In the Arena

The Last Word on Benghazi

  • Share
  • Read Later

Certain Republicans–the neo-conservative war hawk faction–have spent the past year or so trying to blow the tragic deaths at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, into a scandal of some sort.

These have been ludicrous in the extreme. John McCain compared the episode to Watergate. But a recent extensive report in the NY Times found no organized attempt by Al Qaeda to attack the consulate. And now we have this, from the latest budget deal:

Despite the concern over security after the 2012 attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi, Libya, the spending bill earmarks less to embassy security, construction and maintenance than it allotted for fiscal 2013 — $2.67 billion, down by $224 million.

I mean, if the neoconservatives are so concerned about the safety of U.S. diplomats, why don’t they put their money where their mouths are? The Benghazi tragedy should have led to a serious conversation about embassy security, and how much risk U.S. diplomats should be allowed to take in order to be part of the communities where they’re serving. But, as usual, we’ve had the Big Bellow from Fox and friends…which adds up to precisely nothing, except a smokescreen.

94 comments
wasn'there
wasn'there

Incompetence is incompetence  is incompetence regardless of what conjectures one creates of uses to dismiss or justify....

Were you there? I was not there nor was I responsible for the now demised protection. the was ball dropped or they wanted it 

dropped either way it's called incompetence. One would likely have to had to have been in several places at the same time to know exactly what happened. Those who were involved don't have to speak against their own culpability, now do they.

MikeScott2
MikeScott2

It's all about money with you libs and you misspend it anyway.  That is what got us into trouble to begin with.

carolo43
carolo43

There remains one major question I can't get an answer to.   If Ambassador Steven's felt at all threatened, why was he at the consultant at all?   He was free to go between the consultant and the Embassy whenever he wanted so why would he not go to the heavily fortified Embassy with more guards and the Libyan army closer?   Why would he stay at this consultant with minimal security unless he also did not foresee what danger was there.


What happened was tragic but all embassy-consultant attacks are tragic just as the 13 attacks during the Bush administration was tragic.   We have had Army bases attacked when hundreds of armed solders were available and it did not prevent an attack.    The towers was attacked twice and also Fort Hood and we could not prevent those attacks on our own soil.    Thousands died on a war based on "weapons of mass destruction"  but we accepted it and moved on.   Benghazi is simply something the Republicans simply must hold onto and dwell on forever because it's all they have for talking points but personally I am tired of all the dancing on the graves of dead men hoping for some political gain.


manslagt
manslagt

"These have been ludicrous in the extreme. John McCain compared the episode to Watergate."

That is ludicrous. No one died in Watergate.


"I mean, if the neoconservatives are so concerned about the safety of U.S. diplomats, why don’t they put their money where their mouths are?"

This is an extremely moronic comment. There was enough spent on security in Benghazi in 2012. Money wasn't the issue. And money spent today isn't going to bring those four men back.

Slo Joe is merely displaying his silliness again.

thomasvickers1
thomasvickers1

Thanks Joe....directly to the point, but with sufficient perspective...and complete honesty

Wouldn't it be nice if the rest of the media followed your lead and stopped letting Republicans perpetuate their fraud.

curt3rd
curt3rd

Mantis

Its not letting me reply so I had to do it up here.

"He called it an act of terror"

Thats funny. He called it an act of terror once and claimed it was spontaneous because of a youtube video for 2 weeks. Also, you said the video was released to Jihadi website prior to 911. It was on youtube for 6 months, no one needed ot release something that is free to veiw by the whole world online for 6 months


 

ChrisJackson
ChrisJackson

This a moronic piece.  The New York Times story was bogus and it was confirmed so when the transcripts of testimony were released this week. It was NEVER thought to be about a YouTube video. It was always known as a terrorist attack. Obama sycophants will point to Obama labeling it a "act of terror" in the Rose garden the next day as if that eliminates the two plus weeks afterward they tried to sell a lie.  One mention of terror vs. 200 mentions of a YouTube video. What was the message being sent?

