Intel sources: Video from Benghazi attack debunks administration claim about protests

posted at 1:21 pm on October 12, 2012 by Mary Katharine Ham

I can heartily recommend everything Eli Lake of Newsweek has written on the Benghazi attack. He’s been all over this story from day one and has great sources. Today, he reports that the FBI and administration are examining closed-circuit video from the Benghazi compound at the time of the attack along with video from an overhead surveillance drone.

They’re hoping to identify known jihadists among the perpetrators, but Lake reports the tapes have already made one thing clear. There was no protest at the Benghazi consulate that day:

Video footage from the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, taken the night of the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks, shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, according to two U.S. intelligence officials who have seen the footage and are involved in the ongoing investigation. The footage, which was recovered from the site last week by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, offers some of the most tangible evidence yet that a military-style assault took place, according to these officials…

The videos could also play into an expanding investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that is looking at whether security steps could have been taken that would have saved the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans killed that day. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who is one of the Republicans leading the House investigation, says he hasn’t been given the footage.

In addition to the footage from the consulate cameras, the U.S. government is also poring over video taken from an overhead U.S. surveillance drone that arrived for the final hour of the night battle at the consulate compound and nearby annex.

Video from the compound’s cameras debunk the initial line from the Obama administration that there was a protest in front of the consulate on the night of the attacks, according to one of the U.S. intelligence officials who has seen the footage, and a senior Obama administration official familiar with what they show.

The FBI just collected this footage from the site last week, almost a month after the attack. I’ll send you over to read the rest.

Flashback: The Washington Post reviews the changing statements from the administration on the Benghazi attack as it went from spontaneous video-inspired melee to admission of a coordinated terrorist attack.

CNN presented Stephanie Cutter with a montage of many of those statements Thursday, starting at about 1:30, below:

And yet Vice President Joe Biden and Obama campaign mouthpieces Cutter and Ben Labolt have said in the past day that those changes in story were simply a result of changing intelligence, given swiftly and forthrightly to the American people, despite copious reporting to the contrary.

Campaign manager Jim Messina doubled down on that specious defense last night while attempting to defend Biden’s erroneous statement on Benghazi security requests, which Ed covered here.

Update: TPM’s Evan McMorris-Santoro caught up with Obama campaign manager Jim Messina after the debate and asked him about Biden’s Libya answer as to whether the administration was asked for more security.

“We have been honest with the American people repeatedly on what we knew, when we knew it and we’ll get the facts and make sure if there’s things we need to improve in the future, thats what we’ll do,” he said.

A couple of exit quotations (Allahpundit™) from security forces in Libya, from Thursday’s hearings, which Biden was apparently unable to watch:

“All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources,” the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Eric Nordstrom, testified. “In those conversations, I was specifically told [by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb] ‘You cannot request an SST extension.’ I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost. We went ahead and requested it anyway.”

Nordstrom was so critical of the State Department’s reluctance to respond to his calls for more security that he said, “For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”

Another one:

“We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met,” testified Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was leading a security team in Libya until August.

Nordstrom again:

“Once the first team of [temporary personnel] expired, there was a complete and total lack of planning for what was going to happen next,” he said. “There was no plan, there was just hope that everything would get better.”

And, Wood again:

“It was instantly recognizable as a terrorist attack. We almost expected the attack to come. It was a matter of time,” Wood said. “[Al Qaeda's] presence grows there every day. They are certainly more established there than we are.”

Now, investigators and lawmakers will be able to go to the tape on that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Over half the personnel at Benghazi were CIA operatives…the two SEALS were there under contract to find and secure weapons that were left after the Libyan revolution. They joined the fight to save the post and the Ambassador and were killed in the action.
I wonder how many of the terrorists were killed and what happened to their dead and wounded?

d1carter on October 12, 2012 at 2:17 PM

I hope that Mrs. Lamb was not the top of the management team making final decisions on what security was need in Benghazi after all of the violence that was happening prior to the assassination of Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans. If she is the top of the management ladder we are in deep pooh!

d1carter on October 12, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Under some pretty direct questioning in the hearings, she gave up the names of two people up the chain from her in the reporting structure. I assume the administration also considers them expendable. Same pattern as Fast and Furious.

a capella on October 12, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Obama wants to hand the ME and N. Africa back to the muzzies, with no American influence. Just look around. He’s doing it in front of your eyes.

