Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘Congress Receives Confusing Benghazi Briefing From Administration’

November 17, 2012November 17, 2012 / chr1 / Leave a comment

‘While the video was at times confusing, the briefing corroborated earlier administration accounts of attempts to provide military back-up on the evening of the attack. The Daily Beast reported on Thursday that CIA director Mike Morell testified that his agency did not request lethal military assistance like special operations teams, platoons of specialized Marines, or armed predator drones.’

Bureaucracy in action?

What isn’t clear to me is the overall Middle-East strategy, and how well it’s being executed, come what may here. Obama seems to be operating partially under a liberal internationalist doctrine; aiming to get a plurality if not a majority of Americans, and a vast majority of Muslims where he wants them to be, which is not necessarily where they are now: Bound under international law, courts, and a community of nations. This Western vision attempts to direct and subsume American power to these ends and tries to appeal to the Muslim on the street and offer carrots and sticks to Muslim nations. I suspect this is why we saw the apology tour during the riots, and the potential playing down of the Benghazi affair (if something worse hasn’t happened).

-Walter Russell Mead had an interesting piece about this doctrine a few years ago.

In practice for Obama, this has led to a real gap between his vision and many of his actions. He has continued and extended many of Bush’s policies on wiretapping and enemy combatants to deal with the threat at home and abroad. He’s admittedly set a timeline for Iraq and also a timeline in Afghanistan after his surge there, and undergone a dramatic escalation in drone strikes in Afpak and Yemen (Al Qaida is likely returning to AfPak as we speak, and disrupting them is still our objective which he never discusses as he just counts on the base to turn out).

It has meant helping to overthrow Gadhafi without Congressional approval and admittedly much more cheaply and without boots on the ground, helping France and Britain maintain their own backyard and oil supply, and making a kind of client state which is still volatile with extremists around as Benghazi showed. It remains to be seen what will happen there, and Libyans have a long way to go after the tyrant, wherever they’re headed. Our security may still be at risk.

It has meant assisting in the “Arab Spring” (I’ve still got my hand on my wallet). It has meant questionable leadership on Syria where a civil war is likely occurring. There were few to no good options, but possibly a few worse ones by waiting for the U.N.. putting any faith in Russian interests in the region, and waiting for Iran to play power games and Turkey, the Kurds, and Lebanon to become more enflamed. It has meant sanctioning Iran heavily and apparently still not preventing them from getting closer to having nuclear capabilities. On Israel, and the escalating tensions with Hamas, the seemingly intractable claims to the land, and the existential threat one of our closest allies faces, it remains to be seen what Obama will do.

It’s still not clear where the rise of Islamism is headed, and doubtful that America can really succeed on the back of this doctrine, given the fact that our public support in the region is still abysmally and unsurprisingly low.

Feel free to highlight my ignorance. Any thoughts and comments are welcome, as it’s not clear to me where there’s anything near a majority or strong plurality of people in any Muslim country who want freedom and democracy as the West defines them, and was ready on their own for the demands and sacrifices required to build institutions which maintain such freedom and democracy.

Walter Russell Mead At The American Interest Online: ‘Obama’s War’…From The WSJ: “Allies Rally To Stop Gadhafi”…From March 27th, 2009 At WhiteHouse.Gov: Remarks By The President On A New Strategy For Afghanistan And Pakistan…From The New Yorker: ‘How Qaddafi Lost Libya’…

The modern State awaits, with a more efficient bureaucratic class overcoming the corruption and earning the public trust here in the West?: Francis Fukuyama At The American Interest-’The Two Europes’

Repost-Daniel Deudney On YouTube Responding to Robert Kagan: ‘Liberal Democracy Vs. Autocracy’

Is Bernhard Henri-Levy actually influencing U.S. policy decisions..? From New York Magazine: ‘European Superhero Quashes Libyan Dictator’…Bernhard Henri-Levy At The Daily Beast: ‘A Moral Tipping Point’…Charlie Rose Episode On Libya Featuring Bernhard Henri-Levy, Les Gelb And Others…

From Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘Ansar al-Sharia’s Role In Benghazi Attacks Still A Mystery’

November 5, 2012November 5, 2012 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full piece here.

‘It provides security for the city’s main hospital. It’s also a social-services organization and an ideological movement that seeks to bring its corner of eastern Libya under the rule of an Islamic government, according to the group’s own public information and published interviews with its leaders.’

