I’d like to give you my take on two components of the Benghazi ™ Scandal Series – the YouTube Scandal and the Video Scandal. - after Kos' devilish orange squiggle thing.
The YouTube Scandal
The latest Benghazi Witch Hunt chaired by Trey Gowdy was inspired by the White House release of an attempt by the White House to have the offensive video “Innocence of Muslims” taken down because of its impact on the Arab world. The source of this information is a White House email that was recently obtained after a suit by Judicial Watch. This email occurred during the attack on the Temporary Mission at Benghazi. YouTube took the video down for many Middle Eastern countries, including Egypt, the next day.
One possibility for the email is explained by Issa, who said “the email shows the White House had hurried to settle on a false narrative -- one at odds with the conclusions reached by those on the ground -- before Americans were even out of harm’s way or the intelligence community had made an impartial examination of available evidence.” In other words, the first reaction of the White House, while the attack was still going on, was to figure out a way to spin the media away from Obama’s weakness.
Perhaps his hatred for all things Obama clouded his judgment. Let me present two other possibilities, but let’s add a little context.
The video prompted outrage in the Muslim community. Americans seem to forget that Muslims take their religion very seriously. There were over 40 protests against the film, and most were at American diplomatic facilities. Over 50 deaths occurred, and over 690 were injured. On the day of the Benghazi attack, the US Embassy in Cairo was attacked because of the video. Egyptians scaled the walls, entered the grounds, and tore down the US flag and replaced it with an Islamist flag. There were no reports of deaths or injury. The embassy tweeted “We firmly reject the actions of those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.” The Tweet was later taken down.
A second possible explanation for the White House email is that it was a response to the Cairo protests. That protest was most definitely caused by the video and resulted in the breach of a US Embassy. It is not unreasonable that the White House might try to get the video taken down because of the Cairo protests, which occurred several hours before the Benghazi attack.
A third possible explanation is that the White House was convinced that the Benghazi attack was caused by the video. They may have been influenced by the Cairo protest, and thought that an attack and a protest in the same country on the same day had the same cause. There were also four independent press reports that came from reporters on the ground which I will discuss below. Perhaps they got information from the reporters, either directly or indirectly. No reason has been given for the White House having the initial reaction that the video was the cause of the attack. However, Hillary Clinton did make a statementfrom the State Department during the attack which stated “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”
I’m sure there are other possibilities, but let’s just examine these three. Which is more logical? 1) A White House, while US facilities are under attack, tries to spin Obama’s weakness by emailing to have a video taken down – and then doesn’t release the email until sued by Judicial Watch. 2) The White House, alarmed by the Cairo protests, acted. 3) The White House, for some reason feeling that the video was the cause for the attack in Benghazi, acted.
Was The Video A Factor?
It seems that common wisdom now concludes that the video was not the cause. The main reason for this appears to be that the attack must have been pre-planned in order to be so successful. However, four independent reports from on the ground in Benghazi said that the video was the cause. Which is more believable?
Pre-Planned
Benghazi in 2012 was controlled by militias and was awash in weapons. The war had been over for a year, but there was no government control. The militias’ members were battle-hardened soldiers who had recently defeated Kaddafi. The Temporary Mission was easily accessible and had few defenses. The attackers blocked off surrounding streets. The initial attack took the Libyan “guards” for the Mission off the playing field and about 100 armed soldiers attacked the Mission and the remaining seven Americans from two sides.
Is this an attack that could be planned and executed in a few hours? My opinion is that any militia in Benghazi could pull it off. All you have to do is find three or four trucks that are running to carry men and equipment and round up 100 armed guys mad at the US. With over a dozen militias with tens of thousands of members, it’s unlikely that would be a problem. Planning? Block it off, get the “guards” out of the way, hit from two sides. This is a five minute planning job for any decent military unit. This could be an end-of-chapter exam for terrorist school.
Another reason to consider whether this attack was pre-planned was the lethality of the attack. There were seven Americans in the Mission and 100 attackers. Two Americans died – but they were killed by smoke inhalation. The attackers may not have even known that the Americans were in the Safe Room when they set the building on fire. No other Americans were killed at the Mission. It seems to me that most terrorist attacks attempt to have a large body count. It seems that a well-planned attack would have had an emphasis on killing the remaining five Americans. The militia had artillery at the Mission, so they could have easily blown every building – and everyone in the buildings – to bits.
Video
On the other side, we have four independent reporters on the ground in Benghazi that night who reported that the attack was caused by the video.
From the New York Times – Sept 12, 2012. “Fighters involved in the assault, which was spearheaded by an Islamist brigade formed during last year’s uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, said in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon.”
Reuters reporter Hadeel Al-Shalchi,interviewed on NPR on September 13th, said “The majority of those people said two things. They said, first of all, why did the United States allow something like this movie to happen? Because at the end of the day, almost everybody here believes that it was a reaction to the movie that - and they believe that the United States had a responsibility to stop the production or...”
On Al Jazeera, producer Suleiman El Dressi reported from Benghazithat “ a group of people calling themselves as "Islamic law supporters" heard the news that there will be an American movie insulting the Prophet Mohammed. Once they heard this news they came out of their military garrison and they went into the street calling [unintelligible] to gather and go ahead and attack the American consulate in Benghazi. “
The fourth report is from Ansar Al-Sharia, the group who most blame for the attack. Although pulled the next day, the militia posted on its Facebook and Twitter feeds claiming responsibility and urging an attack on the Embassy in Tripoli.
Both theories cannot be true – the attack could not have been planned for a long time and in response to the video. You decide – can a group of soldiers plan and execute an attack like this in a few hours”? If the video was not the cause, why did the reporters on the ground – and the attackers – say it was?
Is there anything we need another Benghazi Investigation about? Oh, the protest? The famous Rice Talking Point was “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
There was a demonstration in Cairo. There was an assault in Benghazi that was inspired by the protests in Cairo. There was no protest in Benghazi.
Could we please get back to important things?