Emails show White House told within 2 hours of Benghazi attack that militants claimed responsiblity.

[No Elephants]

Not as bad as it may sound at first, though.

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails

By Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:11pm EDT

(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

<snip>

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

<snip>

There were indications that extremists with possible al Qaeda connections were involved, but also evidence that the attacks could have erupted spontaneously, they said, adding that government experts wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.



<snip>

MISSIVES FROM LIBYA

The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department's Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.

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."

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."

<snip>

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."

<snip>

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.


<snip>


(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Mary Milliken and Jim Loney)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

In the early hours of September 12, I saw a news story online about "government sources" attributing the attack to Al Qaida or a group similar to, or sympathetic to Al Qaida. Whether that was Reuters or not, I do not know, but I was checking a variety of news sources for posts to make here.

Then, I heard for weeks about some hapless Egyptian Copt who made a bad video. I thought I was in the Twilight Zone.

Later, I read that the CIA was ticked about the movie story because CIA agents had made the correct assessment from the jump. So, I am not sure if the leaker of the emails was Issa or someone connected with Issa or whether top secret keepers leaked the emails.

[Enthusiast]

1. Boil it down for us.

What does this all mean to you, No Elephants?

[No Elephants]

2. Are you asking for my opinion? I have no facts that are not in the OP.

So, opinions are all I can offer, for whatever they are worth, which may be nothing.

The news story equivocates. On the one hand, it says that the intelligence from the jump was that the attack was by an extremist group. (And, Obama's Rose Garden speech somewhat reflected that.)

But, the story also says that the first things that you hear from the scene often prove to be wrong, which makes a lot of sense.

For the two weeks following the Rose Garden speech, though, we (and the rest of the world) heard an awful lot about a spontaneous demonstration over a bad video and free speech (the video) versus self restraint (aka self censorship).


Why did we hear about a video, free speech, etc.? There has been no report of the WH's having received any intelligence attributing the attack to the video.

Unless and until we hear a report of that kind, I can only assume that the WH and/or the State Department created that story for some reason.

At bottom, I think there was some deliberate deception of the general public, Americans and the rest of the world, but was the motive for the deception evil?

Not necessarily. The story about the video could have been an investigative tool, something put out there to lull the perps, so that they would get overconfident while the CIA was quietly investigating to find who and where they are? Maybe until some Seal team or drone can take them out?

Cops do that kind of thing all the time.

Then again, maybe not. Maybe the deception was for a bad motive. I just have no way of knowing the motive.

I do think it was kind of crappy as to Muslims in general, though, to pretend they attacked us and killed four of our people because of some video.

[Enthusiast]

3. The GOP is trying so hard

to create a "Obama is weak on terrorism." meme. They want another election like in 1979. They have as much as said it.