Of course, this could be said of many organizations throughout the Middle East, especially the Levant. Is Libya any different?:

‘Unraveling Ansar al-Sharia, however, is one of the harder jobs today for U.S. intelligence analysts. The group itself has offered conflicting messages about its role in the Benghazi assault.’

Here’s a relevant quotation by Samuel Huntington which I keep putting up, as I think there is a strong sense of isolationism in the public mind right now, as many Americans are just tired of us being in the Middle East, the long wars, the economy etc.:

“Although the professional soldier accepts the reality of never-ending and limited conflict, “the liberal tendency,” Huntington explained, is “to absolutize and dichotomize war and peace.” Liberals will most readily support a war if they can turn it into a crusade for advancing humanistic ideals. That is why, he wrote, liberals seek to reduce the defense budget even as they periodically demand an adventurous foreign policy.’

———————————–

From Michael Totten: Mali is a sign of real trouble, and a potential hotspot:

‘The harshest form of Islamic law in the world is now being imposed at gunpoint. Ancient tombs and shrines are being bulldozed for the exact same reason the Buddha statues were destroyed in Afghanistan. And the place has turned into a rat’s nest of the who’s-who of terrorist organizations operating in North Africa.’

Our national security interests are still very much engaged.

Addition: Walter Russell Mead suggests the reason four Americans are dead is because the administration has bungled North Africa, and has for awhile.

I’d add that the President’s competence, his ability to make gutsy decisions and have an overall functional strategy while responding to ever-changing conditions are also very much in question. The President has taken bigger risks, and charted a quite different course for U.S. Foreign Policy. There is little worse for morale than potentially leaving people behind. At this point, it’s not clear that the overall vision, let alone its implementation, is working particularly well and that we are responding particularly well to the Islamist and terrorist threats.

Someone please prove me wrong, and make the argument that the current policy, strategy and leadership are working well, but need more time. If so, why didn’t we get a straight answer on Benghazi from the get-go, and some reassuring words from the President that his strategy was working?

Has the Muslim world has been successfully incentivized to push its more radical members out in the cold and not create safe havens for terrorists, protecting our national security interests?

How much longer can we keep this up, and does this approach bear fruit? I’d love some examples for reassurance.

Is there a plurality, if not a majority, of moderate Muslims ready to institute democratic reforms and democratic institutions from the ground up in the wake of the Arab Spring given the demographic, economic, and political realities on the ground?

The best case I’ve heard is that Islam’s Old Guard, and the purists’ hold on the public square and the traditions, minds, and rituals of daily life are gradually weakening. It’s not clear to me this has happened, or if it has, that the purists’ response isn’t more potentially violent and capable of lashing out at the West with its sharp, militant, radical edges. Either way, it’s still an approach being led by the West often under what are considered to be universally true ideals, and we know that most Muslims and Westerners don’t agree on what the universally true ideals are.

Addition: As a friend points out, Obama’s approach toward free speech (Nakoula), security (the U.S. military really shouldn’t be operating apart from local militias or internationally “approved” entities) are really quite far to the Left. The European approach has numerous problems.

Via Fox News: ‘CIA Operators Were Denied Request For Help During Benghazi Attack, Sources Say

From Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘Exclusive: Libya Cable Detailed Threats’‘Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates’ From The BBC Via Michael Totten: ‘Libya: Islamist Militia Bases Stormed In Benghazi’

Via Reuters: ‘U.S. Ambassador To Libya Killed In Benghazi Attack’From Michael Totten’s Blog: ‘Two Hours’…From The BBC Via Michael Totten: ‘Libya: Islamist Militia Bases Stormed In Benghazi’

Al Qaida back in AfPak: Lara Logan On Afghanistan Via Youtube: ’2012 BGA Annual Luncheon Keynote Speech’

The rise of Islamism across the region…Via Youtube-Uncommon Knowledge With Fouad Ajami And Charles Hill

Dit we have this discussion a while ago?: Charlie Rose Episode On Libya Featuring Bernhard Henri-Levy, Les Gelb And Others

Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘New Details On Benghazi’

November 1, 2012November 3, 2012 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full post here.