Schadenfreude on October 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Since Petraeus blames the “problems” in the Middle East on Israel, he is very likely in agreement.

VorDaj on October 12, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Does my Obama ‘hatred’ get tiresome for you too? How about my Biden ‘hatred’?

VorDaj on October 12, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Perhaps I should have used the word “obsession.” Have you always felt this way about him?

a capella on October 12, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Since Petraeus blames the “problems” in the Middle East on Israel, he is very likely in agreement.

VorDaj on October 12, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Ah, that’s where it comes from.

a capella on October 12, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Petraeus’s Israel Problem
His policy is to turn our back on a staunch ally.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

“Boot’s attack on West is an effort to defend a surpassingly foolish statement in which Gen. David Petraeus cast Israel as the source of all America’s woes in the Middle East. To his great discredit, the general — in a Clintonesque fashion which, as we shall see, is probably not a coincidence — simultaneously denied making the statement, grudgingly admitted making it while minimizing its significance, and accused West and others of misrepresenting his views. In fact, the general’s critics quoted his words at length, placed them in unmistakable context, and drew from them the same commonsense conclusion drawn by Israel’s gleeful critics — for whom Petraeus is the hero of the moment.

As head of Central Command, General Petraeus’s area of responsibility includes Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. That is, CENTCOM is the U.S. military’s bridge to the Muslim umma, much of which despises America. The vast majority of Americans couldn’t care less about that. It is Islam’s problem, not ours — we’re not dying to be loved by a dysfunctional civilization that produces most of the planet’s terrorists. But for the Wilsonians who deem it worth our time, money, and lives to try to remake the Islamic world, Muslim animus is something that must be addressed — otherwise, they’d have to concede that there is nothing we can do about it, that Muslims resent more than appreciate our help, and that their grand project is thus a fool’s errand.”

VorDaj on October 12, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Clapper has already fallen on his sword to cover for the White House…should he resign?

d1carter on October 12, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Perhaps I should have used the word “obsession.” Have you always felt this way about him?

a capella on October 12, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Do you think I have an “obsession” with Obama too? How about Biden? How about Clinton? Do you have an “obsession” with Obama? How about Biden? How about Clinton? Is Petraeus to you what Mohammad is to Muslims?

VorDaj on October 12, 2012 at 2:30 PM

HEY! Who you going to believe, Barry and Joey, or your LYING EYES?

GarandFan on October 12, 2012 at 2:35 PM

I am both surprised that there is a video and that we are allowed to know that there is a video.

Cindy Munford on October 12, 2012 at 1:36 PM

See what happens when someone tries to scapegoat the intel agencies.

Look for more and more of this in the coming days.

:-)

Solaratov on October 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Grom Greta’s site

Fredddd

People died
Obama Lied
Hillary should be tried
The media hide

Schadenfreude on October 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM

this wasn’t the US consulate in Liechtenstein or something, it was in Libya for pete’s sake and you mean to tell me that they didn’t know???
BS

ted c on October 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Let me see, if the “consulate” or whatever it was (intel station? oasis? golf course?) in Benghazi needed a lot more security, then that would mean that there were Hostile Forces of the Jihadist Kind there, wouldn’t it, implying that the Operation Kinetic Princess had got rid of a compliant tyrant only to install a new full-bore Muslim Brotherhoody regime–you know, the kind that wants to kill or subjugate Jews and Americans while implementing Shariah according to the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). And that would mean the entire Libyan operation was, in effect, in aid of our enemy.