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@MikeScott2It wasn't the libs that inherited a surplus and turned it into a once in a lifetime fiscal collapse. Better lies please.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@manslagt

What will bring the 4500 men who died in useless war in Iraq or the 241 men who died in a useless mission in Beirut?

curt3rd
curt3rd

@thomasvickers1 Honesty.  Thats funny because Obama and his administration has been so honest about this from day one

carolo43
carolo43

@curt3rd ........Obama called it an act of terror the day after the attack and again the day after that when in FL.   And this is the same thing Bush called terrorists attacks .......BTW.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rdAnd the two are mutually exclusive? The video was created in July but uploaded to the websites used by Jihaddis a day before 9/11. Why and by who?

jmac
jmac

@ChrisJackson The right's cry on Benghazi is stymied by the facts getting in the way.  To base your entire investigation on the assumption that the video wasn't involved at all even though "Egyptian satellite television networks popular in Benghazi were already spewing outrage against it" and the fact that the diplomats were clearly relying on their contacts to warn them if anything serious was going to happen and the CIA compound a half mile away were also relying on personal contacts as they concentrated on  al Qaeda  instead local militia groups (who turned on them).  


A political witch hunt has to have facts.   Since your witness has already been debunked (and lost two people jobs at 60 minutes) the continuing Benghazi cry makes your side look as stupid as denying climate change - and also immoral as you deny funding for the very issue you're whining about.  

manslagt
manslagt

@mantisdragon91@curt3rdIt has already been established that the video played absolutely no role whatsoever in Benghazi. Anyone who continues to parrot this lie insults the family members of those killed.

curt3rd
curt3rd

@mantisdragon91 @curt3rd No one briefed the President about a youtube video.  Where did that come from?  Please  just try and answer that question and not change the subject

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@manslagt@mantisdragon91@curt3rdAnd yet the Senate commitee report says otherwise Who to believe them or you?


The Senate committee report stressed that the intelligence still suggests the attack was not “highly coordinated,” but rather “opportunistic” – possibly put in place in “short order” after protests over an anti-Islam film elsewhere in the region.



manslagt
manslagt

@mantisdragon91@curt3rdAnyone who starts a sentence with "as Media Matters noted..." deserves to be laughed off this and any other forum. Media Matters' CEO and president is an admitted liar.

curt3rd
curt3rd

@mantisdragon91 " Why did hundreds of angry men suddenly decide to attack the first US compound they could find?"

Not suddenly,  It was a planned attack by terrorist



mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd@mantisdragon91Yes it was a Terrorist Attack. But what caused the attack? Why did hundreds of angry men suddenly decide to attack the first US compound they could find?

curt3rd
curt3rd

@mantisdragon91 @curt3rd

The transcript reads as follows:

WENSTRUP: "As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack."

HAM: "Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack."

WENSTRUP: "And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?"

HAM: "Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir."

Once agian .  This was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack

curt3rd
curt3rd

@mantisdragon91 @curt3rd Im done with your delusions.  If you want to live in lala land with your imaginary secret spy friends, thats your decision.  Have fun

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd@mantisdragon91Of course it is a terrorist attack. By definition any act of aggression against us is a terrorist attack. And yet it does not disprove the simple fact that for weeks afterwards the CIA believed it was caused by the video.

curt3rd
curt3rd

@mantisdragon91 @curt3rd Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation's top civilian and uniformed defense officials -- headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama -- were informed that the event was a "terrorist attack," declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president's Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd@mantisdragon91The final document came from the White House the info used from the CIA.



“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “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.”


The CIA document went on: “This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.” This may sound like self-protective boilerplate, but it reflects the analysts’ genuine problem interpreting fragments of intercepted conversation, video surveillance and source reports.

curt3rd
curt3rd

@mantisdragon91 @curt3rd So you agree. The talking points came from the White House.  They lied.  Also, I would like to point out that shortly after Petraeus said the talking points came from the White House he was forced to resign

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rdJust for you  the initial CIA reports


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

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.”

The Benghazi flap is the sort of situation that intelligence officers dread: when politicians are demanding hard “yes” or “no” answers but evidence is fragmentary and conflicting. The political debate has focused on whether the attack was spontaneous or planned, but the official said there’s evidence of both, and that different attackers may have had different motives. There’s no dispute, however, that it was “an act of terror,” as Obama described it the next day.

