HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Is Susan Rice contradicti...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:57 PM

 

Is Susan Rice contradicting Libyan officials?

WASHINGTON — A deadly assault on a U.S. consulate in Libya was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim video, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Sunday, even as Libya's president insisted the attackers spent months preparing and carefully choosing their date – the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Unnerved by the rapidly escalating raid on Tuesday that claimed the life of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, the Obama administration last week launched an investigation into whether terrorist groups had exploited outrage over an anti-Muslim video to trigger an attack long in the works.

But Ambassador Susan Rice said evidence gathered so far shows no indication of a premeditated or coordinated strike. She said the attack in Benghazi, powered by mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, appeared to be a copycat of demonstrations that had erupted hours earlier outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, spurred by a YouTube film attributed to a California man mocking the Prophet Muhammad.

"It seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons," Rice said, adding that such weaponry is easy to come by in post-revolutionary Libya.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120916/us-us-prophet-film/

Film protests were cover for two-part militant attack, Libyan security official says

BENGHAZI, Libya -- The attack that killed four Americans in Libya, including the U.S. ambassador, was an organized two-part operation by heavily armed militants that included a precisely timed raid on a supposedly secret safe house just as Libyan and U.S. security forces were arriving to rescue evacuated consulate staff, a senior Libyan security official said on Thursday.

Wanis el-Sharef, eastern Libya's deputy interior minister, said the attacks Tuesday night were suspected to have been timed to mark the 9/11 anniversary, with militants using civilian protests of an anti-Islam film as cover for their actions. Infiltrators within the security forces may have tipped off militants to the safe house location, he said.

He said an unspecified number of militants suspected of taking part in the attack have been arrested and that others were being closely monitored by police to see whether they are linked to a group. He refused to elaborate.

Ambassador Chris Stevens and another American were killed in the consulate during the initial violence, as plainclothes Libyan security were evacuating the consulate's staff to the safe house about a mile away, el-Sharef said. The second assault took place several hours later and targeted the safe house -- a villa inside the grounds of the city's equestrian club -- killing two Americans and wounding a number of Libyans and Americans.

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_21535538/film-protests-were-cover-two-part-militant-attack

Can both these accounts be correct or has the Libyan account been deemed to be incorrect? Or are they just ahead of us in the investigation?

20 replies, 2363 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is Susan Rice contradicting Libyan officials? (Original post)
dkf Sep 2012 OP
elleng Sep 2012 #1
leveymg Sep 2012 #2
dkf Sep 2012 #4
ProSense Sep 2012 #5
dkf Sep 2012 #6
ProSense Sep 2012 #8
leveymg Sep 2012 #7
ProSense Sep 2012 #10
leveymg Sep 2012 #12
ProSense Sep 2012 #3
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #11
ProSense Sep 2012 #19
Comrade Grumpy Sep 2012 #17
ProSense Sep 2012 #18
Comrade Grumpy Sep 2012 #20
cthulu2016 Sep 2012 #9
peace begins with me Sep 2012 #13
cthulu2016 Sep 2012 #14
jody Sep 2012 #15
BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #16

Response to dkf (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:58 PM

1. Something like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:22 PM

2. Rice's account also contradicts the original State Dept report, before they put a lid on it. Here:


http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/12/senior_officials_reveal_details_of_harrowing_battle_at_benghazi_consulate

Senior officials reveal details of harrowing battle at Benghazi consulate
Posted By Josh Rogin Wednesday, September 12, 2012 - 6:12 PM Share

Tuesday's attack by militants on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was complex, raged for more than four hours, and included multiple attempts to retake the main consulate building, according two senior administration officials who briefed reporters Wednesday afternoon.

Amid the chaos, the whereabouts of Ambassador Chris Stevens, who died in the attacks, remained unknown until the next morning, the officials said.

"We want to make clear that we are still operating within the confusion of first reports. Many of the details of what happened in Benghazi are still unclear," one of the officials said to start the briefing. "The facts could very well change as we get a better understanding."