That is, if the Administration acknowledged that our enemy is militant radical Islam. Actually it doesn’t–it says our enemy is Al Qaida and that AQ is neutralized, which it is not. Another lie. Al Qaida, and the broader movement of which it forms a part, is back and ready to rumble. They’re just salivating at the prospect of getting their hands on some highly enriched uranium, too.

Apart from the coverup, these questions remain unanswered:

1. What was Stevens doing in Benghazi with one bodyguard on 9/11/12?

2. How was he killed? Was he tortured to death or was his dead body abused by the mob?

3. Was Stevens a known homosexual and, if so, was he posted as ambassador to a Shariah Law Muslim country while being aware that this constituted a)A grievous, gratuitous, insensitive insult to Islam, the kind that we should never ever do; and b)An extreme risk to him personally?

spiritof61 on October 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM

I am both surprised that there is a video and that we are allowed to know that there is a video.

Cindy Munford on October 12, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Intelligence will destroy them. Otherwise they have NO future.

Schadenfreude on October 12, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Ask this question millions of times

Why was Stevens in Benghazi on 9/11?

Therein lies the kernel.

Schadenfreude on October 12, 2012 at 2:39 PM

HEY! Who you going to believe, Barry and Joey, or your LYING EYES?

GarandFan on October 12, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Well the head of the CIA said to believe Barry and Joey and him, Davy, not your lying eyes. You wouldn’t want to disrespect the great general, would you? If you did someone might think you were “obsessed” with him, and you wouldn’t want that.

Foxnews: “A congressional source told Fox News that CIA Director David Petraeus, during a briefing with members of the House Intelligence Committee three days after the attack, also espoused the view that Benghazi was an out-of-control demonstration prompted by the YouTube video. According to the source, this was “shocking” to some members who were present and saw the same intelligence pointing toward a terrorist attack.”

VorDaj on October 12, 2012 at 2:40 PM

If the State Department knew that this was a terrorist attack why was Hillary publicly claiming it was the video? Does she talk to her people at State?

d1carter on October 12, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Do you think I have an “obsession” with Obama too? How about Biden? How about Clinton? Do you have an “obsession” with Obama? How about Biden? How about Clinton? Is Petraeus to you what Mohammad is to Muslims?

VorDaj on October 12, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Oh, fer cripe’s sake! You are starting to sound unhinged. I’m not a Petraeus fan, and haven’t been since he made his comments about Israel, but I don’t make every post about it and try to retain a bit of objectivity. In fact, I may carry a bit of the dreaded RINO gene which expresses itself on occasion. Should I leave the tent?

a capella on October 12, 2012 at 2:43 PM

From Greta’s site

Fredddd

People died
Obama Lied
Hillary should be tried
The media hide
Petraeus should be fried
Schadenfreude on October 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM

VorDaj on October 12, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Here’s what I want to know: Has anyone followed up on the Cairo protests to determine what sparked them? I know that the administration claim is -again- the video. But they were “wrong” about Benghazi, could they have been wrong about Cairo?

About the time that they were admonishing the Cairo Embassy tweets on the movie, they had to be learning about the details in Benghazi. Is it possible that they knew all along it was terror, but someone seized on the Cairo mention of the movie and tried to use that narrative for Benghazi? Obviously the driving factor would have been political. “Hey, we can make this work for us. Just say it was the video.”

And if so, they had to at least be reasonably confident that the media would lie down for it. If not outright collusion, then certainly expectations were they could pass this debacle off as much less than it really was with the help of a complicit media.

BKeyser on October 12, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Should I leave the tent?

a capella on October 12, 2012 at 2:43 PM

It’s up to you.

VorDaj on October 12, 2012 at 2:45 PM

“Ex-CIA chief slams Biden for throwing U.S. spies under the bus during debate by ‘blaming those who put their lives on the line’ for Benghazi debacle.”

Seven Percent Solution on October 12, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Well, the current CIA chief apparently ♥ Biden.

