The analysts said one thing.
"Officials" said another.
The analysts are professional and rose through the ranks. The officials are typically political appointees. (This would have been obvious 6 years ago.)
A terrorist attack against the US has political ramifications unless immediate action can be taken. If it's a huge, unifying attack, then it's a political opportunity for the folks in charge. If it's something small, like a barracks bombing in Beirut or attack on a mission, then it's probably not not a good political opportunity.
There might be perfectly good reasons for masking what we knew, but what was masked was mostly what we didn't know. Better to obfuscate for a few days until you can say what we do know.
The confusion--that it was a protest gone wrong hours after the protest ended--wasn't something that anybody looking at the time stamps on reports would have engaged in had they been aware that Libya and the US occupy different time zones. Those mid-level had to miss the confusion.
A fairly obvious, if damning, question is: During a heated election season, who would care about giving out information about an assault on US personnel that might have political ramifications? If this was reported up the chain of command as quickly as you'd think, why would the information originating from just about where the break between professional and political appointees occur suddenly change from unhelpful and demonstrating lack of knowledge to helpful and showing that things are understood?
= new reply since forum marked as read
