Here's my take:
- The IC allegedly received an intelligence report via email that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility via Facebook. We now know that post was either removed, never existed, or was posted by someone only familiar with the group, according to various "senior Administration sources" used by the media. Why post something and then remove it? Logic would dictate if you were bad enough to do the deed and then brag about it, why take it down.
- If in fact the Facebook post were from the group, it's quite simple why they would remove it. Terrorists aren't all that dumb and are certainly tech savvy enough to understand how IP addresses work. If true, it is my supposition they realized that within minutes the IC would be running traces on the IP associated with that post and would be ramming a Hellfire missile down the author's throat not too soon afterwards.
- I know what you're thinking - But that doesn't explain why the Director of National Intelligence would remove it from Ambassador Rice's statement. Au contraire! It does. My guess is the IC was close to running that trace but hadn't acted on it for various reasons - one of which I'll explain in a bit. In these types of dynamic situations, it can be difficult to ascertain fact from fiction. When coordinating retribution attacks, you need to be accurate. Supposing the Facebook post did exist, the IC presumably asked that Ambassador Rice not blow their cover by disclosing in fact that they knew who the bad guys were. I see you over there making that face.
- Before this alleged posting by Ansar al-Sharia, we had no concrete evidence they were the culprit. Had Ambassador Rice said this was terrorism too prematurely, we may have lost the tactical advantage of surprise and could have made things extremely problematic for our Libyan allies and our special operations units who undoubtedly would have/could have/should have been tasked with hunting down the culprits. To give the situation some additional much-need perspective, it would do us all well to remember there wasn't a single capture from this attack. With the absence of a significant amount of actionable chatter, the US government would have been flying blindly with a reprisal attack.
- Oh. Did I forget to mention how unreliable the source that email cited was? Yeah. About that. CNN contacted a guy, Aaron Azelin who monitors jihadist sites for a living. You'll love what he said.
"However, an examination of the known Facebook and Twitter accounts of Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi reveals no such claim of responsibility. Aaron Zelin, a research fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, tracks dozens of jihadist websites and archives much of what they say. He told CNN he was unaware of any such claim having been posted on the official Facebook page or Twitter feed of Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi.
Zelin, who said his RSS feed sends him any new statement from the group, provided CNN with a copy of that feed. It shows no Facebook update between September 8 and September 12, when a posting late that afternoon first referenced the attack. Zelin notes that the posting referred to a news conference the group had held earlier that day in Benghazi in which it denied any role in the assault on the consulate, while sympathizing with the attackers.
Accompanying a posting of the news conference on YouTube, a commentary says that the attack on the consulate was "a wave of rage for Allah and his Prophet, it came from the Muslim youths."
The posting continues: "Ansar al-Sharia brigade did not officially participate as a military body, nor received any orders directed from the brigade."
The group's Twitter feed tells the same story. The account, @anssarelshariea, bears the group's logo and a tweet on September 8 - and then nothing until four days later. And at no point is there a claim of involvement in or responsibility for the attack on the U.S. Consulate compound."
All of this makes me wonder, "How is that we had a CIA station in Benghazi but the only intelligence we had to verify this group was responsible came from a single Facebook post?" I know getting a hold of sources during a crisis can be difficult and the intel may not be very credible but I can't help but wonder why we haven't heard more about the human intelligence that should have been available. You would naturally assume the CIA would have been working its assets into this group and would have had some indication this was coming. Maybe it did but that hasn't come out of any of the testimony, as far as I know. Instead of asking this and other questions relating to what happened on the ground, we've been stuck with an oversight committee more obsessed with talking points and adulterous 4-star generals. I firmly believe in order to properly secure any resource in a hostile environment, you have to be procuring actionable intelligence. This did not happen in Benghazi. Until we address this shortcoming, it may continue to happen.