“It was a flash mob with weapons,” is how the senior official described the attackers. The mob included members of the Ansar al-Sharia militia, about four members of al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, and members of the Egypt-based Muhammad Jamal network, along with other unarmed looters.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd@mantisdragon91The CIA told the president. What part don't you grasp?


However, as Media Matters noted, the CIA's reference to the Benghazi attack being "inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" proves that the intelligence community itself believed that a link existed between the attacks and the film. The "protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" were part of a series of global riots and protests in Muslim countries that were partly in response to increased awareness of the anti-Islam video. As prior media reports have noted, Ambassador Rice used the CIA's information during numerous television interviews on September 16.

curt3rd
curt3rd

@mantisdragon91 @curt3rd Who told the president?  It was a simple question and yet you refused  to answer it yet again.

Also, media matters says "currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests"

Notice the word "suggest"  That doesnt make it a fact and it still doesnt mention the Youtube video

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd@mantisdragon91 No one? Sure about that?

 http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/07/fox-news-falsely-suggests-cia-never-linked-beng/193953

In the final version of the document, that bullet read:

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. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.


mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ChrisJackson@mantisdragon91


Using fire and movement is standard drill that anyone with combat experience would know. And the local militias have plenty of recent  combat experience. That does not indicate any kind of preplanning.

jmac
jmac

@ChrisJackson @mantisdragon91  "The Ambassador was aware of dangerous groups in the area as his emails show. "


Yes, he was.   You'd have to be an idiot not to be aware signs in your face.   But he, like the CIA, was relying on their informants to warn them if an attack was coming.   PLus - "The Benghazi =-based CIA team had briefed Mr. McFarland and Mr. Stevens as recently as the day before the attack."   They were concentrated on the wrong groups (biggest militia leaders and Libyans suspected of ties to al Qaeda) AND IGNORING THE VIDEO.  




ChrisJackson
ChrisJackson

@mantisdragon91@ChrisJacksonThat's not what those who were there said."Guys were coming into the compound, moving left, moving right...and using IMT (individual movement techniques). ... That's not a spontaneous attack. One guy was shooting, one guy was running. There are guys watching the gates. ... The bosses on the ground were pointing, commanding and coordinating--that is a direct action planned attack."


or what Panetta said. 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/27/world/africa/libya-consulate-attack/index.html


Keep spinning for Barry though. It's mildly entertaining.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ChrisJackson@mantisdragon91Yes poorly planned. They couldn't get into the safe room where the ambassador was housed nor did they know the layout of the compound. And there are hundreds of rocket launchers and mortars floating around Benghazi after the armories were looted at the start of the uprising. How hard do you think it would be to grab a couple to take advantage of a target of opportunity?

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ChrisJackson@mantisdragon91Yep on 9/11. How many 9/11s have we had since the original with no attacks. This was a local attack that was poorly planned and coordinated. That points to a spontaneous rather than planned event.

ChrisJackson
ChrisJackson

@mantisdragon91@ChrisJackson On 9/11???? Please. LMFAO. You can't be that gullible.  The Ambassador was aware of dangerous groups in the area as his emails show. Well before the "video" made the scene.


mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ChrisJackson@mantisdragon91Yet again you cling to the term "terrorist attack" By definition it was a terrorist attack. And yet odds are it would not have happened if there was not chaos throughout the region caused by a video.

ChrisJackson
ChrisJackson

@mantisdragon91@ChrisJackson No they didn't. You have already been corrected about Petraeus and the Libyan President said is was terrorist attack immediately and scoffed and the "video" narrative. Just because the New York Times found a few nitwits a year and a half later that they could spoon feed for their defend Hillary campaign doesn't change that.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ChrisJackson@mantisdragon91And yet the CIA and the Libyans who lived there felt otherwise. So yet again the question is very simple. Would the attack still have happened if there was no unrest in most of North Africa caused by the video? Because all sources point to a local militia group that took advantage of the chaos caused by a video.

ChrisJackson
ChrisJackson

@mantisdragon91@ChrisJacksonYes moron. There is plenty If you'd bother to actually read the testimony that was declassified, it clearly shows the YouTube video was a false narrative but you'd rather sit on here and defend stupidity. 

