« "We're proud of that!" You are? | Main | "Iraq Government Collapse Likely..." ISW »

16 April 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


It was very obvious that the attack in Banghazi was part of an elaborate Al-Qaeda operation. It was so obvious that I got the story right just hours after it happened.


On September 11 2011
- Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri released a video confirming for the first time the death of his deputy Abu Yahya al-Libi by a U.S. drone strike.
- Egyptian al-Qaeda associates, including the brother of al-Zawahiri, storm the U.S. embassy courtyard in Cairo and raise the al-Qaeda flag.
- Libyan al-Qaeda associates storm the U.S. office in Benghazi and attack, with preregistered mortar fire (!), the CIA house.

Surely that was all a coincidence and "about a movie"? Obviously NOT.

But the Obama administration was hiding at that time that it had been working with al-Qaeda elements to attack Ghaddafi and was working with the same al-Qaeda elements in Syria to attack the Syrian people. It was also hiding the CIA weapon transfer from Libya through Turkey to al-Qaeda elements in Syria.

Al-Qaeda and associates tightly coordinated their action on Sep 11 2012. It was a warning to the U.S. that there were rules to be followed if the cooperation in Syria were to continue. The Obama administration acknowledged that by not revealing the attack as what it was. The cooperation in Syria was probably seen as more important.


I believe the White House was wedded to the narrative that no violent Islamist groups had taken root in Libya in the aftermath of Gaddafi's overthrow. This was at a time when Obama was still riding the crest of the OBL killing as the 2012 election was approaching. In short, the big selling point was that he had dealt effectively with the al-Qaeda threat which was in terminal decline. Let's recall that was only a few months later that Obama was shunning the DIA report on ISIL and amending he narrative as to declare it a junior varsity to classic al-Qaeda (which was being suppressed).


I completely agree on the group think process. My observation from work life tells me that it invariably produces a myopia that absolutely blinds the group the obvious outcome and consequences. I won't list the many examples I can think of but it seems the higher places the members of the group are, the more irrational the thinking gets.


Does it really matter whether it is "group think" or "conspiracy"?


(not that I am in "religion" in any way but what about some clarity of judgement)


I have always assumed that the reason for the lies was that the Administration was covertly running guns from Libya to the "rebels" in Syria.

No one has ever explained why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on that date, when it was well known that the area posed significant security risks.

No one has ever adequately explained the presence of the CIA safe house, or the deaths of the ex Navy Seals, either.

Benghazi is the reason that I refused to vote in the last presidential election.

Old Microbiologist

Excellent points. Plus, no marine guards and the civilian contractor responsible for security had an Al Qaeda flag on their web page. On top of that he was meeting with a Turkish official and the attackers waited until the Turks left before attacking. Also unexplained were the 400 tons of arms stored at the CIA facility co-located with the annex. Add it all up and it smells really bad. Actually traveling to a relatively unsecured facility without military escort on the anniversary of 9/11? My brain just cannot comprehend the plethora of bad decisions.


I would say that group think is more flexible in being applied to the situation at hand.

Dogma, in my experience, produces either a 'ignore the man behind the curtain' process (to avoid contaminating the dogma with facts) or the old 'to a hammer, everything looks like a nail' action, where things are bashed about to fit the dogma.

Conspiracy? These folks are supposed to get it right the first time. They are running our country's FP. The performance here was putrid, IMO.


The related 'secret' was the fact the American presence was mainly to cover the CIA (+ consultants) operation. Hence, admitting that the attackers knew all about it and had turned the tables on us was double embarrassing: it showed that we had taken steps to deal with a publicly unacknowledged salafist threat, and that they had humiliated us.

Allen Thomson

> Also unexplained were the 400 tons of arms stored at the CIA facility co-located with the annex.

Cite on those 400 tons, please? I've been very interested in the gun-running possibility, as that's the kind of thing that the US has been doing since the 1950s and the CIA Benghazi Base would be likely to help facilitate it if it were happening.

On large-volume gun-running in general, see (ahem)



Allen Thomson

> Does it really matter whether it is "group think" or "conspiracy"?

In terms of results, probably not.

In terms of motivation and moral culpability, it might be more along the lines of sins of commission and sins of omission. I.e., conspirators know quite well what they're doing, but group thinkers fail to examine how they're just going along with the gang.

I've seen a fair amount of pernicious group think while serving in the government, but the really down-and-dirty conscious conspiracy stuff became obvious only after entering into the Beltway Banditosphere. Even then, the evil seemed to be concentrated in the bigger companies, like S***; there were a fair number of smaller ones that appeared to be genuinely trying to do a good and honest job.

