I think the larger issue is not the use of the phrase “act of terror”, rather, it was the administration’s continued insistence that the attack was “spontaneous” (it wasn’t) and driven by the YouTube video (it wasn’t).
Separate investigations have been underway and have reached significant conclusions that this was a planned attack, especially given that compound layout was not common knowledge and the accuracy of the mortar strikes.
Also, FYI, both DepState and the USMC requested additional security for multiple embassies and consulates throughout the region, as well as trade missions AND the facility where Stevens was domiciled. These requests were repeatedly either ignored and/or rebuffed, with the administration citing concerns over inflaming anger due to the presence of additional armed Americans, either uniformed US Marines or armed AmEmbassy/DepState security (driving distinctive armored SUVs).
Further, considerable signal traffic was received and analyzed, indicating either a heightened al-Qaeda presence or the arrival of al-Qaeda affiliated insurgents, militia or terrorist elements in various regions. Stevens had been repeatedly warned by US-friendly intel assets in Libya and he passed these warnings back, along with continued requests for additional security, due to these warnings that his life was in danger and that a significant attack was in the offing.
It strains credulity that we were somehow surprised by these attacks, especially given the widespread access to up-to-the-second real-time feeds from either KH satellites or drones on station in the area.[/quote]
I wasn’t disputing the issue of the mortars. I did find that exact same thing on wiki and a few other places that I hadn’t noticed before.
I don’t disagree with much you say here. With the exception of the last paragraph.
I’m not sure anyone has claimed to have been surprised. We continue to live in a dangerous world. Ambassador Stevens knew that. We both know the ties between the state department and the intelligence community. Stevens was part of that. He knew the risks.
The mortars change everything, yet change nothing. I think we both know the nature of the facility in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens knew what it was. Which is probably why there is slim evidence that any additional security was requested through state for that particular facility. If more security was needed for that facility, it wouldn’t have gone through state, and it’s highly unlikely that request would have been declined, and there is no way in hell that request will ever become public. (Issa shut down his hearings for a reason. And it certainly was not because there was a shortage of political capital.) Which leads me to believe that there was no intelligence which indicated an attack on Benghazi was imminent. If there had been, Ambassador Stevens wouldn’t have been there. I think it’s more likely, just the opposite, that Benghazi was believed safe.
I don’t know whether this attack was entirely planned or partly spontaneous. I don’t suspect we’ll ever know. (The mortars would lead me to believe it was at least partially planned.) Nor do I think it’s terribly pertinent. There was a failure here. But it wasn’t a state department security problem. It was an intelligence problem. And we don’t get to find out about intelligence problems. Nor should we.