The officials then proceeded to detail what they said was the U.S. government's current understanding of how the events in Benghazi unfolded. The officials declined to confirm reports that the administration believes the attack was planned in advance, but they described an extensive and complicated effort by well-armed and seemingly well-informed attackers that caught them by surprise.

At about 10 PM local time (4 PM EDT), the compound in Benghazi began taking fire from "unidentified Libyan extremists," the official said. Fifteen minutes later, the assailants had gotten inside the compound and began firing on the main building and setting it on fire.

Although there are usually 25 to 30 people working on the compound, at the time of the initial attack, only three people were inside the main building: Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and an unidentified State Department regional security officer. They became separated in the thick smoke inside the main consulate building and only the regional security officer was able to get out, the official said.

The regional security officer returned to the building with more security personnel to try to rescue Stevens and Smith.

"At that time they found Sean. He was already dead, and they pulled him from the building" the official said. "They were unable to locate Chris before they were driven from the building by the fire, the smoke, and the continuing small arms fire."

At about 10:45 local time, security personnel assigned to an annex that was part of the compound made another attempt to retake the main consulate building but they took heavy fire and returned the mission annex, the official said.

At about 11:20 local time, they made another attempt to retake the building, this time with the support of Libyan security forces. They did secure it and proceeded to evacuate the remaining embassy personnel to the annex.

Around midnight local time, the annex itself came under attack. The ensuing gun battle lasted for two hours and resulted in the deaths of two more "U.S. personnel" that the officials said were State Department personnel.

With the help of more Libyan security forces, the situation was finally under control by about 2:30 a.m. local time, but the ambassador was nowhere to be found.

"We believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a Benghazi hospital. We do not have any information about what his condition was at that time," the official said, adding that he U.S. government doesn't know who brought Stevens to the hospital, only that it wasn't Americans.

Around daybreak Stevens's body was handed over to "U.S. personnel" at the Benghazi airport. snip

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:34 PM

4. Thanks for the info.

 

Very very eye opening material you are posting. Its much appreciated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:38 PM

5. Where exactly is the contradiction?

From the piece you linked to:

The officials then proceeded to detail what they said was the U.S. government's current understanding of how the events in Benghazi unfolded. The officials declined to confirm reports that the administration believes the attack was planned in advance, but they described an extensive and complicated effort by well-armed and seemingly well-informed attackers that caught them by surprise.


Then from the NYT article linked in that paragraph:

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. Their attack followed by just a few hours the storming of the compound surrounding the United States Embassy in Cairo by an unarmed mob protesting the same video. On Wednesday, new crowds of protesters gathered outside the United States Embassies in Tunis and Cairo.

Seem exactly the case that these militants used a protest as cover to escalate the violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:44 PM

6. Spontaneous vs pre-planned. That is the contradiction.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to ProSense (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:46 PM

7. Contradiction is in Rice's statement that "it was a spontaneous - not premeditated - response"

Ambassador Susan Rice: Libya Attack Not Premeditated
Source: ABC News

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #7)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:51 PM

10. I asked

where is the contradiction in the information you linked to: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1356886

The fact is that the piece clearly states that there was no confirmation that the attacks were planned. The piece also linked to an article that states the interviews indicate that this was done in conjunction with the protest.

It seems a clear case of exploiting protests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:01 PM

12. "It seems a clear case of exploiting protests' in a planned way.

I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:32 PM

3. Interesting that you would phrase it that way

Given the Libyan President is making statements that seem more designed as political cover.

The attackers used the protesters outside the consulate as a cover, he says.

<...>

Megarif claims evidence shows that some elements of Ansar al-Sharia, an extremist group in eastern Benghazi, were used as tools by foreign citizens with ties to al-Qaida to attack the consulate and threaten Libya's stability.

Ansar al-Sharia rejects the democratic process in Libya, and does not recognize the new Libyan government. Only God's law rules, it says. Still, U.S. officials have cast doubt on the theory, saying they see no links between the assault and al-Qaida at large. The spokesman for the U.S. president said Friday there was no evidence the attack was preplanned. Ansar al-Sharia has denied any involvement in the attack.

