This is the second in a series of "After Benghazi" musings. The first one may be found here.
Was there a cover-up? The first reaction for most Rantburg readers would be a variation of "yes". But let's start at the beginning, or rather, at the immediate aftermath of the attack, for the sake of mental exercise.
The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was initially blamed on Muslim outrage over a relatively obscure movie that depicted the prophet Mohammed in an unfavorable light. The producer of that movie was arrested late at night by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies on charges unrelated to the movie; he is still in jail.
According to a September 11, 2012 New York Times article, the movie was "a 14-minute trailer for the English-language film, which was posted on YouTube in July, attracted little attention until... a version dubbed into Arabic was posted...then copied and viewed tens of thousands of times more." The movie was given a great amount of attention by "religiously sensitive individuals" on Egyptian television. Ironically, before the protesters attacked the Cairo compound, the U.S. mission in Cairo had issued a statement saying "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."
In any case, Muslim anger at that movie was the reason given for the violent Salafist demonstration (accompanied by pro-Al Qaeda chanting) at the US embassy in Cairo. That same reason was immediately applied to the attack on the Benghazi consulate. Later, Ambassador Susan Rice made the rounds of the talk shows that were to be broadcast Sunday, also linking the Salafist demonstration at the US embassy in Cairo with the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.
Was there a cover-up at this point? It's hard to say. There are at least four parties involved: State, the CIA, the Department of Defense and the White House. All of the "Four Horsemen" have coinciding and competing objectives, plus each of them has a reason to protect their own turf.
First, the CIA: the initial CIA assessment and its revisions consistently stated "currently available information suggests that the demonstration in Benghazi was spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo." It also said the CIA advised that based on its intelligence an attack in the region would take place, with Cairo being a prime target, and with a "precarious" Benghazi also on the list. That statement was later dropped, likely due to displeased officials in either the White House or State, who viewed it as a 'CYA moment'. The CIA initially also did not want to acknowledge that two of its personnel had died during the attack on the 'consulate annex', which press reports revealed to be a CIA facility.
As for the White House, it claimed "mistakes were made", saying it did not handle the Benghazi attack well both during and afterwards, and blamed it on "incompetence and confusion" and an "overabundance of caution". ("We're portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots. It's actually closer to us being idiots," claimed one anonymous staffer.) The list of errors ranged from standing down the Foreign Emergency Support Team (the order came from within the State department but no one will own up to who gave that order), failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, an inter-agency War-on-Terror task force reportedly relegated to second-class status by the Obama administration, the National Security Council in particular. Other failures were stalling the release of requested Benghazi 'talking points' to Congress, and a mis-named "Dream Team" of experts from various agencies that were to be used to brief Congress but ended up fumbling their duties, plus a few other issues dealing with unfortunate semantics and wordplay.
The White House, for its part, said it had agreed and signed off on the CIA's initial assessment in the Benghazi talking points for use by both Congress and Ambassador Rice, a statement reinforced by the President's spokesman.
The Third Horseman, the State Department, had engaged in some pre-emptive self-protection by its memo condemning the anti-Mohammed movie prior to the Cairo demonstration. It's highly likely that State did indeed 'massage' the released assessment and the subsequent talking points, ostensibly for turf protection (i.e., to keep Congress off State's back) and to prevent State from shouldering the blame. In any case, the talking points were excised of the words "terrorism" and "al Qaeda", as well as the CIA's 'warning'. Again, the Foreign Emergency Support Team, supposedly useful for a situation like the Benghazi consulate attack, had been called off by State, but no one would say who called the team off.
The last Horseman, the Department of Defense (DoD) also engaged in some self protection, primarily because it reportedly had no assets available to provide timely interdiction in the Benghazi attack (including a rapid-reaction force that was training in Croatia). While that is still being debated, it appears the DoD was not engaged in the assessment process.
What about the press? Was there a cover-up by the press? If by 'cover-up' there was an active effort by the press to suppress information, there's no clear evidence. Certainly there was an admission by various and sundry correspondents, columnists and news professionals that they viewed the reactions to the Benghazi attack and criticism of the various follow-ups by the "Four Horsemen" as politically motivated. There was some inside baseball: CBS posted an article online from Slate by John Dickerson, Slate's chief political correspondent (who also happened to be CBS' political director), stating that the White House had signed off on the full CIA assessment, but State had not. The implication made by Mr. Dickerson is that State was responsible for the changes in the released assessment and Ambassador Rice's talking points for reasons of "ass covering" (both of the Department and the Secretary of State) and to keep a hostile Congress out of the way. The press was also influenced by the fact that it was an election year, and given the political atmosphere within the Beltway that also permeates the general media (with the exception of a few reporters like of CBS' Sharyl Attkisson), the media went with its usual political biases.
Was there a cover-up? Not in the sense of a Nixon-Watergate moment. Not in the sense of everyone getting into a smoke filled room in the wee hours of the morning to forge an agreement, or clandestine meetings out by the D.C. reflecting pool, or phone calls and emails from bogus accounts, or another JournoList-style "let's coordinate stories".
What we saw in the immediate aftermath is what, based on personal experience, passes for business-as-usual in Washington: spin, turf-protection, egotism, bureaucracy, job protection, passing the blame and incompetence. The legislative and executive branches were once again at loggerheads, with the former asking questions and demanding answers, and the latter stalling or refusing. Business-as-usual is what likely cost General Petraeus his job as head of the CIA, as well as the retirement of many senior officers.
Most importantly, it was also an election year, where getting (re)elected is what mattered. The administration, the State Department, and the media viewed the Benghazi attack and its mishandling as a weapon in the hands of the Republican party and potential disaster to the President's re-election. Based on that, it was a cover-up, where the objective was to stall, delay, or deny until after the election, no matter how many metaphorical bodies piled up. Rather unfortunate for the real bodies that were flown into Andrews air base, some of them in caskets. But that's politics.
The question remains, though. What about now? For that, we need to look at what's currently going on. That's for the next article.
#3
The money quote: "business-as-usual in Washington: spin, turf-protection, egotism, bureaucracy, job protection, passing the blame and incompetence."
#4
The only thing I'd add to Glenmore's list is "Turf expansion". This kind of incident offers many opportunities to grab more power and status. Since those two things are the be all and end all of the politico/bureaucratic mindset any opportunity will be siezed.
If there were 35 CIA operatives in Benghazi, maybe concealment of what they were doing gave no other option but deflection, even if viewed as a ham-handed coverup.
As for the DOD, what about the rumor of an officer, Gen. Carter Ham as I recollect, being abruptly relieved that night?
Posted by: Frank G on the road ||
08/06/2013 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#10
In this case I don't think it's the cover up that condems them anyway. Its not worse than the crime of denying the go ahead for units on standby to enter the area and assist.
I'm still amazed no high ranking military resigned right afterwards (or disobeyed orders and helped).
#12
A good, concise review of the facts. Thank you.
I read today on Breitbart that the film maker has been released from jail on "supervised" parole, or something like that. But I just looked again and I can't find the article or any link to it.
I feel badly about the people who died. I'm concerned and suspicious about what our people were really doing in Benghazi.
But for me, the most frightening aspect of this episode is the lack of respect for the first amendment. How can Clinton or Obama or any of them expect Egypt to become a democracy unless they understand the concept of free speech? Or, in reality, did they ever expect any such thing? Nonetheless I was appalled that officials in the United State government would apologize to anybody in Egypt or any other foreign country for anything, let alone free speech or U.S. Constitutional rights. The whole thing tells me that Obama is no better than Morsi or Putin and that is truly chilling.
#13
why would the facility be attacked by Al Qaeda?
Why indeed. Could be if the mission was to destroy weapons, then the attack would work to save those weapons from destruction.
If this was operation 2Fast2Furious, what if it wasn't AQ but a Syrian/Iranian/Russian job to not only shut down the arms transfer to Team Syria Rebels but also a snatch & grab for proof of the USA involved in illegal weapon transfers but as bargaining chips to prevent any future plans with openly arming TSR, cutting a supply route and maybe even ending non-military aid.
#14
if the CIA operations were to the benefit of Al Qaeda-associated rebels in Syria, why would the facility be attacked by Al Qaeda?
I raised that question yesterday; it appears to also have appeared at a few other sites.
The one possibility is that an Al Qaeda-associated militia attacked the consulate, assuming the annex was an intel facility, or not entirely aware that the CIA was engaged in either the shipping of, or stopping the flow of, or restricting the flow of certain, weapons.
[Ynet] Would the US agree to release 104 Guantanamo prisoners for negotiations with anyone?