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ChrisJacksonSo yet again winger. Is there one shred of evidence that the attack would have happened if not for the unrest caused by the video? If not take your ODS elsewhere.

ChrisJackson
ChrisJackson

@mantisdragon91@ChrisJackson@curt3rd@jmac No assbag, the reality is you are an sycophantic Obama apologist who will not admit the obvious even when presented with overwhelming evidence. That's the reality. I guess you like be lied to for a couple of weeks. Most people don't but hey Hope and change genius.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ChrisJackson@mantisdragon91@curt3rd@jmac 

Here is the reality clown. Libyans thought the video caused the attack so did the CIA. I've read the house committee reports. The sheer fact that it was an attack makes it an act of terror. Thus the perpetrators are terrorists. Now show me proof that the attack still would have happened without the cover of the local unrest caused by the video.

curt3rd
curt3rd

@mantisdragon91 @curt3rd @ChrisJackson @jmac I cant believe you are still trying to push this lie. Obmas top Defense officials that briefed him on the attack never mentioned anything about a video that came out 6 months ealier

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ChrisJackson@mantisdragon91@curt3rd@jmac  

You might want to read and comprehend what this say. This is coming directly from people who were on the ground that night.


Al Jazeera: Attackers Were Responding To News Of "American Movie Insulting The Prophet Mohammed. On September 12, Al Jazeera producer Suleiman El Dressi reported from Benghazi:

About 11:30 PM, 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. 



mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd@mantisdragon91@ChrisJackson@jmacNow Curt merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the rights love affair with the clown from California.


More importantly the CIA specifically asked for the action to be labeled as resulting from the video, and much of the evidence on the ground that night showed that the video did lead to the unrest which the local militias used as cover for their attacks.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ChrisJackson@mantisdragon91@jmac  

The Ambassador chose to meet with the CIA that night. The CIA determined the size of the security detail for the meeting. They also had over two dozen ex special forces in the area that night. So how exactly does this have anything to do with Obama. And as a quick reminder of what Reagan did read and learn.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/01/30/aide-reagan-left-marines-vulnerable-in-beirut/

 A former defense secretary for Ronald Reagan says he implored the president to put Marines serving in Beirut in a safer position before terrorists attacked them in 1983, killing 241 servicemen.

"I was not persuasive enough to persuade the president that the Marines were there on an impossible mission," Caspar Weinberger says in an oral history project capturing the views of former Reagan administration officials.

Recollections of an initial 25 Reagan aides were released this week by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Altogether, scholars interviewed 45 Cabinet members, White House staffers and campaign advisers in a project begun in 2001, when Reagan was secluded with advanced stages of Alzheimer's disease. Reagan died in June 2004 at the age of 93.

Transcripts offer largely admiring portraits by Reagan's chief loyalists and Weinberger is no exception, crediting the president with restoring U.S. power and outfoxing the Soviet Union.

But he said one of his greatest regrets was in failing to overcome the arguments that "'Marines don't cut and run,' and 'We can't leave because we're there"' before the devastating suicide attack on the lightly armed force.

"They had no mission but to sit at the airport, which is just like sitting in a bull's-eye," Weinberger said. "I begged the president at least to pull them back and put them back on their transports as a more defensible position."

ChrisJackson
ChrisJackson

@mantisdragon91@ChrisJackson@jmacIt's rare that a veteran is an Obama sycophant but they are out there. Thanks for your service but you are wrong on this.  A vague undetailed threat is not the same as an Ambassador specifically asking for more security. Besides even if it were a past president's fault, how does that change the situation here? It doesn't.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ChrisJackson@mantisdragon91@jmacClown unlike you actually fought for this country with the 3rd armored cavalry in 91. I also remember how 241 marines and other service men died in Beirut when Reagan ignored warning and left them as sitting ducks for no reason at all. Spare me your fake outrage.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ChrisJackson@mantisdragon91@jmacI can do better than that. I have spoken to people in Mossad that saw hundreds of young men from Derna and Sollum headed to Benghazi after being whipped into a frenzy by local clerics over the video.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ChrisJackson@mantisdragon91@jmacActually many of the people on the ground though the video is exactly what caused the unrest.


