Deeper Benghazi

Today we learned some more about what happened in Benghazi on September 11. More importantly, we learned that the State Department knew a lot more about what happened than they seemed to let on.

Charlene Lamb testified today in front of Darrell Issa's committee. Lamb is in charge of security at 275 diplomatic facilities. Her testimony is here (note: PDF). You can read it yourself, and you should, but I call your attention to something very significant. In her testimony, Lamb states the following (emphasis mine):

That brings me to the events of September 11 itself. The account I am about to present is based on first-hand reports from several security personnel present that night. Additionally, I was in our Diplomatic Security Command Center monitoring multiple open lines with our agents for much of the attack.

Think about this -- State was in contact with the consulate throughout the attack and yet, five days later, Susan Rice went out and told people something totally different than what happened. It would have been very easy, and very justifiable, to say that State needed to confirm details from other intelligence reports. It would have been irritating, but understandable, to say that the investigation is ongoing and it's premature to say what happened. That's not what happened, however. What happened is that Susan Rice said this:

But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.  What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. 

Perhaps Charlene Lamb never sent her memo. Perhaps State thought that the "loud voices outside the walls" that the diplomats heard at 9:40 p.m. that evening were part of a spontaneous reaction. But it doesn't make a lot of sense, especially when Lamb's testimony states that "[d]ozens of attackers then launched a full-scale assault that was unprecedented in its size and intensity."

I apologize in advance if pointing this out is somehow an unseemly example of making political hay, but I think we really deserve an answer as to why Rice went out on the Sunday chat shows and talked about YouTube videos.