Sharyl Attkisson: E-mail shows State Dep’t knew the day after the Benghazi attack that jihadis were behind it

posted at 3:31 pm on May 2, 2014 by Allahpundit

Somehow this slipped through the cracks for me yesterday amid all the other Benghazi news, but Noah Rothman flagged it today and now I’m flagging it too. Simple question from Attkisson: If State had concluded as early as the day after the attack that a jihadi group was responsible, why was Hillary Clinton blaming the Mohammed video at the memorial service two days later? Here’s the key e-mail, which was cc’d to various people at State, describing a conversation with the Libyan ambassador. The author’s name is redacted.

bj

Timestamp: September 12, 2012, at 12:46 p.m. Less than 24 hours after Stevens was killed, they were already pointing the finger at Ansar al-Sharia, not a protest mob angered by the video that got out of control. But how’d they get the name Ansar al-Sharia? The (possible) answer to that comes earlier in the e-mail chain, on the day of the attack itself. Timestamp: September 11, 2012, 5:55 p.m.

bj2

So here’s the question. Did State know for a fact based on independent intelligence that Ansar al-Sharia was responsible before they started blaming the video, or do these e-mails simply show them relying on the group’s own claim of responsibility as evidence in the early chaotic hours afterward? If it’s the former, then introducing the video into the talking-point mix really was a deliberate attempt to hide the truth. If it’s the latter, then maybe it’s a simple matter of State having revised its assessment over the next few days as the CIA produced new information about what happened. Remember, the first official CIA talking points on September 14th said, “We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. consulate and subsequently its annex.” They were surely aware too that Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit for the attack but their first pass at explaining what happened blamed it on a spontaneous protest. Did they get new information between the 12th and 14th to steer them away from “Ansar al-Sharia did it” or did they deliberately steer it that way themselves to protect the White House? I’m not sure the e-mails quoted above push us hard in one direction either way.

One other thing. It’s become impossible (for me, at least) to keep straight precisely which details we already knew about Benghazi and which we didn’t know. Sometimes it’s easy — the Ben Rhodes e-mail uncovered this week was an emphatic did-not-know — but the timeline in the first few days is a muddle without memory-fresheners. I checked our archives to see if there’d been any indication in the past that the administration suspected Ansar al-Sharia’s involvement before they started blaming the video. Lo and behold — Reuters, October 23, 2012:

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show…

[An] email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time [on September 11, 2012, the day of the attack], carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president’s secure command post.

Actually, there’s an even earlier Reuters report that gets into this. On October 2, 2012, three weeks after the attack, in a piece headlined “U.S. had early indications Libya attack tied to organized militants,” the news agency cited very early intel about jihadi involvement as raising “fresh questions” about the administration’s blame-the-video narrative. Saxby Chambliss is quoted as wondering why he’d been hearing about a Mohammed movie if they had indications from the beginning that Ansar al-Sharia was involved. That question’s been out there since almost day one and still hasn’t been answered completely. How did the ball advance from “jihadis” on September 12th to “spontaneous protest” on September 14th? Was the CIA’s conclusion basically transitive — i.e. the movie inspired the protests in Cairo and the protest in Cairo inspired the attack in Benghazi, ergo the movie kinda sorta inspired the attack? Was it based on actual evidence? (The AP once reported that the attackers had encouraged a crowd of bystanders to chant about the movie.) That’s topic A for Trey Gowdy and the select committee.

In lieu of an exit question, I’ll leave you with this as a reminder of how serious Democrats are about this subject.

Update: Morgen Richmond e-mails to one-up me: CBS reported as early as September 13, 2012, just two days after the attack, that Ansar al-Sharia was the lead suspect. Three days later, Susan Rice was on the Sunday shows ventilating those “spontaneous protest” talking points.


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

Did anyone from the admin know the jihadis would attack Benghazi BEFORE it happened? I’d love to hear some facts come out on that…

fortcoins on May 2, 2014 at 3:34 PM

What difference, at this point, does it make?

