And there were people in the CIA saying that it was, which is why the talking points given to Susan Rice by the CIA included those statements.
For me, the map indicates how very unusual it would be for there not to be a protest in Libya on a day when protests against the video were so ubiquitous across the Muslim world.
Interestingly, there's an article in today's NYT still saying the video was a primary cause of the attack:
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
^A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times
the AQ moniker is favored by the Republicans (according to the NYT), the dereliction in security is manifest, hanging out in east Africa,One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.
with Libya police providing security was just culbably stupid.
It's hard to differentiate between the militias, this is from WIKI
Ansar al-Sharia (Libya) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAnsar al-Sharia was formed during the Libyan civil war and rose to prominence after the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi.
On September 11, 2012, the United States Department of State Operations Center advised the White House Situation Room and other U.S. security units that Ansar al-Sharia was claiming responsibility for the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi that had just occurred. Witnesses said they saw vehicles with the group's logo at the scene of the assault and that fighters there acknowledged at the time that they belonged to Ansar al-Sharia.[
so you have direct input into the WH Situation Room that Ansar al Sharia , led the attack, Which was never mentioned, it was "spontaneous", according to the WH, and Rice.
They had to know about the Libyan militia groups, they chose to down play it into "a spontaneous demonstration gone bad"
It was pre-planned. The WH had to know this, as the knowledge from State was sent to the Situation Room (done by Ansar al-Sharia)
One could argue over the video point, and it's pretty clear that was the talking point - nothing about the rise of militia rule after the Qaddafi assassination.
Stick to the talking points, like Rice did, even as the WH had to know it was more than that, when she went on the Sunday shows.
The real failure was the Libyan war itself, but Americans refuse responsibility for that - calling it the "liberation" of Libya.
The crime was the war, not the dissembling about the video. The piss-poor security in Bengazi..well you can make up your own mind on that.
Oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ
as for Hillary: her inability to testify otherwise then "what does it matter" speaks volumes.
By the time of her testimony, she could have easily explained how theWH talking points came out.
She chose to deflect, not accept any responsibility, and cover up for the incompetence of Rice/Clinton/Obama.
C'mon. just come clean, but the hawks never will, because once they did, the whole Libyan "liberation" would unravel.At one point, Hillary Clinton exploded in barely contained fury:
“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” Clinton asked the Republican Senator. “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again
Oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ
I guess all the American of bombs were just a figment of the imagination.
The U.S. Has Dropped 76% of the Bombs in Libya - The Wire
US drones bombed Libya more than Pakistan ? RT USA
US & Nato forces dropping Depleted Uranium Bombs on Libyan Population |
30,000 Bombs On Libya
Remember Libya: How US-NATO Destroyed an Entire Country Under a Humanitarian Mandate | Global Research
Not only did the US destroy Libya, we did it based on lies no differently than what we did in Iraq .. AND, we used Al Queda to do it.
“No people can be both ignorant and free.”
- Thomas Jefferson
"Kinetic Military Action", if you want to split hairs..
Libya: it's not a war if Americans can't get hurt | Jonathan Schell | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Nonetheless, the Obama administration insists it is not a war. Why?
Because, according to "United States Activities in Libya", a 32-page report that the administration released last week, "U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterised by those factors."
In other words, the balance of forces is so lopsided in favour of the United States that no Americans are dying or are threatened with dying.
War is only war, it seems, when Americans are dying, when we die. When only they, the Libyans, die, it is something else for which there is as yet apparently no name. When they attack, it is war. When we attack, it is not.
Oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