Benghazi and Petraeus: What We Know Now

Friday, November 16, 2012

Spencer Ackerman, writer for Wired magazine's national security blog, Danger Room, reviews what we know and don't know about the attack on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi and the scandal involving former CIA director Petraeus.



Spencer Ackerman

Comments [26]

RUCB_Alum from Central Jersey

@JoeCorrao -

Using "...or something like that..." near quotes REALLY undercuts the point you are trying to make. Here's the paragraph (13 out of 16 paragraph statement) that took about 5 minutes to read.

"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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

The Right is hoping to score points about this being the first act of terror to occur on American soil...but since it's a foreign mission does it count. Why don't we take a look at how Dubya's team prepped for the attacks that killed three thousand within our borders.

Nov. 18 2012 06:31 PM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Posted at 05:18 PM ET, 11/16/2012

BREAKING: The president knew the truth about Benghazi

"In a blockbuster report, John Solomon, the former Associated Press and Post reporter, has ferreted out the president’s daily brief that informed him within 72 hours of the Sept. 11 attack that the Benghazi attack was a jihadist operation."


Nov. 16 2012 08:01 PM

The truth of the matter is, and which ALL of you refuse to discuss is that Stevens was the target, Stevens was the sole purpose of the attack. Forget who did the attacking, it MAKES NOT DIFFERENCE. SOMEONE IN OUR COUNTRY, "GUESS WHO" wanted Stevens dead. WHAT MATTERS IS WHO ALLOWED THE PROTECTION TO BE NON EXISTENT FOR STEVENS THUS ALLOWING HIM TO BE MURDERED.

Nov. 16 2012 03:02 PM

Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan: Irrelevant

Besides being a moron.

Nov. 16 2012 12:10 PM

Nov. 16 2012 11:48 AM

One other issue I haven't heard anyone mention is that that at any given time the President, CIA, State Dept. et al. have classified information that they can't share with the public. Even had Obama possessed solid information about the terrorist roots in the Benghazi attack, (1) they may have needed to protect people supplying them with intelligence from the ground; (2) they may have had contradictory information about the identity of the terrorists, and chose not to say "yes, it was Al-Quaeda," '"no, it was a local home-grown terrorist group," oops, sorry, yes, it was Al-Quaeda...and (3) we do not need a President who goes off half-cocked as is John McCain's wont -- it is one thing for a hot-headed Senator to speculate; another for the President to declare his impressions before he has 100% solid corroboration of intelligence.

Nov. 16 2012 11:43 AM

they parse the language...he didn't start the speech by condemning it as a terrorist act, they spun it for a while. a week later they were still try to tie it to that silly video. they all do it, they never come clean till they are pressured and no one cares. I have no doubt the current adim (as well as the past adim) spoke in the language most favorable to them before the election.

Nov. 16 2012 11:39 AM
Mike from Tribeca

Re your Israel update: Enough with the supposition and second guessing already. Report the story.

Nov. 16 2012 11:36 AM
Leo from Queens

Joe Corrao: What's the difference between a Terrorist Act and an Act of Terror?

What's the difference between a Cotton Shirt and a Shirt made of Cotton?

What's the difference between a snowstorm and a blizzard?

Nov. 16 2012 11:31 AM
scott from soho

If you think this entire event does not have political bs all over it, you are a moron. The combination of a crappy little video, a military/cia sex scandal, and a dead group of foreign staffers is quite a mix. So much for transparency.

We should be asking why our foreign staff was left so exposed to this type of attack on Sept. 11 of all dates.

We should also be asking if the events of the attack were being watched in real time by a drone and if so, why did they receive zero support.

Were the former seal security guys asked to stand down?

Good work on keeping the lies alive Brian.

Nov. 16 2012 11:31 AM

The attack in Benghazi and the resulting deaths are a tragedy, of course. But the blame and extreme rhetoric being hurled at Susan Rice or anyone in the Administration seems excessive. Thinking back to 1983, under Ronald Reagan, there were 4 separate attacks on the US embassies, military barracks, and even the ambassador of Lebanon - were there hearings about the negligence of the Reagan Adminstration then? When that same year the US Embassy in Kuwait was bombed -- in all these incidents hundreds were killed -- were accusations hurled that Reagan was remiss? That the CIA was like a deer in the headlights?

The blame game is is politically motivated

Nov. 16 2012 11:30 AM
The Truth from Becky

Blaming Susan Rice is just as ridiculous as mittens saying the President won because of the gifts he gave to minorities...what a stooge, still providing proof of why he lost!! 330 plus electoral votes...hah!

Nov. 16 2012 11:29 AM
Leo from Queens

Martin Chuzzlewit: you are incorrect. You need to go back and rewind the tape and listen to PRESIDENT Obama's appearance on Letterman. You will need reading/listening comprehension and a basic understanding of the English language to understand what he said. Which you obviously lack.

