NYT: Russians paid Afghans to kill American troops

[Dill]

(06-29-2020, 11:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I see the problem now.  The information you received the "day of the attack" was total bullshit.  There was nothing close to a sustained 12 hour motar attack.  And the mortar attack was not even on the embassy.

The initial respnsoe from the Obama administration was that it was a protest over the same video that was prompting riots in other middle eastern countries at the same time (NOT 2 months prior), but within 10 day the administration stated that it was a terror attack.  There was no "cover up" and the Obamam administration had nothing to gain by "covering up" a terrorists attack.

Actually, the CIA made the assessment the attack was caused by a video.  At least one of the attackers who was eventually captured confirmed that was his motivation.

The day after the attack, Obama said: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. https://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/fact-check-terror/index.html. He used the same phrase a day later. 

Susan Rice then reported the CIA assessment in a round of Sunday talk shows, and for the next 10 days the administration said let's not rush to assessment, wait and view the Consulate ground videos, etc.   That's when Hannity et al. ramped up the "cover up" story, along with numerous other false claims about stand down orders and Hillary running guns to Syria. He brought some of the victims families onto his show at one point, demanding that Hillary personally apologize to them, and then making hay on her "callous" refusal to do so.  And so came seven FRUITLESS Benghazi hearings.

As far as whether the attack was planned, or had to be if it involved mortars and armed men, People should know that organizing an armed attack in PA or OH would certainly require planning, but not in country swarming with armed militia walking the streets with AKs and RPGs. Getting an armed attack going in Benghazi in 2012 would be as easy as pick up game on a college campus.

At least two different militias were involved in the attack on the Consulate. One was already guarding a nearby hospital. How hard would it be to hop into the back of a pick up with all your weapons and drive six blocks to the consulate if you just heard people in other capitals were rioting over a blasphemous video of the prophet and people were already attacking the Consulate in Benghazi?

The fact mortars were NOT used on the consulate, but on another rally point a mile away, argues against planning.  In the midst of Consulate mayhem, some guy said "Hey, what about our mortars? Let's go back and get those too!"  By then the Consulate was toast and the action had moved elsewhere.

So there is still a lot of uncertainty about how the attack actually got going. If a 9/11 peaceful protest at the Consulate were already planned, and then armed militia jumped into it, an intel analyst would not necessarily call that a planned attack, though Hannity certainly would.

In my view the old "cover up" claim is preposterous. Obama had just killed bin Laden the year before. No reasonable person was going to think he was "weak on terror" or making false claims of success because of one consulate attack in an unstable region where unknown unknowns abound.