It’s clear that the security situation was dicey in Benghazi, to say the least. The State Department may be culpable in not providing more security leading up to 9/11 given the information it appears to have had. Perhaps something could have been done to help Woods and Dougherty after they returned from the initial attack, once Smith was killed and Stevens mortally wounded:

‘On the night of the 9/11 anniversary assault at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Americans defending the compound and a nearby CIA annex were severely outmanned. Nonetheless, the State Department never requested military backup that evening, two senior U.S. officials familiar with the details of military planning tell The Daily Beast’

More from HotAir here, with video links. There’s likely some incompetence involved, and bureaucracy moving slowly as it can do, and perhaps some unsavory political CYA behavior leading up to the election to deflect the matter until after the election. Such is politics.

More information will no doubt be coming out, and I still think there’s a worthwhile conversation to be had about our current Middle-East strategy, and how the administration’s liberal internationalist approach is aligned/not aligned with the War On Terror, the continuation of many of Bush’s policies, and the threats we face. There are questions of free speech, national security, competent leadership capable of a bigger strategy that lines up with developments.

It’s also a quite politicized matter in a highly polarized time.

Addition: David Ignatius has a CIA timeline here.

Another: Yet, that timeline is questioned by security officials on the ground, who say that an armed militia began getting itself ready 3 hours before 9:40 pm.

Another Addition: Via CBS News:

‘In the days after the assault, counterterrorism officials expressed dismay over what they interpreted as the Obama Administration’s unwillingness to acknowledge that the attack was terrorism; and their opinion that resources which could have helped were excluded.’

People like Tyrone Woods’ father, Glenn Dougherty’s family, and those ready to come to their aid likely have concerns about the decisions made. I”m still leaning toward dithering. The administration did respond, but the media’s job is precisely this kind of journalism.

More: Thomas Sowell is not convinced that Obama isn’t just “cooling out” the voters until after the election, throwing anything up that will stick in order to maintain the idea that his foreign policy is working, and that terrorists are no longer a threat.

Still More: The Mysteries Of Benghazi.

I am not a fan of many of Mr. Obama’s policies, but I still think preserving the integrity of our institutions is the primary focus here, even if the Commander In Chief is making decisions that place certain goals above others (international cooperation and the risks Obama took to get it and impose his foreign policy vision upon Libya and partnering with Libyan forces for security purposes…above apparently protecting American lives at all costs). I think Obama has had some success and there will be some arguable advantages to his approach, but this success is increasingly cast in doubt by realities on the ground, the rise of Islamism, and the apparent lack of leadership. The way this incident is unfolding is enough to make me want new leadership, other concerns aside.

Via Fox News: ‘CIA Operators Were Denied Request For Help During Benghazi Attack, Sources Say

Via Reuters: ‘U.S. Ambassador To Libya Killed In Benghazi Attack’

From Michael Totten’s Blog: ‘Two Hours’…From The BBC Via Michael Totten: ‘Libya: Islamist Militia Bases Stormed In Benghazi’

David Ignatius At The Washington Post: ‘Lingering Questions About Benghazi’

October 31, 2012May 21, 2013 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full piece here.

‘Looking back, it may indeed have been wise not to bomb targets in Libya that night. Given the uproar in the Arab world, this might have been the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a burning fire. But the anguish of Woods’s father is understandable: His son’s life might have been saved by a more aggressive response. The Obama administration needs to level with the country about why it made its decisions.’

If the decision was made to not save Tyrone Woods and Glenn Dougherty after they disobeyed the second order given to them to stand down, and in so doing the White House put some other priority first, what was that priority?

If the order was given just for policy reasons, and to protect a larger vision for the Middle East, then how is that vision working out?

This decision may be a pressure point where the the whole of the current administration’s foreign policy platform met the realities of the Middle East and continuing threat of radical Muslim terrorism.

We are using drone strikes, military and intelligence capabilities to protect ourselves from Al Qaida and other terrorist threats. We are doing this 24/7. Such actions can bring retaliation. The liberal internationalist vision Obama is trying to project upon the Middle East appeals to the Muslim on the street, and tries to redirect American power so that either ‘moderate’ Muslims push the terrorists and radicals aside, or that Muslim sentiment is such that Muslim countries are induced with carrots and sticks into some international framework or a place at the international bargaining table. Even further, Muslim sentiment may be such that Muslims agree to overthrow a tyrant and accept the burdens and responsibilities of more democratic institutions that come after a revolution (that America aids, instead of imposes, which is why this approach is the anti-Bush approach and one of Obama’s main points of pride). Libya was a mild success in this regard, and there was some public sentiment to push out Ansar Al-Sharia after the Benghazi attack, but it is still chaotic and very dangerous and it remains to be seen what will happen there. Iran and Afpak look much more daunting, as does Syria.

Some explanation would be nice, least of all for the four Americans who died to protect themselves and their country, and their families.

Addition: Was it even a mild success?

Adam Garfinkle At The American Interest–Benghazigate, Republicans Missing The Point-For Garfinkle, the point is that the Libyan war was a mistake in the first place, not the Bush-lite, masterfully played pivot off of Obama’s Cairo speech. It’s spilling out all over the place. It’s not meeting its objectives. Regardless, politics does have its uses, and the main one is to hold our leaders accountable, regardless of party affiliation.

More emails?

Via Reuters: ‘U.S. Ambassador To Libya Killed In Benghazi Attack’

From Michael Totten’s Blog: ‘Two Hours’…From The BBC Via Michael Totten: ‘Libya: Islamist Militia Bases Stormed In Benghazi’

Al Qaida back in AfPak: Lara Logan On Afghanistan Via Youtube: ’2012 BGA Annual Luncheon Keynote Speech’

The rise of Islamism across the region…Via Youtube-Uncommon Knowledge With Fouad Ajami And Charles Hill

Didn’t we have this discussion a while ago: Charlie Rose Episode On Libya Featuring Bernhard Henri-Levy, Les Gelb And Others

Jamie Dettmer At The Daily Beast: ‘Was Benghazi Attack on U.S. Consulate an Inside Job?’

October 28, 2012October 28, 2012 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full piece here.

There is a lot of confusion about what happened in Benghazi, but it’s increasingly clear that a decision was made by those in charge not to send reinforcements and it’s not entirely clear why not, once they had knowledge of events unfolding (fear of another Desert One?):

‘There are scant signs of any serious investigation into Ansar al-Sharia at the moment—a marked departure from the frenetic interest in the group in the days following the assault. On the heels of the attack, Libyan officials picked up a couple dozen people they said may have had information about the siege. Four remain in custody and all are linked to Ansar al-Sharia. But major figures in the Benghazi Salafist and jihadist firmament have not been questioned—including Ahmed Abu Khattala, the founder of another Salafist militia called Abu Obaida Bin Jarrah, which has some crossover membership with Ansar al-Sharia. ‘

As others have pointed out, the forces that have been unleashed in the Middle East, the rise of the Islamism, and the retrenching Al-Qaida may require greater realism, realpolitik, and overall strategy than the current administration’s liberal internationalist approach (the anti-Bush approach) is able to handle.

There’s also arguably no greater blow to morale than potentially leaving men to fight it out on their own, and perhaps, disobey orders in order to do their duty. A tough spot.

Via Christopher Dickey, Eli Lake and Jaime Dettmer at Newsweek, the most accurate account of events about that night in Benghazi that I’ve come across.

Via Reuters: ‘U.S. Ambassador To Libya Killed In Benghazi Attack’

From Michael Totten’s Blog: ‘Two Hours’…From The BBC Via Michael Totten: ‘Libya: Islamist Militia Bases Stormed In Benghazi’

Al Qaida back in AfPak: Lara Logan On Afghanistan Via Youtube: ’2012 BGA Annual Luncheon Keynote Speech’

The rise of Islamism across the region…Via Youtube-Uncommon Knowledge With Fouad Ajami And Charles Hill

Didn’t we have this discussion a while ago: Charlie Rose Episode On Libya Featuring Bernhard Henri-Levy, Les Gelb And Others

Brzezinski and Kissinger still having it out?: From Newsweek: Henry Kissinger ‘Deployments And Diplomacy’… Youtube Via Foreign Affairs: Zbigniew Brzezinski Discusses NATO And Foreign Policy

From Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘Exclusive: Libya Cable Detailed Threats’

October 11, 2012October 15, 2012 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full post here.

‘Just two days before the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, two leaders of the Libyan militias responsible for keeping order in the city threatened to withdraw their men.’

Why is this important? There appears to be a large gap between what our President is saying, and some of what he is doing through policy. Here is a summation of what I posted at Althouse’s blog, and I think it’s worth repeating:

‘Admitting Al-Qaida is still active and gaining ground in Afpak is admitting the reasons we went there are still valid, and will require continued military presence. We are, in Bush’s words, in a war on terror. Admitting that this attack was perpetrated by Al-Qaida in Libya means we’re still in a war on terror. It’s global and ongoing.

Hence the drone strikes, the surge in Afghanistan, and the continuation of most of Bush’s policies, including all kinds of abridgement of liberties here at home.

Let’s talk about the War On Terror. Let’s talk about the drone strikes. Let’s talk about Al-Qaida. Let’s talk about where America is in this war, and what policies the President has put in place and what we’re actually doing about it.’

Libya was supposed to have been billed as a success for Obama. We toppled a tyrant in the name of freedom (albeit a different definition that Bush envisioned) but let the Libyans do it themselves. It cost much less than Iraq, tried to appeal to international institutions as we did work with Britain and France, and there was less risk involved. We now have kind of a client state in Libya, and there was genuine support to get Ansar Al Sharia out after Stevens was killed. In the administration’s defense, this was just the kind of flower he promised to grow with his vision.

So how does Obama’s foreign policy vision line up with the policies he’s kept in place from the Bush administration? Just what are the threats facing America? How are Obama’s liberal internationalist policies working out there in the real world?

I’d like to think I would do the same for any other President.

Any thoughts and comments are welcome.

————————

Addition: After the VP debate, I came away with the following:

1. Ryan correctly pointed out that Obama’s policy in Syria is not peace through strength. We ended up hemming and hawing through the U.N. and ceding too much of our interests to Russia, Iran, and other bad actors, who do not share our interests and actively work against our interests (though it’s not clear what to be done in Syria). We’ve changed ideals guiding our foreign policy, and these are clearly some downsides which can always possibly cause more conflict in the future. I believe that if we don’t stand up for our interests, no one will, and our interests don’t necessarily align with European interests either (and we’ve had limited, but much appreciated, support from allies). We don’t necessarily need to guide our foreign policy with these ideals to be successful.

2. The reason we went to Afghanistan, and the reason we’re still there is not to avenge 9/11 (though there’s some truth to that), but to secure our national interest. There are groups of Islamic terrorists and sympathizers who will actively plan and carry out attacks against us, and they will hole up in this area. There’s more and more Al Qaida on the ground as we speak. As hopeless as it looks (Pakistan actively working against us and supporting terrorism, the COIN results, the seemingly impossible task of nation building, the ungovernable FATA region, the very untrustworthy Afghan Army, Karzai’s weakness, the fact that the Taliban can probably wait us out and the over 2,000 Americans who’ve sacrificed their lives for our safety), our objective has always been to prevent more attacks on our soil. A timeline and withdrawal may please the base at home, but may not meet this objective. I don’t think any sitting U.S. President can allow this to happen, hence the drone strikes, Obama’s surge, and the continued war on terror. We’re still at war.

Addition: Al Qaida is on the rise in Afghanistan, and our objective has not been met. Just ask Lara Logan from 60 minutes who’s been watching the war.

Via Reuters: ‘U.S. Ambassador To Libya Killed In Benghazi Attack’

Just how far Left is this administration anyways? Is Bernhard Henri-Levy actually influencing U.S. policy decisions..? From New York Magazine: ‘European Superhero Quashes Libyan Dictator’…Bernhard Henri-Levy At The Daily Beast: ‘A Moral Tipping Point’…Charlie Rose Episode On Libya Featuring Bernhard Henri-Levy, Les Gelb And Others…

Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘Despite Threats, U.S. Cut Security in Libya Before Attacks’

October 5, 2012October 6, 2012 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full post here.

There’s now a House Committee on Oversight panel looking into the security situation in Benghazi.

‘Chaffetz went further Wednesday, saying in an interview that the number of American diplomatic security officers serving in Libya had been reduced in the six months prior to the attacks. “The fully trained Americans who can deal with a volatile situation were reduced in the six months leading up to the attacks,” he said. “When you combine that with the lack of commitment to fortifying the physical facilities, you see a pattern.”