Old Microbiologist

Many sources and some are more credible than others. Here is one. http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10?op=1

Mark Logan

I'm not convinced the administration gave that order. Rice was briefed by the CIA, General Dave, IIRC. The collective does not have the greatest internal communication, and it seems to be at times rather poor. I also don't see any proof Clinton was briefed before making those statements on the 11th. Why she would make definitive statements that early is a mystery though. I would suspect first her sloppiness, the history of which spans from Travel Gate to Server Gate, and includes the sending of Rice to Sunday newie shows. Rice lacks that skill-set.

Bill Herschel

Off topic: The British Donald Trump... courtesy of Eton and Oxford. And what a compelling argument he makes, including calling Obama a naked hypocrite. But I suppose that's actually what this topic is about, so this isn't off topic. The accent is a long, long way from Donald.




You are kidding yourself. Nobody but POTUS could authorize and sanction this. pl


could the outcry have been "Free Palestine?"



Clinton barks the Netanyahu line.

If it is the case that Israel planned to "mow the lawn," then how is proportionality defined?


On what planet does a mainstream British Conservative politician whose been embedded in the British establishment from the moment he was born become, and I quote you direct, "The British Donald Trump"?

The "exit" camp represent a major part of the British conservative establishment. Get used to it.

Old Microbiologist

Info wars has run a bunch of stuff which has more or less turned out to be accurate. I alsways treat that stuff with a grain of salt as a lot of conspiracy theory stuff runs amok; however, sometimes these things are true.

What I have never actually understood, and I have read a lot on it, is why we are so seriously dedicated to removing Assad. Syria has nothing at all to do with the US. We are supplying, training, equipping continuously and with renewed vigor this week, rebel forces known to be Al Qaeda or ISIS, which I believe is tantamount to treason.

I get that the KSA doesn't want any Shia countries at all, and much less an axis running from the Gulf to the Mediterranean. I get that Israel hates Iran, Hezbollah, and the Palestinians and that Iraq and Syria must be kept in disarray. I get that there is an enormous gas field in the Med shared by Cyprus, Israel, Syria, and Turkey and ownership is problematic. I get that Russia is supplying gas to Europe and that the Gulf states want to cut them out and emplacement them with a pipeline of their own except Syria is in the way. But, I don't get why the US is involved at all and why we keep hammering a clearly (yet another) losing foreign policy debacle. Only the neocon agenda put forward by Kagan and Wolfowitz explains this and I keep finding myself confused as to who is running the show in the US. I mean really, it boggles the mind that we suck up to these countries we claim are allies who in fact do everything they can to destroy the US. This latest fracas about the missing 28 pages and culpability of the KSA and their counter to liquidate $750 billion in Amaerican paper is yet another chapter in this saga. Of course the KSA was involved. Why we continue to do any business with these head choppers is yet another confusing problem. The US is completely self reliant on oil production so why do we keep sucking up? I frankly don't get it. We are risking nuclear war for....Syria? It makes no sense at all.

William R. Cumming

Agree! Election politics controlled the narrative.

William R. Cumming

Look no further than the DEMS and Republicans as to reason behind the decay in American life. Where do we get such men [and women]? Question asked mening exactly the opposite on movie made THE BRIDGES OF TOKO RI?

William R. Cumming

Thanks for this link! Americans have a stake in EU stability but not in EU corruption. U.S. IMO should leave NATO and Brexit vote should be leave the EU!

Peter Reichard

Embarrassed that the US ambassador was killed by a militia group we had worked with during the overthrow of Khadafy the administration lied about the motivation of the attack to cover their incompetence. I am shocked, shocked that such mendacity could exist at the highest levels of our government! There are far more important questions about Benghazi that need to be addressed than this small potatoes of a scandal.


I think a big part of her deception, and, more importantly, Obama's deception was, indeed, based on the reasons you point out above. But I also think there was another reason, one that especially resonates with Obama. Arrogance. Thrown in with a natural bent towards patronizing certain types. . Blaming it on the film allowed it to be stated, and unstated, but implied, 'see, all you ignorant[read: Christian, white people, mostly, the one's 'clinging to their guns and religion] see what those ignorant beliefs you have started? [and Islamaphobia but one of them]...you see the kind fire they can generate?'. He could look down his nose even more so, and with more satisfaction, than before. 'see, ya all [let us assume he happened to speaking to mostly black audience and was playing his from the hood role] played around and got an Ambassador killed.'



Yes, the whole operation centered in Benghazi for the purpose of buying up weapons to ship to Syria was really bad policy, but I doubt that it was illegal. The US government must remains government based on law. If it does not the corner has been turned that leads to something very like the Roman Empire in which law existed but did not matter. If the Secretary of State lied under oath before the senate (and I do not know yet if she did) then that would be for me an absolute disqualification for office. pl

Allen Thomson

Thank you.

Peter Reichard

Lying to the public also does not break the law, its just business as usual, but lying under oath to the senate is another thing indeed. The rule of law does matter.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad