Discord: Explaining the U.S. response to Benghazi
Critics of that response paint a picture of a White House preoccupied with the president’s re-election campaign and determined to take the most cautious approach possible. White House officials strongly reject suggestions that politics were at play in its response to the crisis. …
Among the post-2001 changes was the creation of the DNI to oversee the 16 U.S. spy agencies. The office is responsible for collating agencies’ intelligence and reaching a consensus view to present to the president.
The DNI contended with dueling positions after the Benghazi attack. Within 48 hours, some military and intelligence analysts started briefing lawmakers about what they saw as evidence suggesting al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, was involved in the assault. …
Other officials, including those at the DNI and FBI, were more cautious about AQIM’s involvement, calling the early information inconclusive. At least some of the communications were members of AQIM bragging about their roles after the attack, officials said. One official said such boastfulness is commonplace and isn’t proof of involvement.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
It all depends upon what the meaning of “is” is.
OldEnglish on October 6, 2012 at 9:21 AM
so, despite the conglomeration of the spy agencies into the DNI, the WH blew off the evidence and made a political decision then says that their decision wasn’t political?
/not surprised/
ted c on October 6, 2012 at 9:24 AM
So it was all about the discord? That doesn’t explain the emphasis on the video or “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Baerwulf on October 6, 2012 at 9:26 AM
No it doesn’t. Shooting first and aiming later explains that.
Dusty on October 6, 2012 at 9:39 AM
Which explains why his response was to immediately fly out to Las Vegas for a campaign rally and to trash Mitt Romney’s response to the crisis, which included such despicable, back-handed tactics as communicating with the American public (gasp!) and speaking candidly about the topic at hand (the horror!).
Bruce MacMahon on October 6, 2012 at 9:50 AM
Explaining the U.S. response to Benghazi? There was a U.S. response to Benghazi? What did I miss? When did it happen?
RoadRunner on October 6, 2012 at 9:50 AM
They must be referring to the apology video? Zero’s response was to lie and dissemble for two plus weeks, because this administration set our Ambassador up to be killed and they don’t want that fact well known.
dogsoldier on October 6, 2012 at 9:55 AM
There are several words I could use to describe the Obama Administration’s response, but discord is low on the list. Try: defunct, deceiving, and possibly deliberate.
Pattosensei on October 6, 2012 at 10:04 AM
Oh, that’s why I didn’t notice. I didn’t think that was a response, I thought it was just the normal operating procedures for President Choom’s administration.
RoadRunner on October 6, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Links to subscription only articles aren’t very useful.
novaculus on October 6, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Bass-ackwards is the codeword for the Obama Administration.
profitsbeard on October 6, 2012 at 11:39 AM