VorDaj on October 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM

You gripe of evolving statements from the White House – but doesn’t even come close to the evolving conspiracy theories being pushed here.

verbaluce on October 12, 2012 at 1:37 PM

But Lamb saying that they watched the attackin real time does.

Spin little ballerina, spin!

Solaratov on October 12, 2012 at 2:52 PM

…see…all along they just got confused about which vedio they were talking about!…no one lied.

KOOLAID2 on October 12, 2012 at 2:55 PM

“Iran has no weapon to put an atomic bomb in.”

- Joe Biden, debate

A few points…

1. Iran does has Shahab missiles and Sajjil missiles- the Sajjil-2 is a medium-range missile of about 2,200 km or 1,375 miles when carrying a 750-kg warhead, capable of hitting our assets in the Middle East or any of our allies in the regime (although admittedly it’s rather inaccurate) and it is working on more sophisticated delivery systems.

2. Biden is basing his statement on what he has been told by the intelligence community, yet…

A.

“Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century.”

- Senator Joe Biden, about Saddam Hussein’s WMD, 12 February 1998

B.

“[Saddam Hussein is] a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security. We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world. He must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.”

- Senator Joe Biden, Meet The Press, 26 September 2002

C.

“The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.”

- Senator Joe Biden, Meet The Press, 29 April 2007

D. But then, “Bush lied. People died.” or based his decision to invade Iraq on “faulty intelligence.”

E. “Our intel on Libya was faulty.”

F. According to our intel, Iran doesn’th have delivery system capacity….

So, we are supposed to cherrypick when to believe the intelligence community!

3. There’s much focus on Israel in relation to Iran’s nuclear weapons programme and, while Iran’s threat is gravely real, there is another issue that I haven’t seen discussed…and it doesn’t have anything to do with a nuclear Iran sparking a nuclear arms’ race in the ME, possible disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, or the price of oil.

Iran doesn’t need a delivery system capable of hitting the US to get us involved in a war even if you could care less about Israel. All it has to do is hit any member of NATO, such as Turkey, and we are automatically involved in a war. As should have been a reminder, NATO recently said that should a war breakout between Turkey and Iranian-backed, Syria, its members WILL defend the Turks…and guess who supplies the majority of troops and materiel to NATO? Yep.

Resist We Much on October 12, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Ace sheds some light on the whole story…

d1carter on October 12, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Hell, I don’t want us there, lay waste to their cities kill their militants and salt the effing ground on our way out…

SWalker on October 12, 2012 at 2:07 PM

I don’t either, but the Democrats are doing exactly what they did about Saddam’s WMD. Don’t let them get away with it.

Resist We Much on October 12, 2012 at 3:02 PM

You gripe of evolving statements from the White House – but doesn’t even come close to the evolving conspiracy theories being pushed here.

verbaluce on October 12, 2012 at 1:37 PM

In: Evolution

Out: Lie, prevarication, misleading

This administration does a lot of “evolving.”

Resist We Much on October 12, 2012 at 3:03 PM

OK.
Why did Biden deny ever knowing that more security was requested there?
If that IS true, then they both should be fired for not knowing that bcs it’s their job to know those things.
The hazard pay was upped, but they received no extra security.
Why is that?

Badger40 on October 12, 2012 at 1:42 PM

That’s a safe play.
If ‘they knew’ – BAD.
If ‘they didn’t know’ – BAD.
Again…evolving conspiracy theories.

verbaluce on October 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Ask this question millions of times

Why was Stevens in Benghazi on 9/11?

Therein lies the kernel.

Schadenfreude on October 12, 2012 at 2:39 PM

You know, the sooner you can just lay out your conspiracy theory – and stop hinting at something – the sooner we can all move on from it.
Whadaya say?

verbaluce on October 12, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Libya was such safe and secure country for our diplomatic personnel that it took the FBI over three weeks to make it to the consulate in Benghazi to investigate the murder of four Americans there. The security of Libya must have changed overnight…

Hillary Clinton: “How could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate? In a city we helped save from destruction?”

d1carter on October 12, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Sorry, here’s the link to ACE…

d1carter on October 12, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Somebody may have mentioned it already, but doesn’t the terrorist in the picture of this article look gay?

cajunpatriot on October 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Diversity.