Some Libyan guards were shady, and much like some Afghan National Army troops, you can’t be sure who’s on the Taliban’s payroll, and who’s calling ahead to Ansar Al-Sharia when there’s a chance to attack. Ambadassor Stevens did assume a lot of risk traveling the way he did to Benghazi knowing how bad it was getting on the ground. This was a pattern of his.

‘On Tuesday, Clinton wrote in a letter to Chaffetz and Issa that she intended to cooperate with the House committee’s investigation. But in the letter she did not promise to turn over all of the cables and documents requested by Chaffetz, saying she had empowered her own accountability review board to find out what had happened in Benghazi. “Nobody will hold this department more accountable than we hold ourselves,” she wrote.’

I don’t necessarily mistrust the State Department, as this also seems to be our bureaucratic administration system in action. I think this administration is doing everything it can to keep its foreign policy platform alive, and it’s simply meeting realities on many fronts. A Republican Congress may also bear some responsibility, apparently, for slashing the budget.

Here’s a quote by Samuel Huntington with some relevance:

“Although the professional soldier accepts the reality of never-ending and limited conflict, “the liberal tendency,” Huntington explained, is “to absolutize and dichotomize war and peace.” Liberals will most readily support a war if they can turn it into a crusade for advancing humanistic ideals. That is why, he wrote, liberals seek to reduce the defense budget even as they periodically demand an adventurous foreign policy.’

I think many liberals are still saying they are winding down the bad wars, and slowly leading us to “peace,” through strong international institutions, which ignores a lot of reality.

Addition: Why decrease security with a worsening situation on the ground? Did the State Department act negligently?

It’s one thing to protect your foreign policy platform by putting your head in the sand, it’s another if American life is lost. We’ll have to wait and see.

Via Reuters: ‘U.S. Ambassador To Libya Killed In Benghazi Attack’

From The BBC Via Michael Totten: ‘Libya: Islamist Militia Bases Stormed In Benghazi’

September 21, 2012September 23, 2012 / chr1 / 1 Comment

Full post here.

Michael Totten’s post here.

This would be good news, and I think a possibly important success for Obama’s foreign policy. It was made possible, sadly, not only by the planned assassination of ambassador Chris Stevens, but by his life’s work. He was there for many Libyans, working alongside them in the bitter struggle against Gadhafi, when it counted. It’s also made possible by the people who stormed Ansar-Al-Sharia’s base. This has been a primary goal of Obama’s foreign policy; to isolate and highlight the extremists, the radicals, the Islamists, especially Al Qaeda affiliates and try and find a sweet spot of Muslim sentiment on the ground to push them aside. ‘Moderate’ Muslims may be a chimera in my limited experience, and they may not, but a group of Libyans apparently giving the thugs a run for their money is a good start.

Totten’s new book: Where The West Ends.

Addition:An emailer points out that such hope reveals my hand as a neo-con. Look around at Egypt, the rise of Islamism generally, the gathering threats on the horizon. They are there, dear reader.

Another Addition: Beyond Jimmy Carter, Obama believes he will bridge two worlds. That’s quite a risk for Americans at home and through our foreign policy. This is a bright spot amidst a real mess.

Obama’s still pushing the video-started-the-riots story? Was he really willing to be so nebulous on free speech?

It’s more about the Free Libya group getting tired of the lawlessness rather than Ambassador Stevens.

Yet Another Addition: NY Times has an interview with Morsi. Still ‘optimistic.’ CNN, of all places, releases information from Stevens’ diary after promising the family they wouldn’t, because they thought it pertinent. The NY Times has a piece critical of the administration’s handling of Iraq, where basically, we’d be lucky to get a strong military and strongman leadership.

Why did the Obama administration claim there was more security when there likely wasn’t for Stevens in Libya? Why did it blame the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ video for the attack in Benghazi for so long? Did the administration’s actions during this time potentially put other embassies and other Americans at risk? Did it fail to meet a fundamental defense of the first amendment by trotting out Nakoula to placate the actually rioting Muslims across the Muslim world, and shift the responsibility to Google, and individual American citizens in order to ultimately save Obama’s foreign policy and belief that he can bridge two worlds?

Those are big risks to take. A little explanation would be nice.

Another: MSNBC reports on CNN reporting despite the State Department’s to ‘protect the family.’

Adam Garfinkle At The American Interest: ‘Remember Libya?’…A Few Thoughts On Watching Operations In Libya