Yes. We did. That has come to public light as we have begun to see the debriefs and testimony of the AFRICOM personnel involved, including General Hamm.
We could guess, but they didn't even have a look at the video for a week or more.
You're speculating, and what we KNOW about that now certainly wasn't KNOWN at the time in the immediate aftermath.
Actually I am not. I knew at the time who it was, and that information has since been made publicly available - as I linked earlier.
As for the intent of the attack, that is sort of modern terrorism 101.
Ayman al-Zawahiri - "despite all of this, I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma."
A tactical objective of stopping CIA activities? :shrug: perhaps. Why they would need to launch that kind of assault against a buy-back program is rather beyond me.
You're conflating all attacks for all kinds of reasons into one big category of "terrorist" attack. That's a huge mistake IMO.
Not really - I am pointing out that terrorism has common features, especially across like groups.
You can't be serious. This is exactly why I quit taking BENGHAZI!!! seriously long ago. They are not in the same universe, and efforts to equate them are just obvious BS. We effectively declared war after the GoT incident, causing deaths of over a million Vietnamese, about 60,000 U.S. dead, another 150,000 wounded. This "lie" lasted two or three WEEKS and it's effect on the big picture was nil.
It's effect on the big picture may have been to save a presidential campaign. I agree that the impact of that is not the same as the impact of the Vietnam war, it is like only in its nature and intent.
This wasn't an embassy. And if it was routine, why did Petraeus skip the memorial for his own dead employees?
Consulates, too, especially in non-ally nations. As for Petraeus skipping the memorial, I don't know. I don't know what the CIA's policy is - I know that generally they refuse to acknowledge if someone is, is not, was, or was not an employee; that may be part of it. Nor am I sure that what you are attempting to argue logically follows - do you think that the Presidents' refusal to send a representative to attend the funeral of General Greene was an attempt on his part to deny that there is a conflict in Afghanistan?
But you can't say even years later what the CIA was doing, or if what they were doing was the actual target of the attack. You're speculating.
:roll:
Secretary Clinton already included that in her testimony - they were trying to soak up the Gaddafi regime weapons, particularly MANPADS through a buy-back program.
OK, so on the front end the WH spun the story, and in 2 or 3 weeks they gave the story you wanted.
On the contrary -
they waited until safely after the election to come clean.
Again, I'll concede in an election year this hits the "Give a damn" meter but why it pegs 10 and stays there two years later, and coming up on two years after that election, is a mystery.
:shrug: I don't know of anyone who considers it a 10 - and I know quite a few people who are... pretty bitter...
But it is a legitimate story, it is a serious scandal, it is worthy of notice, and yes, it does still belong on the give-a-damn meter.
Or it would be if the reason wasn't obviously to hang this on Hillary, and continue to beat Obama about the head with it.
:shrug: If Hillary runs, this will certainly get more play. As it should - in 2008 she ran as the woman whom Americans wanted answering the 2 am phone call. She at the very least would owe (if she wanted to be President) an accounting of how she went about answering it when that call came.