LashRambo on May 2, 2014 at 3:34 PM

With so much conflicting info from reputable sources…funny how Hillary at 10 pm of the night of the attack put out a statement about the video’s effect on the religion of people around the world…..?

d1carter on May 2, 2014 at 3:35 PM

If State had concluded as early as the day after the attack that a jihadi group was responsible, why was Hillary Clinton blaming the Mohammed video at the memorial service two days later?

To clamp down on that negative liberty of Free Speech. The Fascist-Democrats (progressivism is simply a form of fascism) do not believe in free speech.

rbj on May 2, 2014 at 3:37 PM

“4 people died, and Hillary lied”

Did I say that about right lefties?

dentarthurdent on May 2, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Dude. It’s been like two years.

We are building a religion
We are building it bigger
We are widening the corridors
And adding more lanes

We are building a religion
A limited edition
We are now accepting callers
for these pendant key chains

To resist it is useless
It is useless to resist it
His cigarette is burning
But he never seems to ash

He is grooming his poodle
He is living comfort eagle
You can meet at his location
But you better come with cash

Now his hat is on backwards
He can show you his tattoos
He is in the music business
He is calling you “DUDE!”

Joe Mama on May 2, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Dog Eater and Killary got caught with their pants down and that’s all; one had a date in Vegas and the other was gauging how it would affect her preznidential aspirations.

They could have said like any other incident of this nature that they just aren’t sure but the response will be swift and sure and blah blah, and they’ll keep us informed. But no, some genius decided to blame an obscure vid and it snowballed from there.

Bishop on May 2, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Allahpundit, you racist dude, this was about two years ago, who cares?

SC.Charlie on May 2, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Seems long ago, but Dude, it’s happening.

Joe Mama on May 2, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Dude, it was over when the … Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!

cbenoistd on May 2, 2014 at 3:44 PM

If State had concluded as early as the day after the attack that a jihadi group was responsible, why was Hillary Clinton blaming the Mohammed video at the memorial service two days later?

dis·grace·ful (dĭs-grās′fəl)
adj.
Hillary Clinton at the memorial service as the caskets were displayed, blaming the deaths on a YouTube video.

From the memorial service, Hillary Clinton, quote
“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

She could say she didn’t blame the attacks on the video, but merely mentioned them in the same breath at the memorial service. That’s something Obama would do. If it turned out to be the video, then she could say she said so right away. If it wasn’t, then she could say she never said it was the video.

LashRambo on May 2, 2014 at 3:44 PM

I read in an article somewhere else in the past day or so that Hillary sent out a press release blaming the video at 10pm on the night of September 11. 2012. This is where the video angle probably began. He just hadn’t let everyone in on the company line yet. It took 2 days for everyone to get in on the loop about a video. That is why everyone came out on Friday, September 14 blazing the video line with all out furvor.

Remember, until Friday, the media was consumed with Mitt Romney’s “gaffe” of commenting on the situation before the event was over.

h a p f a t on May 2, 2014 at 3:46 PM

It’s a vast jihadi wing conspiracy.

birdwatcher on May 2, 2014 at 3:46 PM

On the one hand I’d like to think Hillary is toast…..

But on the other…Barack Obama’s 2nd term…

Gah!!!!

BigWyo on May 2, 2014 at 3:46 PM

The irony here is what a golden opportunity dog-eater missed. Knowing who was responsible he could have ordered the rescue mission with all guns blazing and come out a hero, regardless whether it was too late or not. Now all he has is this clusterf@&ck.

Harbingeing on May 2, 2014 at 3:46 PM

The one thing that really bothers me is that Dems and the media will do everything to distract from this tragic loss of life, rather than make an effort to learn the truth for the American people. Partisan politics us more important than Americans being slaughtered. This is supposed to be greatest democracy ever on this planet, and it is just another banana republic.

Techster64 on May 2, 2014 at 3:47 PM

For the good of the country, obama, or someone really high up needs to be impeached

ConservativePartyNow on May 2, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Obama Lied, Hillary Lied, Chris Stevens Died.

oscarwilde on May 2, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Remember, until Friday, the media was consumed with Mitt Romney’s “gaffe” of commenting on the situation before the event was over.

h a p f a t on May 2, 2014 at 3:46 PM

I think that is where this whole “an internet anti-muslim video caused this whole thing” came from.