Here is a list of reasons why Secretary of State John F. I was in Vietnam, you know Kerry Former Senator-for-Life from Massachussetts, self-defined war hero, speaker of French, owner of a lucky hat, conqueror of Cambodia, and current Secretary of State... 's Mideast peace plan is unfairly flawed in ways that endanger Israel:
Continued on Page 49
[Ynet] Temporary closure of US embassies in Mideast, North Africa amid terror threat may be overreaction
In light of the September 11 attack on the American Consulate in Libya and the murder of the ambassador, President B.O. and his administration are not taking any chances. Washington's decision to keep several embassies and consulates in the Middle East and North Africa closed on Sunday and the travel warning issued by the State Department are the result of the interception of electronic messages relayed between senior al-Qaeda operatives. The terror group's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri ... Formerly second in command of al-Qaeda, now the head cheese, occasionally described as the real brains of the outfit. Formerly the Mister Big of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Bumped off Abdullah Azzam with a car boom in the course of one of their little disputes. Is thought to have composed bin Laden's fatwa entitled World Islamic Front Against Jews and Crusaders. Currently residing in the North Wazoo area. That is not a horn growing from the middle of his forehead, but a prayer bump, attesting to how devout he is... , made a call to specifically target US and other Western destinations as Dire Revenge™ for drone strikes, mainly those conducted in Pakistain, Yemen and Afghanistan.
Several officials told CNN the fresh intelligence led the US to conclude that operatives of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula were in the final stages of planning an attack against US and Western targets.
The current terror warning is focusing on al-Qaeda's Yemen-based branch, whose leader died a few months ago as a result of injuries he incurred in a drone strike. The warning has also led Britannia to close its embassy in Yemen for at least two days. Intelligence information indicates that a UK mission may also be targeted.
The location of the Western embassies that are expected to remain closed on Sunday indicates that three main al-Qaeda-affiliated groups are involved in the terror plot:
1. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
2. Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria, which also poses a threat to Israel.
3. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
It is safe to assume that the warnings are based on intelligence information received from Internet messages and perhaps even coded phone conversations. This communication between senior al-Qaeda operatives is hard to decipher. Intelligence agencies, even the best and most experienced, misinterpret these missives from time to time. It is known that the Americans are not always able to decipher the messages, and that is precisely why they decided on the far-reaching measures, particularly in light of the fact that the timing of the planned terror attack and the identity of those who are supposed to carry it out remain unclear.
The absurdity is that by playing it safe the B.O. regime is handing a huge victory to the terrorists, who are achieving their goal without moving from the carpet they are sitting on and without endangering the organization's operatives. The temporary closure of embassies and the travel warning for Americans and Britons give al-Qaeda a psychological victory.
Al-Qaeda has recently experienced a resurgence after recovering from the devastating blow it was dealt with the killing of the late Osama bin Laden ... who is now sometimes referred to as Mister Bones... . The American withdrawal from Iraq, the civil war in Syria and the expected pullout from Afghanistan have not only boosted the terror group's morale, they have also created new zones in which al-Qaeda has the support of the local population. Therefore, regional terror groups affiliated with al-Qaeda can now regain their operational ability to carry out terror attacks.
Why has al-Qaeda decided to attack now? Because of the month of Ramadan, because of the devastating American drone strikes (15 such assassinations were conducted over the past month alone -- three in Yemen), and because of the upcoming anniversaries of the September 11 attacks on US soil and in Benghazi. It appears that there is no truth to the claim that the purported terror plot is linked to US President Barack Obama We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us... 's birthday on Sunday.
This is not the first time Qaeda-linked terror groups have planned to simultaneously attack Western embassies. It happened in 1998, in Kenya and Zambia. In response, President Clinton ordered a missile attack on an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan.
It must be noted that the interception of the messages would not have been possible without the sophisticated systems operated by the National Security Agency. American intelligence leaker Edward Snowden exposed some of these surveillance programs, including PRISM, which intercepts electronic messages relayed between terror groups. The use of the systems was criticized in the US and around the world for their invasion of privacy, but it is clear that these systems, which are used not only by the US and Britannia, save lives.
The US is treating the information provided by these systems with the utmost seriousness, and justifiably so, but it may have overreacted this weekend due to the Benghazi effect.
Israel has not issued a travel warning or taken any unusual measures, indicating that security officials in the Shin Bet and Military Intelligence believe the probability of something happening on Israeli soil, or in Israeli embassies abroad is not high.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Was there a cover-up? The first reaction for most Rantburg readers would be a variation of "yes". But let's start at the beginning, or rather, at the immediate aftermath of the attack, for the sake of mental exercise.
[Ynet] Would the US agree to release 104 Guantanamo prisoners for negotiations with anyone?
Zawahiri
