Libya latest example of administration downplaying terror strike

President Obama's advisers claim to be doing the best they can in difficult circumstances to explain what happened in the deadly assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya. 

But their questionable claim out of the gate that the attack was a "spontaneous" outburst triggered by protests over an anti-Islam film in neighboring Egypt fits a pattern, critics say, of downplaying both attempted and successful terrorist strikes. 

"It's the nothing-to-see-here answer," said Republican strategist Tony Sayegh. 

The administration has been slowly and carefully walking back the initial narrative in Libya, though officials continue to stand by the claim that the strike was not preplanned -- despite mounting evidence and claims from top lawmakers that the attackers conducted at least some planning. Last week, top officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, called the attack terrorism. Obama will have an opportunity at the United Nations meeting in New York this week to clarify further. 

But the difficulty in setting the Libya attack, in which four Americans were killed, in the appropriate context follows similar struggles in at least three other incidents. 

After the November 2009 Fort Hood shooting in which 13 people were killed, it took months for an administration official to publicly call the attack terrorism. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano made that distinction during a Senate hearing in February. Before that, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates declined to use the term, as did FBI Director Robert Mueller. 

Further, a Pentagon letter at one point likened the Fort Hood massacre to workplace violence. 

A year later, following the attempted Christmas Day bombing, Obama in his first public statement referred to suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as an "isolated extremist." However, evidence was already surfacing that Abdulmutallab had worked closely with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula -- which was emerging as one of the most influential Al Qaeda affiliates and whose members have been targeted by U.S. drone strikes. 

AQAP later claimed responsibility for the attempted attack on a Detroit-bound jet. 

Perhaps most similar to the current difficulty the administration is having explaining the nature of a terrorist attack is what happened after the attempted Times Square bombing in May 2010. 

Initially, Napolitano described the attempted strike as a "one-off." 

Top Obama officials later took to the airwaves on the Sunday news shows to explain that suspect Faisal Shahzad was actually working for the Pakistani Taliban. White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan and Attorney General Eric Holder explained that the suspect was likely trained and funded by the group. 

Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs likewise took to the airwaves this past Sunday to explain more about Libya -- though he mostly defended the administration rather than issuing a correction to last week's claims. 

"No one either intentionally or unintentionally misled anyone involved in this," Gibbs said on "Fox News Sunday." "No one wants to get to the bottom of this more than we do." 

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice gave her explanation on five Sunday morning TV talks shows a week earlier. She said the Libya attack was "spontaneous" and started with the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, over an anti-Islamic film.

Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers said Monday the question now is whether the Obama administration lied or is clueless. She acknowledged neither is a great scenario. 

Powers suggested the administration was downplaying the Libya attack because it might undermine the narrative that Al Qaeda is being defeated.

Source : foxnews[dot]com Read More

Gibbs defends administration's response to deadly attack, says not ‘misleading’

A top adviser to President Obama on Sunday defended the administration for saying in the aftermath of a deadly assault on a U.S. outpost that it was not a pre-planned terrorist attack.

Campaign adviser Robert Gibbs said the answers given Sept. 16 by Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, were based on “the best information she had” and not intended to mislead the public.

"No one either intentionally or unintentionally misled anyone involved in this," Gibbs said on “Fox News Sunday.” "No one wants to get to the bottom of this more than we do."

Rice gave her responses on five Sunday morning TV talks shows, days after at least 20 attacks on U.S. outposts in the Middle East and North Africa, including one on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

She said that attack was “spontaneous” and started with an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, over an anti-Islamic film.

Gibbs, a former White House spokesman for Obama, also said he expects more information will emerge.

"As we have learned more and as this investigation continues, I would anticipate we will continue to learn more facts about the awful assassination murder of our ambassador," he told Fox.

White House spokesman Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton late last week acknowledged the assault in Libya was a terror attack. However, the administration has stood by its assertion that investigations so far show the attack was not pre-planned.

Gibbs also defended President Obama’s decision so far not to hold one-on-one meetings with world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly this week in New York while making time to appear on ABC’s “The View” daytime talk show.

“So, he has time for Whoopi Goldberg but he doesn’t have time for world leaders?" asked Fox host Chris Wallace.

Gibbs in part replied: “The White House has phones.”

Source : foxnews[dot]com Read More

Diplomatic, western posts targeted repeatedly in Benghazi in run-up to deadly assault

While the Obama administration says there was no actionable intelligence that could have prevented the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, there was a heightened threat in the region due to at least four attacks on diplomatic and western targets leading up to the murder of the U.S. ambassador.

"This (the U.S. Consulate) was a place that was targeted months before with an IED (improvised explosive device)," Congressman Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who has been briefed on the attack and investigation, told Fox News. "It's clearly a target that they wanted to hit and they wanted to cause casualties. I find it -- a little the glaring question of a 9/11 date. It's just too many coincidences here."

On June 6, an IED was thrown at the perimeter of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. On June 11, the British ambassador's motorcade came under attack by a rocket propelled grenade or RPG. Two security personnel were injured. Seven days later, on June 18, armed gunmen attacked the Tunisian consulate and burned its flag. And on August 5, five weeks before the assault on the U.S. Consulate, the International Committee of the Red Cross building in Benghazi was also struck by RPGs.   

On Friday, the chair and ranking members of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins sent a letter to the State Department Inspector General requesting an investigation into the U.S. Consulate's security posture at the time of the attack. The letter specifically references the previous attacks in June on the Consulate and the British ambassador's convoy, adding:

"Does the risk assessment process consider the capacity or lack thereof of the host country to provide security? Did the Libyan government request or suggest that security could be improved at the Benghazi facility prior to September 12, 2010?"

A spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the nation's top intelligence official, said  "actionable intelligence would have meant that we either saw or heard something, through intelligence collection, that told us that a specific act was being planned or was imminent. As I have said, we are not aware of any actionable intelligence related to the attack in Benghazi."

But a former official with the Bush administration said the Obama White House appeared to be dodging the real issue. "This definition relies on the notion that action is only taken to prevent a specific plot where we know the time, place and even method of attack. Action can be, and is taken, to increase security when more general threats, like what we saw this summer in Benghzai, are known."

Asked if the four attacks prior to the ambassador's murder were briefed to the president as part of the highly classified PDB or president's daily brief which details threats against the U.S. homeland and U.S. interests, there was no immediate response from the ODNI nor the spokesman for the National Security Council.  

Given the heightened threat picture, the former Bush administration official questioned whether more aggressive precautionary measures should have been taken at diplomatic missions even though the intelligence was apparently not specific. "President Bush was criticized for being disengaged before 9/11, but given what we all know now about the terrorist threat, there is no excuse for lacking engagement or focus on the persistent threats to U.S. personnel in North Africa."

Source : foxnews[dot]com Read More