They simply had to do or say something to get in front of it when it became part of the debates and made into a public issue. They did some quick off the cuff internal focus groups to come up with something, anything, and the video is what they came up with.

Sad, but plausible in my opinion. Once a day or so passed by they ran with it even when they knew better.

Johnnyreb on May 2, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Did anyone from the admin know the jihadis would attack Benghazi BEFORE it happened? I’d love to hear some facts come out on that…

fortcoins on May 2, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Well, there’s one theory that the event was supposed to be a pre-arranged kidnapping to use Stevens as a swap for the blind Sheik, but it went bad when the shooting started.

Another theory has it that it was a hired hit on Stevens because he had gotten cold feet about the flow of weapons.

If there’s any truth to either, there would have to have been foreknowledge to make the arrangements.

bofh on May 2, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Harry Reid has obviously contracted Tourette’s Syndrome in one of its most virulent forms: Koch Addiction Psychosis. I recommend a multi-year stay at St. Elizabeth’s in DC under the strictest surveillance. He could room with John Hinckley.

Athanasius on May 2, 2014 at 4:00 PM

This administration & CBS will rue the day they piled on Sheryl Attkisson.

portlandon on May 2, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Allah is right. It is getting confusing.

I recall something about the video and the tweets coming out of the Egypt US Consulate before Benghazi turned deadly? Any one else remember this?

CoffeeLover on May 2, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Remember, until Friday, the media was consumed with Mitt Romney’s “gaffe” of commenting on the situation before the event was over.
h a p f a t on May 2, 2014 at 3:46 PM
I think that is where this whole “an internet anti-muslim video caused this whole thing” came from.
They simply had to do or say something to get in front of it when it became part of the debates and made into a public issue. They did some quick off the cuff internal focus groups to come up with something, anything, and the video is what they came up with.

Insightful. I like it. Once the media’s focus shifted from the Romney faux gaffe, the administration had the time to come up with this lie and spread it everywhere it needed to be spread.

h a p f a t on May 2, 2014 at 4:04 PM

What we see in the emails from the first 24-48 hours is people trying determining what had happened and who was responsible.

Once the White House figured out how badly they had screwed up, it was all about ass covering after that.

WisRich on May 2, 2014 at 4:04 PM

What was the reason for the Amb. from Turkey to be there and why did the attack take place just after he left?

What was the known inventory of arms being moved out of the CIA annex?

So, U.S. Marines were ordered to take off their uniforms which would make them spys and subject to execution as spys if caught should they have made it to Bengazie.

How low will these thug commie scum from Chicago go?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 2, 2014 at 4:05 PM

What if the jihadists were attacking with Libyan weapons given them by State which were supposed to be used in Syria? That would be embarrassing information should the murderers be caught and brought to trial, no? Might explain our “inability” to capture them. certainly less complicating to let them roam free on the range.

butch on May 2, 2014 at 4:06 PM

IMPEACH obama NOW! ARREST Killary NOW!

Pork-Chop on May 2, 2014 at 4:06 PM

Who supplied Ansar al-Sharia with their mortars and automatic weapons? Hopefully, it wasn’t us.

MTF on May 2, 2014 at 4:06 PM

I haven’t seen RWM around here lately, but here is a good refresher read.

Her Benghazi, definitive timeline post:

can_con on May 2, 2014 at 4:06 PM

Remember the commercial the State Department produced and aired in Pakistan on how the US government had nothing to do with the Mohommed video?

Then they arrested the video maker. And held him for months.

They freaking made a commercial to perpetuate their cover story.

LetsBfrank on May 2, 2014 at 4:06 PM

This Benghazi thing is literally blowing up all over the administration it’s a thing to behold.

sorrowen on May 2, 2014 at 4:07 PM

yeah, but Koch Brothers!

sandee on May 2, 2014 at 4:09 PM

You know that deal where DemocRATs defend Obamacare by saying that Republicans are just the party of ‘no’ and they have no plan of their own? How about we make the DemocRATs apply that same criterion to Benghazi. OK, what the Republicans think happened in Benghazi is wrong, let’s have the DemocRATs put forth and prove their version of what happened.

Knott Buyinit on May 2, 2014 at 4:09 PM

CIA talking points … Did they get new information between the 12th and 14th to steer them away from “Ansar al-Sharia did it” or did they deliberately steer it that way themselves to protect the White House?

Possible twist – CIA was secretly running guns through Libya to Syria, and had their own reasons support the “video” meme invented by Hillary or someone on her or the white house staff. Who knows who knew what about what before the sh!t hit the fan.

peski on May 2, 2014 at 4:10 PM

“4 people died, and Hillary lied”

Did I say that about right lefties?

dentarthurdent on May 2, 2014 at 3:38 PM

I am sorry, you are wrong.
It is “Hillary lied and four people died”.

Sven on May 2, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Harbingeing on May 2, 2014 at 3:46 PM

The problem with doing the right thing and sending in rescue forces is that it would haveundercut Obama’s entire foreign policy narrative that SmartPower® had al Qaeda on the run and the Libya project was a big success, not a cesspool of Islamist terrorists.

Obama thought the Benghazi attacks threatened his reelection effort, and rightly so. He chose to try to minimize the whole situation and hope for the best. In service of his political agendas, he abandoned Americans fighting for their lives to their fates. When it went sideways, he went into full BS mode and with Hillary’s willing assistance set about deceiving the entire nation in order to get reelected.

Impeachment is too good for this flaming a$$hole.

novaculus on May 2, 2014 at 4:13 PM

I think that is where this whole “an internet anti-muslim video caused this whole thing” came from.

They simply had to do or say something to get in front of it when it became part of the debates and made into a public issue. They did some quick off the cuff internal focus groups to come up with something, anything, and the video is what they came up with.

Sad, but plausible in my opinion. Once a day or so passed by they ran with it even when they knew better.

Johnnyreb on May 2, 2014 at 3:55 PM

My recollection is that the moron press secretary at the Cairo embassy started this by issuing that obnoxious statement condemning the video and apologizing to the terrorists who were attacking the embassy there. Romney’s statment was in response to that, then the US press jumped all over him because the Benghazi attack happened while all the back and forth was going on over Cairo and people were actually killed.

I think the US media are more to blame than the White House for the spin that it was all because of the video. They wanted the meta-story to be about “Islamophobia in the US” and how that extremism led directly to US personnel overseas being killed. Remember, this was all soon after the episode with the Florida minister threatening to burn the Koran. The US media were definitely pushing the narrative that the “right wing” in the US were engaging in horrible anti-Muslim bigotry. An actual terrorist attack in Benghazi – on 9/11 no less – did not fit that narrative so the US press were more than happy to lap up the video story.

The politics of this for the Obama team was that attacking the video would be a win-win, because it would help Obama with Muslim voters here in the US and also deflect from the failure of policy in Libya. I actually think the former was much more important to them than the latter.

rockmom on May 2, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Did anyone from the admin know the jihadis would attack Benghazi BEFORE it happened? I’d love to hear some facts come out on that…

fortcoins on May 2, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Well, there’s one theory that the event was supposed to be a pre-arranged kidnapping to use Stevens as a swap for the blind Sheik, but it went bad when the shooting started.

Another theory has it that it was a hired hit on Stevens because he had gotten cold feet about the flow of weapons.

If there’s any truth to either, there would have to have been foreknowledge to make the arrangements.

bofh on May 2, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Obama’s ‘Blame the Video’ Fraud Started in Cairo, Not Benghazi

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376952/obamas-blame-video-fraud-started-cairo-not-benghazi-andrew-c-mccarthy

the_nile on May 2, 2014 at 4:14 PM

why was Hillary Clinton blaming the Mohammed video at the memorial service two days later?

SWAG? She knew it would ruin her chance to run for president.

This has all been a very deliberate campaign by Democrats to disgustingly ride the deaths of our countrymen for political purposes.

The first purpose was to ensure another four years of destruction from Barack Obama, who apparently didn’t lift a finger to save our fellow Americans and ultimately created the situation.