<...>

The toll of this crisis is evident on Megarif's face as we speak. He is in damage-control mode and expresses deep sadness and apologizes to the American people.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/16/161228170/consulate-attack-preplanned-libya-s-president-says



Libyan President: Attacks Were Planned By Foreigners

Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf said the attacks earlier this week on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi were planned largely by foreigners in Libya in an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday. "It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival," Magariaf said.

Magariaf said that a about 50 people, many of them foreigners, have been arrested in connection with the attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said that there is not yet evidence that the attacks were premeditated in an appearance on "Face the Nation" after Magariaf.

"We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned," Rice said, adding that the best evidence they have is that the protests were "spontaneous."

"It looks like extremists elements joined in that effort with heavy weapons... and it spun from there into something much, much more violent," Rice said.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/libyan-president-attacks-were-planned-by-foreigners

I find it fascinating how many people are trying to spin this into a terrorist attack, which is exactly what the neocons are also trying to do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021341115#post67
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1343473



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:57 PM

11. People are just looking at the various official statements which so far, don't

reach any real conclusions. I hope the truth is NOT covered up but I do agree that it is in the interests of the Neocons to push the 'terror' aspect of the claims, since this was their very own invention to keep the American in a state of fear, willing to go to war anywhere.

And if the Libyan president is correct about 'foreign money' and I believe the Egyptians are saying that the protesters 'were paid' also. And looking at how these protests sprang up so spontaneously in so many countries, but were relatively small, I would be looking for the money trail first.

I would not be surprised if it led back to the usual suspects who have been very vocal lately.

One of the reasons why it is important to prosecute war criminals is so that they cannot continue to work against this country so freely.

People should start reading the rantings of Michael Ledeen over the past number of months.

He is more than thrilled I'm sure to see these protests all over the place.

I would be interviewing people like him as possible suspects. After all it's not as if they never staged mob scenes before to back up their lies.

Who could forget their 'crowd' scene in Iraq welcoming the invasion?

And where is Chalabi and the Prince of Darkness these days? They have 'friends' all over the place who would be willing to get a little crowd together in various countries to make Obama look bad. He is refusing to let Netanyahu one of the major Neocons on the world stage, dictate US foreign policy. That would be enough for them to take great joy in seeing all this supposed unrest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:45 PM

19. You nailed it, and

it makes about as much sense to speculate without the facts as Romney did in jumping the gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:40 PM

17. Spin this into a terrorist attack!?!?

Reflexive defense of all things administration leads to silly results sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #17)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:42 PM

18. Yeah, after all

every militant is a terrorist, right? Just ask Bush and the al Qaeda in Iraq before the war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #18)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:38 PM

20. Playing semantics.

The point is, this wasn't a mob action, it was a well-planned attack. You don't want to call them "terrorists," that's okay with me. I have issues with the whole "terrorist" terminology, but I'm just using the common locutions.

Rice appears to be either mistaken or deliberately obfuscating what really happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:51 PM

9. Rice is saying a little less than it appears she is saying. (She's a diplomat.)

When you parse her statements they don't quite say what they imply. They could mean that the whole thing was spontaneous riot with no pre-planning, or they could mean that five people showed up at the embassy spontaneously before a meticulously planned attack took place.

What is interesting is it is presumably not in the diplomatic interests of the US, or the political interest of the WH, or both, at this time, for it to be considered an islamist terrorist action.

I have no opinion as to whether that is sound thinking. It may be the perspective calculated to best minimize interest in the story, and thus further protests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)


Response to peace begins with me (Reply #13)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:17 PM

14. This is the first 'truthism' post I ahve ever seen on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:19 PM

15. The spontaneous attack required extensive planning. To say otherwise is a lie. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:27 PM

16. I think it clearly fits the basic definition of a terrorist attack

But does that necessarily mean that there was an elaborate plan behind it? No. I personally think this was an opportunistic attack by people who had the anger and the weapons and were just looking for an opening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread