4, Stevens’s aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.
Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against western [sic] interests.” “Until the GOL [Government of Libya] is able to effectively deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely to continue and worsen.”
· After the U.S. consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing had “described the attack as ‘targeting the Christians supervising the management of the consulate.’”
“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the ambassador wrote, adding “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities …”
· In the days leading up to 9/11, warnings came even from people outside the State Department. A Libyan women’s rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis, confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: “For the first time since the revolution, I am scared.”
From the 166 hellish pages we see a stack of warnings, via multiple cables sent to D.C. from Chris’s own laptop about which diddly was done—and that being after prior bombings of the Red Cross and our own compound and an assassination attempt on the British ambassador. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. This is gross and inexcusable.
If what happened in Benghazi on 9/11 was not an act of terror, or an act of war, I don’t know what is.
Here are some some posts from an earlier time.
It is reasonably clear that the attacks in Egypt and Libya, and later Yemen, are part of coordinated attack. Therefore, the reference to a "movie" is not particularly significant. It was a pretext to do what the organizers wanted to do, which was to attack the United States, commit an act of war, on their own soil. The Embassy is officially American soil. Apparently, they could not launch another major attack in America, so they chose another 9/11 to attack American soil on their own territory. We need to remember that 9/11, a day of mourning in the USA, is a day of celebration in the Muslim world. "We are all Osama bin Laden," the crowd said. He is the hero of this revolution. Which raises an interesting question. If the President is so concerned with the religious feelings of Muslims, why does he keep celebrating that he made the decision to kill bin Laden, the hero of so many Muslims?
Here is the full response of the Cairo Embassy:
"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."
As one author commented: Apologies by the innocent victims of violence are acts of submission that stoke demands for greater acts of submission, even in US culture. To some Muslims, including groups in Pakistan, the very existence of the US or Israel is an affront to their interpretation of Islam and "hurts their religious beliefs." There is no way to avoid hurting their religious sensibilities.
Further, does freedom of speech have a limit at what might offend someone? I trust not. I am sure that for some people, my belief in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior is an offense. What disturbs me about this statement is that it is politically correct, but has nothing to do with the events of that moment. Regardless of their reason for storming the Embassy, they had no righ to do so. The continuing support by the Administration of this statement, in light of later events, is disturbing. It appears that the Administration is apologizing for the fact that we have freedom of speech. When on a news release I heard one of the demonstrators in Libya say that the President "allowed" the offensive movie, and another saying that killing is what happens if you speak against the Prophet, I knew that these people are not ready for genuine democracy.
Hilliary Clinton responded in the following way:
"I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack. ... Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."
Later, she said:
“The U.S. government had absolutely nothing to do with this video,” Clinton said at a meeting in Washington with a delegation from Morocco. “We absolutely reject its content and messages. But there is no justification — none at all — for responding to this video with violence.”
Over at MSNBC a consensus broke out when contributors Mike Barnicle and Donny Deutsch as well as University of Pennsylvania professor Anthea Butler all agreed that the people behind the video should be indicted as accessories to murder. "Good Morning," declared Butler, "How soon is Sam Bacile [the alleged creator of the film] going to be in jail folks? I need him to go now."
Barnicle set his sights on Terry Jones, the pastor who wanted to burn the Koran a while back and who was allegedly involved in the video as well. "Given this supposed minister's role in last year's riots in Afghanistan, where people died, and given his apparent or his alleged role in this film, where ... at least one American, perhaps the American ambassador is dead, it might be time for the Department of Justice to start viewing his role as an accessory before or after the fact."
Deutsch helpfully added: "I was thinking the same thing, yeah."
It's interesting to see such committed liberals in lockstep agreement with the Islamist government in Egypt, which implored the U.S. government to take legal action against the filmmakers. Interestingly, not even the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Egyptian government demanded these men be tried for murder.
Clinton is apologizing for American free speech. MSNBC contributors want to silence speech. This is what the leader of Egypt wanted Americans to do. According to the Washington Post, Morsi also denounced the film and called on “the American people” to “declare their rejection” of such provocations. His Muslim Brotherhood movement joined other groups in calling for major but peaceful anti-U.S. demonstrations Friday.
Here is the problem. America defends its nut jobs to have the right to be nut jobs. Morsi would have already had them killed because they offended Islam. We should not apologize for our position. In fact, we should "defend to the death" the right of people to hold such positions.
Mitt Romney had the following statement:
This attack on American individuals and embassies is outrageous. It's disgusting. It breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served, during their lives, the cause of freedom and justice and honor. We mourn their loss and join together in prayer that the spirit of the Almighty might comfort the families of those who have been so brutally slain.
The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached; protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it's a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values; that instead -- when our grounds are being attacked and being breached -- that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. An apology for America's values is never the right course.
The White House also issued a statement saying it tried to distance itself from those comments and said they were not reflecting of their views. I had the exact same reaction. These views were inappropriate. They were the wrong course to take. It's their administration. Their administration spoke. The president takes responsibility not just for the words that come from his mouth, but also for the words that come from his ambassadors, from his administration, from his embassies, from his State Department. The statement that came from the administration was a statement which is akin to apology, and I think was a severe miscalculation.
"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi," it says. "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
This statement, seeing it on television, reminds me of what a President of America is supposed to say in a time like this. Romney "looked Presidential," as some have said. I concur. For those who think he should not, I would remind of past Democrat criticism of the Bush foreign policy during the election, in which the theme was something like criticism being the highest form of patriotism.
Obama responds:
"I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. ... They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives. I have directed my administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe.'"
I am not predicitng the effect of all of this on the election. However, a review of what led to the defeat of Jimmy Carter and the election of Ronald Regan will reveal that the Iran hostage crisis made a significant contribution. I am more concerned with the way America relates to the Muslim world, but the events of the past few days has the potential of being a Jimmy Carter moment for this President.
No comments:
Post a Comment