The second purpose was to ensure that Hillary Clinton, who created the environment for this to take place, who denied protection for our countrymen and who mismanaged the situation for political gain- gets a “clean” shot at succeeding Mr. Obama.

Even more appalling is Mrs. Clinton’s embrace of the family members to keep the lie going about the video. What kind of cold, calculating, self-absorbed person conducts themselves with such disgrace?

Certainly not someone who should be anywhere near the office of president. Haven’t we had enough of people who are unaccountable and ignore the people’s will for their own personal gain?

Marcus Traianus on May 2, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Another reminder, which is still up and running on the WhiteHouse.gov site:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/09/12/president-obama-speaks-attack-benghazi

Statement by the President on the Attack in Benghazi

I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya’s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.

Close Transcript

You will note the complete absence of one word….terrorist (I’m looking at you Candy!)

can_con on May 2, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Remember, until Friday, the media was consumed with Mitt Romney’s “gaffe” of commenting on the situation before the event was over.

h a p f a t on May 2, 2014 at 3:46 PM

I may be wrong but I seem to remember romney specifically speaking about cairo and not benghazi then too.

dmacleo on May 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Allah is right. It is getting confusing.

I recall something about the video and the tweets coming out of the Egypt US Consulate before Benghazi turned deadly? Any one else remember this?

CoffeeLover on May 2, 2014 at 4:03 PM

According to media reports, the U.S. embassy in Cairo released a statement at 6:17 a.m. East Coast time on Sept. 11, 2012, amid growing anger in Egypt about an obscure Web video with a highly negative portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad — a video that, given past experiences with depictions of Muhammad, seemed likely to spark protests.

The statement condemned the video:

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

About four hours later, crowds began to form and over the next several hours, the protesters stormed the embassy compound, destroyed a U.S. flag and replaced it with an Islamic flag. About three hours later, according to the Washington Examiner, the embassy tweeted, “This morning’s condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy.” (This tweet has disappeared from the Embassy Twitter feed.)

That night in Libya, militants attacked U.S. facilities in Benghazi, eventually killing the four diplomats. The news of the deaths was not announced by the U.S. government until after 7:00 a.m. East Coast time on Sept. 12.

Around 10:30 p.m., Romney released a statement that said in part, “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Romney made a comment about Egypt, not knowing that the attack in Benghazi was happening. By the time the next morning rolled around, the press was in full attack mode against Romney for the next few days. The Obama administration realized the opening the Press had created for them regarding the video and they ran with it….all the way to a second term.

WisRich on May 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM

And please let us not forget that the Saturday prior to the attack in Benghazi 9/8/12), the Canadians CLOSED THEIR mission in that same town due to an increasingly hostile environment that their intelligence operators picked-up on.

HiramRevels on May 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM

obama lies, people die and the world fries…by all means vote democrat

DWoDiego on May 2, 2014 at 4:20 PM

It is without any doubt that these liars knew the Ansar El-Sharia was involved immediately afterward and then lied to the country to cover their as*es.

Ta111 on May 2, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Well, the wheels are coming off for Hillary. I assume any special committee will be pretty active during the 2016 presidential campaign season. Hopefully, some of it will be public. Sheriff Joe might even get caught in the backlash.

butch on May 2, 2014 at 4:21 PM

The irony here is what a golden opportunity dog-eater missed. Knowing who was responsible he could have ordered the rescue mission with all guns blazing and come out a hero, regardless whether it was too late or not. Now all he has is this clusterf@&ck.

Harbingeing on May 2, 2014 at 3:46 PM

And kill some Muslim brothers-in-arms? And risk Ambassador Stevens talking to the TV? Hell no. And it would work, if not for those meddlesome kids…

Rix on May 2, 2014 at 4:21 PM

rockmom on May 2, 2014 at 4:13 PM

dmacleo on May 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM

I’m sure that’s what I am recalling. Wasn’t there something too about local State telling Egypt State to STOP putting out “tweets.”

CoffeeLover on May 2, 2014 at 4:22 PM

Three days later, Susan Rice was on the Sunday shows ventilating those “spontaneous protest” talking points.