New York Times:  "Libyans Who Witnessed the Assault And Know The Attackers" Say They Cited The Video. On October 16, in a story featuring Suliman Ali Zway's contributed reporting from Benghazi, Libya, the Times reported that according to "Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers," the perpetrators had cited their anger at the video as the reason for their actions:

To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.

''It was the Ansar al-Shariah people,'' said Mohamed Bishari, a 20-year-old neighbor who watched the assault and described the brigade he saw leading the attack. ''There was no protest or anything of that sort.''

United States intelligence agencies have reserved final judgment pending a full investigation, leaving open the possibility that anger at the video might have provided an opportunity for militants who already harbored anti-American feelings. But so far the intelligence assessments appear to square largely with local accounts. Whether the attackers are labeled ''Al Qaeda cells'' or ''aligned with Al Qaeda,'' as Republicans have suggested, depends on whether that label can be used as a generic term for a broad spectrum of Islamist militants, encompassing groups like Ansar al-Shariah whose goals were primarily local, as well as those who aspire to join a broader jihad against the West.

Reuters Reporter On NPR: "Almost Everybody Here Believes That It Was A Reaction To The Movie." One the September 13 edition of NPR's Morning Edition, the network interviewed Hadeel Al-Shalchi of Reuters, who "ha[d] been talking with authorities and protestors." According to Al-Shalchi, Libyans who visited the ruins of the diplomatic facility linked the attack to the film. From Morning Edition:

AL-SHALCHI: In Benghazi at the consulate, the consulate is now not secure at all, like, you can walk in and out of it. And people all day yesterday were doing that. They would come, sort of take a stroll inside the grounds, you know, take pictures and little videos of the damage.

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...

STEVE INSKEEP (HOST): This is a film that was spreading on the Internet that was seen as insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Go on.

AL-SHALCHI: Exactly. And so they said, why did this happen? But in the next breath, they say: But we don't condone this kind of thing. There are civilized ways to show and express our anger, and this is not one of them. This should never have happened.

Al Jazeera: Attackers Were Responding To News Of "American Movie Insulting The Prophet Mohammed. On September 12, Al Jazeera producer Suleiman El Dressi reported from Benghazi:

About 11:30 PM, 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. 

Associated Press: "Witness Accounts... Suggest The Militants May Have Used The Film Controversy As A Cover For the Attack." An October 27 Associated Press account bylined Tripoli, Libya, reported that witness accounts both "corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault" and "suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack." From the article:

There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.

One of the consulate's private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him "an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet."

The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.

[...]

A day after the Benghazi attack, an unidentified Ansar al-Shariah spokesman said the militia was not involved "as an organization" -- leaving open the possibility members were involved. He praised the attack as a popular "uprising" sparked by the anti-Islam film, further propagating the image of a mob attack against the consulate.

ChrisJackson
ChrisJackson

@mantisdragon91@ChrisJackson@jmacI don't need a dictionary chief.  The point is it was NEVER thought to be about a video. It was a lie the administration tried to sell for over two weeks. Maybe that doesn't bother left wingers when it's their guy but this sort of thing should not be politicized.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ChrisJackson@jmac


Also, it's worth making an important distinction here.  By actually opening fire on an American Consulate, they technically were committing an Act of Terror and thus are Terrorists.  But then, a guy who walks to a theater in a Joker costume with a few heavy machine guns and starts mowing down movie goers is also committing an Act of Terror and thus is a Terrorist.  There is an important distinction between a Terrorist and a Professional Terrorist - a member of an Organized Terrorist Group.  There's also a world of difference between Al Qaeda member and a member of an Al Qaeda affiliate.  And there's a world of difference between a planned attack and an attack of opportunity.

All of which is to say that the complaints about Benghazi are asinine.  Sorry if you need a dictionary.



jmac
jmac

@ChrisJackson @jmac If the 'witness' is not credible his statement is junk.  Sport.  The loudest witness was totally, completely debunked as he lost two people their jobs on 60 minutes.   (They believed him and didn't do their homework).   Want your next "witness" on 60 minutes?   Bring him on.