He’s an affirmative action hire.

Solaratov on October 12, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Is Petraeus to you what Mohammad is to Muslims?

VorDaj on October 12, 2012 at 2:30 P

You’re going a little overboard there.

Or, perhaps you don’t understand just what mohammed is to muslims.

Solaratov on October 12, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Again…evolving conspiracy theories.

verbaluce on October 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Have fun with that !
The evolved de evolution of the security and safety of Libya was and is no theory. Nor was it a conspiracy.
It was real.
It was known.
It was deadly.
The Executive Branch and those beholden to it failed the country and all it’s citizens.

Jabberwock on October 12, 2012 at 3:47 PM

See what happens when someone tries to scapegoat the intel agencies.

Look for more and more of this in the coming days.

:-)

Solaratov on October 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM

If the State Department knew that this was a terrorist attack why was Hillary publicly claiming it was the video? Does she talk to her people at State?

d1carter on October 12, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I love to watch this administration in its death spiral! :)

Anti-Control on October 12, 2012 at 3:50 PM

OK Dems. Who you gonna believe, them, or your own lyin’ eyes?

NotEasilyFooled on October 12, 2012 at 3:56 PM

verbaluce, you naive, it’s the most obvious question, not a conspiracy theory at all. Any sane person would ask it. MO for all ambassadors is to stay put at the most secury office, in the embassy, during days like the anniversary of 9/11. How obtuse can your side be?

Schadenfreude on October 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Again…evolving conspiracy theories.

verbaluce on October 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Explain that to the families of the dead.

Schadenfreude on October 12, 2012 at 4:01 PM

I am both surprised that there is a video and that we are allowed to know that there is a video.

Cindy Munford on October 12, 2012 at 1:36 PM

See what happens when someone tries to scapegoat the intel agencies.

Look for more and more of this in the coming days.

:-)

Solaratov on October 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Ain’t it the truth.

You would think people like Biden and Hillary who have been in government for almost forever would have learned better than to scapegoat the people in government who know how to leak to the media!

Apparently not.

tom on October 12, 2012 at 4:10 PM

verbaluce, you naive, it’s the most obvious question, not a conspiracy theory at all. Any sane person would ask it. MO for all ambassadors is to stay put at the most secury office, in the embassy, during days like the anniversary of 9/11. How obtuse can your side be?

Schadenfreude on October 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM

So what your offering, in hindsight, is that that embassies/consulates should have been vacated for 9/11?
Assuming you mean a select few, that’s not a ludicrous suggestion.
But the fact that they weren’t seems a result of SOP…not something nefarious or incompetent.
And certainly not (cut dissonant church organ chord here…’Lies!!!’.

verbaluce on October 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM

So what your offering, in hindsight, is that that embassies/consulates should have been vacated for 9/11?
Assuming you mean a select few, that’s not a ludicrous suggestion.
But the fact that they weren’t seems a result of SOP…not something nefarious or incompetent.
And certainly not (cut dissonant church organ chord here…’Lies!!!’.

verbaluce on October 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM

He’s asking why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi–jihadi-infested, security-endangered, previously-probed, and obviously dangerous Benghazi–with less protection than any other envoy in the Middle East one month ago on September 11. It’s a very simple, basic question, one which has not been answered yet. We already know that security was requested and denied by State. Now why was this trip necessary?

Your deflection attempts are ridiculous, but it’s understandable: you start making mistakes when you get desperate. Isn’t that right, Mr. Carney?

spiritof61 on October 12, 2012 at 5:22 PM

verbaluce, you naive, it’s the most obvious question, not a conspiracy theory at all. Any sane person would ask it. MO for all ambassadors is to stay put at the most secury office, in the embassy, during days like the anniversary of 9/11. How obtuse can your side be?