Hillary Clinton to father of American murdered in Libya: We’ll ‘make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted’

http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/26/hillary-clinton-to-father-of-american-murdered-in-libya-well-make-sure-that-the-person-who-made-that-film-is-arrested-and-prosecuted

Well at least she kept her word on that.

whatcat on May 2, 2014 at 4:24 PM

“Does this help me to ram Amnesty up the nation’s a$$?”

- John’s got a Boehner.

Augustinian on May 2, 2014 at 4:25 PM

the role of the film maker has always bugged me and others.
HOW they knew to point to this video has also bugged me, I had been reading shoebats writings on it for a bit and it just seems to fit.

http://shoebat.com/2014/05/01/new-evidence-links-u-s-federal-government-behind-benghazi-shocking/

dmacleo on May 2, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Romney made a comment about Egypt, not knowing that the attack in Benghazi was happening. By the time the next morning rolled around, the press was in full attack mode against Romney for the next few days. The Obama administration realized the opening the Press had created for them regarding the video and they ran with it….all the way to a second term.
WisRich on May 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Right now, we don’t know about why the consulate was there, why there was a CIA annex a half mile away and what these facilities were doing mission wise. We do not know the particulars of the before or during. But I think we are getting close to the particulars of the after the attack spin.

h a p f a t on May 2, 2014 at 4:36 PM

When the investigations are finished, Hillary will leave her gearshift in park, and won’t run. May end up getting charged.

Amazingoly on May 2, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Dude, that was like two years ago…what difference, at this point, does it make?

Galtian on May 2, 2014 at 4:38 PM

Cairo is connected but I believe that the Muslim Brotherhood orchestrated the attacks.Now with all the regimes connections to the mb maybe they did know ahead of time and thus kept the response to a minimum.Someone at the US Embassy in Cairo put out a sorry about the video message at some point on the 10th. Don’t forget about Huma with Hillary. We need the truth.

tim c on May 2, 2014 at 4:40 PM

For the good of the country, obama, or someone really high up needs to be impeached

ConservativePartyNow on May 2, 2014 at 3:48 PM

You mean someone higher up than Obama? Well, we could start with Valerie Jarrett and work down from there until we finally reach Obama.

ricoliv on May 2, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Right now, we don’t know about why the consulate was there, why there was a CIA annex a half mile away and what these facilities were doing mission wise. We do not know the particulars of the before or during. But I think we are getting close to the particulars of the after the attack spin.

h a p f a t on May 2, 2014 at 4:36 PM

This was Obama’s baby. He was trying to “normalize” Libya less then a year after the violent overthrow of Gadafy with assistance of the U.S. He and Hillary made a conscience decision to reduce the security profile so the U.S. didn’t look so bad and mean.
Four Americans paid the price for that folly.

WisRich on May 2, 2014 at 4:45 PM

The Belmont Club

butch on May 2, 2014 at 4:47 PM

I want to marry Sharyl Attkisson

jake-the-goose on May 2, 2014 at 5:03 PM

I get all the comments that Hillary! and Obama seized on the video as the way to obfuscate what actually happened in Benghazi. But it leaves open the question: WHO CAME UP WITH THIS VIDEO?

I don’t mean the origination of the video, how it was made, etc., but rather the idea of using the video as a scapegoat or red herring? WHO found this obscure little production and imagined that it might be useful for such purposes in the first place?

It’s not like the video maker uploaded it onto youtube, scored a gazillion hits and ignited an Middle Eastern firestorm, as Obama and Hillary! tried to convince the world to believe. It was in English, not Arabic, so no one on the “Arab street” was going to know what it was about initially. The fact is, it had been languishing on the internet for some time before the only attention it ever got came from– the Obama administration.

In the first days after the attack, there was quite a bit of interest in the history of the video, and particularly its internet history. Who uploaded it, when, etc? Lots of questions raised which, to my knowledge, have never been answered.

WHY OR HOW, WITHIN JUST A FEW HOURS OF THE BENGHAZI FIASCO, WAS THIS VIDEO AVAILABLE AS THE KEY DISTRACTION FROM THE TRUTH? Someone like van driver and NSC spokes-Pajama Boy Vetior do a google search and find it? Really?

de rigueur on May 2, 2014 at 5:03 PM

Man, those Koch Brothers will do anything to get Harry Reid’s attention. “Strangers in the night …”

I want to marry Sharyl Attkisson

jake-the-goose on May 2, 2014 at 5:03 PM

Dude, she’s mine! Well, in my dreams.

