Skip to main content

View Diary: NEWS:Intelligence Community -- Not White House, State, or Justice -- Changed Benghazi Talking Points (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The 'spontinaety' part was also valid (25+ / 0-)
    The senior intelligence official said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the consulate.

    “We believe the timing of the attack was influenced by events in Cairo,” the senior official said, reaffirming the Cairo-Benghazi link. He said that judgment is repeated in a new report prepared this week for the House intelligence committee.

    Here’s how the senior official described the jumble of events in Benghazi that day: “The attackers were disorganized; some seemed more interested in looting. Some who claimed to have participated joined the attack as it began or after it was under way. There is no evidence of rehearsals, they never got into the safe room . . . never took any hostages, didn’t bring explosives to blow the safe room door, and didn’t use a car bomb to blow the gates.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
    •  That was written October 19th (5+ / 0-)

      Petraeus' own testimony contradicts most of it.

      In closed House and Senate hearings last week, former CIA Director David Petraeus indicated that US intelligence officials knew from the start that terrorists had carried out the attack, according to lawmakers who spoke with reporters after the hearings.
      http://www.csmonitor.com/...


      A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

      by Pluto on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 09:48:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How do we define terrorists? (5+ / 0-)

        Apparently, the Cons want them defined by their ability to plan ahead and coordinate an attack in this instance, while most of the time they are content to rely on whether fear and terror are engendered in the populace. The latter actually makes the terrorist a convenient ally in the effort to intimidate and subordinate. People who can plan ahead are much more fear inducing in our instinct-driven "leaders" because they themselves tend to be lacking in that area. They are afraid of planning anything (including parenthood) because they are not good at it and seem to confuse it with wishful thinking. Planning implies knowing how things work. Our instinct-driven creatures of habit aren't good at that. What they are good at is responding to prompts with well-practiced responses. It's what makes them responsible.

        We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:15:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right (0+ / 0-)

          Is any attack a terrorist attack? That seems to be the current definition for Republicans. Unless it involves someone bombing an abortion clinic.

          I think this is a carry-over from the Bush fear machine - everyone is a terrorist. But by labeling everyone a terrorist, we lose sight of who the terrorists really are. And we know Republicans are all about labeling people and events.

          Was McVeigh a terrorist? Did he commit a terroristic attack? What about the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building in Austin - was he a terrorist?

          This is the biggest problem with Republican's current line of attack about Benghazi - most Americans don't really care what label is applied to those who attacked the consulate. They want them brought to justice and measures taken to make sure it does not happen again.

      •  What is contradicted??? (0+ / 0-)

        I have seen no one say the attack was pre-planned for the 11th. The attackers say the protests in Cairo, called each other, and decided then to attack.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site