Schadenfreude on October 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM

So what your offering, in hindsight, is that that embassies/consulates should have been vacated for 9/11?
Assuming you mean a select few, that’s not a ludicrous suggestion.
But the fact that they weren’t seems a result of SOP…not something nefarious or incompetent.
And certainly not (cut dissonant church organ chord here…’Lies!!!’.

verbaluce on October 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Are you really this naive??? An ambassador rarely travels to the locations of other consulates in any country. The question is very legit, what he heck was he doing at a less than adequate protected consulate (unlike the embassy in Tripoli) on a day when the security tightens in all the US embassies around the world. What kind of a silly person you have to be not to ask yourself this question. Especially, that we know now about the ambassador’s apprehension and fears that he is targeted by militias, from his diary. So, he knows security is poor at the Consulate in Beghazi, he fears that he is personally targeted by terrorists/militias, yet he goes there on the day before 9/11. What could have been so important, and who ordered him to go the and whatever for. These are ll very legit questions. I was in Paris and twice in London on different 9/11 anniversaries since 2001 and the US Embassies turn literally into fortresses on those days, with gunmen posted outside, with their autoatic guns in sight.. During normal days, it’s more subtle, there are agents around the embassies buildings who probably carry concealed weapons, but on 9/11 and whenever they have attack alerts, they deploy the heavily armed guards, and enhanced type of protection, which is pretty visible and that I think it’s meant to be a deterrent too, and have an intimidation effect. So, clearly the rational logic choice for the ambassador should have been to stay in Tripoli that day. Yet he chose to go to Benghazi. And you are not curious to know why was he there and what eas the nature of the mission that he ended up dying for.

jimver on October 12, 2012 at 5:26 PM

verbaluce on October 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Has this one always been like this?

Bmore on October 12, 2012 at 5:31 PM

verbaluce on October 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM
Stop playing the fool. You do have a case to make, but reality is biting hard. These were their choices. Live with it.

flackcatcher on October 12, 2012 at 6:09 PM

It came out in the Senate Hearing that State Dept was watching the attack in real-time ! They knew immediately what was going down – this failure / incompetence will continue to smolder until it catches fire – stay tuned !!

alQemist on October 12, 2012 at 7:02 PM

General David Patraeus, Manchurian General

Typicalwhitewoman on October 12, 2012 at 7:07 PM

The pic of this guy looks like he’s doing a weird little dance move.

WeekendAtBernankes on October 12, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Can someone please tell me if the Fox News website is agreeing with the absurd idea the the video is responsible for the attack in Benghazi that culminated in the deaths of 4 Americans? Although the Associated Press contributed to the story, it was published today, the 13th of October by FoxNews.com

The article states “The video sparked violence in the Middle East, including in Egypt and Libya, where Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others were killed on Sept. 11 during an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Dozens more have also been killed in violence related to the film.

It sure sounds like FoxNews.com is agreeing with the above, and if not, should have stated so.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/13/al-qaida-leader-al-zawahri-urges-muslims-to-fight-us-over-prophet-film/?test=latestnews

metroryder on October 13, 2012 at 1:00 PM

metroryder on October 13, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Fox may be better than MSNBC but none of the TV networks have your best interests at heart. No surprises.

WeekendAtBernankes on October 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I wonder what happened to the people who were taken from the consulate to the “safe house”, where they came under attack again; and were evacuated via Benghazi Airport on 12/09.
No one has ever said anything about them – and they certainly haven’t been made available to the press.
They may have some interesting stories to tell.

Solaratov on October 13, 2012 at 5:37 PM

They may have some interesting stories to tell.

Solaratov on October 13, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Like, “at the first sound of gunfire, our Libyan Security Team vanished into the night . . .”.

Seriously. What kind of incompetent State Department hacks would trust the Libyans to provide security to the U.S. Embassy personnel? Oh yeah. Obama’s State Department hacks . . .

BigAlSouth on October 14, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 2