“STELLA!” Er, “SHARYL!”

Chuck Ef on May 2, 2014 at 5:06 PM

PJ Media was reporting about the possibility of, group(s) behind and reasons for attacking the embassy in Cairo–on the 10th of September 2012:

According to El Fagr, they are calling for the immediate release of the Islamic jihadis who are imprisonment and in detention centers in the U.S. including Guantanamo Bay: “The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the "Blind Sheikh"], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would. The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released.”

So, knowing this, howinell did the zero administration not only “miss” it, but expect the rest of us to swallow their lies hook, line and sinker?

Newtie and the Beauty on May 2, 2014 at 5:15 PM

WHY OR HOW, WITHIN JUST A FEW HOURS OF THE BENGHAZI FIASCO, WAS THIS VIDEO AVAILABLE AS THE KEY DISTRACTION FROM THE TRUTH? Someone like van driver and NSC spokes-Pajama Boy Vetior do a google search and find it? Really?

de rigueur on May 2, 2014 at 5:03 PM

http://shoebat.com/2014/05/01/new-evidence-links-u-s-federal-government-behind-benghazi-shocking/

not saying hes right buts got a lot of background (links are included on that page) into this.

dmacleo on May 2, 2014 at 5:16 PM

How sweet, the smell of liberal fear.

petefrt on May 2, 2014 at 5:17 PM

I read in an article somewhere else in the past day or so that Hillary sent out a press release blaming the video at 10pm on the night of September 11. 2012. This is where the video angle probably began. He just hadn’t let everyone in on the company line yet. It took 2 days for everyone to get in on the loop about a video. That is why everyone came out on Friday, September 14 blazing the video line with all out furvor.

Remember, until Friday, the media was consumed with Mitt Romney’s “gaffe” of commenting on the situation before the event was over.

h a p f a t on May 2, 2014 at 3:46 PM

I saw this on Lou Dobbs or something last night. She sent out this press release while the attack was still going on and it showed her sitting down to do something, maybe talk to the press, with her long bleached blonde locks hanging around her fat shoulders.

Lying Beach.

avagreen on May 2, 2014 at 5:19 PM

I think Hillary and Obama are tied at the hip on this.

Obama doesn’t have the attention span to pay attention to what Hillary and CIA were doing in Benghazi. Hillary left those people woefully exposed. Obama needed to be reelected, and Hillary needed not to be blamed for the deadly screw up. They both needed this spontaneous-reaction-to-video nonsense.

BuckeyeSam on May 2, 2014 at 5:20 PM

Regardless of any new information the MSM will protect and serve Obama.

jaywemm on May 2, 2014 at 5:23 PM

Roger Hedgecock mused a few days ago, how do Libyans watch internet videos when they only have dial-up? Hmmmm?

Anyone have authoritative info on any DSL or cable internet service in that war-torn former nation?

BTW RE: Sharyl — I sent her flowers last year at the height of her F+F investigation. Got a nice Tweeted Thank You in response: “You made my day”. I’m first in line if she ever gets divorced.

fred5678 on May 2, 2014 at 5:25 PM

Another perfectly good comment goes into the moderation maw.

I’m really losing patience with this crap.

novaculus on May 2, 2014 at 5:26 PM

dmacleo on May 2, 2014 at 5:16 PM

Fascinating. Thanks. Everyone should take a look.

de rigueur on May 2, 2014 at 5:26 PM

You would think that the bugging out of the Brits and Red Cross would have been a major clue… especially as the UK warned us about AQIM… but that would take… diplomatic skills.

ajacksonian on May 2, 2014 at 5:27 PM

Obama’s ‘Blame the Video’ Fraud Started in Cairo, Not Benghazi
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376952/obamas-blame-video-fraud-started-cairo-not-benghazi-andrew-c-mccarthy

the_nile on May 2, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Good timeline info, very interesting read. Thanks.