Again, you lack basic comprehension of language because the talking points from the administration is that they have weakend Al Queida the main organization in the middle east. The administration has been very clear about how they are expanding to other areas of the World to address other Al Queda offshoots in Africa, SE Asia and Europe. No where has anyone said that Al Queda was eliminated.

The administration NEVER brushed this off or made a point to say that this was NOT a terrorist attack.. The administration from day one has been clear that this was AN ACT OF TERROR

Nov. 16 2012 11:29 AM
DickeyFuller from DC

This is so tiresome. The election is over. Obama won and yet a handful of politicians with an axe to grind are going way overboard.

Unfortunately this works up the right-wing who refuse to accept President Obama. The events in Libya were under the fog of war and chaos. 4 people died in a very risky situation. It's terrible. Hopefully the violence will die down once the wars are over.

Nov. 16 2012 11:29 AM
Er-nay from UWS

Brian --
Where are you going with this? It was a fiasco, agreed. But where is the illegal activity here? Who was held accountable for 9 /11? Who was accountable for the marine barracks attack during the Reagan years? Who was accountable for "Black Hawk Down" Why is everyone seeing ghost here? Let's get on with the business of the day.

Nov. 16 2012 11:27 AM

Obama did NOT call it a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden speech...he said 10 minutes into a 15 minute speech "an act of terror will be dealt with" (or something like that) but went out of his way to not label the events a TA.

Nov. 16 2012 11:26 AM
Anonymous from Manhattan

Martin Chuzzlewit
Martin Chuzzlewit
The Life and Adventures of Martin Chuzzlewit is a novel by Charles Dickens, considered the last of his picaresque novels. It was originally serialized in 1843 and 1844. Wikipedia

Nov. 16 2012 11:26 AM
Tony from Canarsie

Did this segment have to drift off into Conspiracyville?

Nov. 16 2012 11:25 AM
The Truth from Becky

What does it matter who's watch it happened on?? The towers were taken down on bush's watch and he didn't get impeached or put in jail yet. President would have been re elected regardless.

Nov. 16 2012 11:24 AM
mejimenez from manhattan

I'm sure that Martin was calling for Bush II's impeachment after *three thousand* people were killed in the September 11th attacks.

Nov. 16 2012 11:24 AM
ellensz from manhasset

Why was Susan Rice, the UN rep, the spokesperson on the tv shows about Bengazi? Shouldn't it have been State Dept. people?

Nov. 16 2012 11:23 AM
mejimenez from manhattan

Hey, Brian! You just did the same cherry picking! You cut off the Susan Rice audio quote just before the part before she elaborates on the escalation by extremist elements and then again offers qualifications on the provisional nature of the available information.

Nov. 16 2012 11:17 AM
john from office

Martin, slink back under your rock PLEASE!!

This is Fast and Furious II, they failed to blow up that event and are seeking another "SCANDAL". Please go back to your cave and dream of impeachment.

Nov. 16 2012 11:16 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

President 50.4% went on the Letterman show a full week after the attack and answered point blank in insisting that this was just a mob reaction to the video. So he was very capable himself of doing all of the liar's role.

The White House knew at 6:08PM on the very afternoon of 9-11 that Ansar-al Sharia had claimed responsibility. They had video by the next day that there was NO mob anywhere in the vicinity. Stevens had escorted the Turkish Ambassador to the gates of the compound 2 hours earlier and all was quiet. Also on video. Cherry pick Susan Rice ,indeed, she DID insist, when pressed, that it was just a mob attack. It's ALL in the transcripts. BARRY ELIMINATED AL QUEDA .... that was the narrative Axelrod created and that will lead his puppet to cries for impeachment.

Nov. 16 2012 11:07 AM
mejimenez from manhattan

The vast majority of media presentations on Susan Rice's statement on Meet the Press cherry pick to make it look bad. In fact, she did say that "extremist elements" came in with heavy weapons. The full quote is:

RICE (9/16/12): Well, let me tell you the best information we have at present. First of all, there is an FBI investigation, which is ongoing, and we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired.

But putting together the best information that we have available to us today— Our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons, which, unfortunately, are readily available in post-revolutionary Libya, and that escalated into a much more violent episode.

Obviously, that's our best judgment now. We'll await the results of the investigation, and the president has been very clear we'll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

Nov. 16 2012 10:11 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Brian - Stop pretending that this scandal is just about Petraeus and his floozy.

In his news conference "President 50.4%" said this about throwing Susan Rice under the wheels of the bus –

“…the U.N. ambassador had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received?”

WE all KNOW she had nothing to do with it, Barry. That’s why this smells fishy. Why was SHE sent out there to lie for you on the Sunday talk shows? Where was the State Department?

Why wasn’t Hillary Clinton making these statements? After all, it was her employee who was killed.

Because Hillary knew that this was a lie and a cover-up and refused to take part in it.


Nov. 16 2012 09:28 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.