ChicagoBlue on May 2, 2014 at 5:30 PM

Everyone has to remember that at the time all of this was happening all the media oxygen was focused NOT on the cause but on Mitt Romney’s statement and blasting him for speaking out. How dare he??? Of course the WH didn’t want to look bad and Romney look good by comparison, ergo change the narrative, facts and 4 dead Americans be damned.

txmomof6 on May 2, 2014 at 5:34 PM

txmomof6 on May 2, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Romney was also getting the SAME security briefing materials zero was when Benghazi happened. Romney was spot on–and I wonder what the odds are of his being called for a Benghazi hearing…

Newtie and the Beauty on May 2, 2014 at 5:40 PM

Yes, Sept 12 and 13, Romney was “disrespecting” a sitting president at a time when one of our ambassadors was killed because of some protests, by Jumping the Gun and commenting on the apology from the Egyptian embassy. Very confusing, but they stayed on that theme for a long time and put the blame for everything bad on Romney for at least a week, especially with Susan Rice protracting that video protest theme on the Sunday shows. Romney was “Way out of Line” criticizing the president. And he jumped the gun within two day, saying it was terrorism, and they were furious at him, said he didn’t have the facts yet…except the facts did exist, we were hearing them on talk radio.

Fleuries on May 2, 2014 at 5:42 PM

Hillary lies.

albill on May 2, 2014 at 5:45 PM

R

omney was also getting the SAME security briefing materials zero was when Benghazi happened. Romney was spot on–and I wonder what the odds are of his being called for a Benghazi hearing…

N. B.

I am not sure of that, they were withholding the briefing and information because of some technicality, I don’t think he had the security clearance for the briefing when Benghazi happened, but the NSA notes they were sending Obama for several weeks referred to the Video, and must have been doctored. Obama has said that is what he was told by CIA…or whomever he blamed. This is mess and confusing. Romney did not have clear facts, because they were muddying them, after the first debate, when he did so well. Obama kept on that video protest theme…all the way until his speech to the U.N. Then magically at the Candy Crowley debate he claimed he had called it terrorism all along. Remember the silence? Our incredulity with Candy Crowley siding with the President?

Fleuries on May 2, 2014 at 5:46 PM

Yes, but zero’s speech in the Rose Garden proved he was lying–the first instance of zero using “terror” was in the fourth paragraph from the end.

Newtie and the Beauty on May 2, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Fascinating. Thanks. Everyone should take a look.

de rigueur on May 2, 2014 at 5:26 PM

certainly is thought provoking.
again, no idea if hes right or not but it makes more sense than most explanations.

dmacleo on May 2, 2014 at 6:05 PM

Hannity had a guy on (who Hannity talked to privately after the call) who was with his wife at, I believe, an American consul in Russia, where the wife overheard the US counselor officials talking about an attack and terrorist threat on September 10th or 11th. They knew.

There are a lot of people beginning to talk. Once Boehner made a decision the manure is going to hit the fan. Rep. Gowdy is presiding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1jeJmeeMjs

Viator on May 2, 2014 at 6:16 PM

There aren’t words enough in the dictionary to describe this bunch of sociopathic thugs. This stuff is fascinating.

Something I’ve always wondered about is why have we never heard from Steven’s family. Could they have been paid off? Is there any chance he was CIA. It looks suspiciously like there was a CIA operation going on which might explain partly why it’s been covered up.

crankyoldlady on May 2, 2014 at 6:16 PM

I don’t mean the origination of the video, how it was made, etc., but rather the idea of using the video as a scapegoat or red herring? WHO found this obscure little production and imagined that it might be useful for such purposes in the first place?

It’s not like the video maker uploaded it onto youtube, scored a gazillion hits and ignited an Middle Eastern firestorm, as Obama and Hillary! tried to convince the world to believe. It was in English, not Arabic, so no one on the “Arab street” was going to know what it was about initially. The fact is, it had been languishing on the internet for some time before the only attention it ever got came from– the Obama administration.

de rigueur on May 2, 2014 at 5:03 PM

Beck stated this AM that Hillary came up with the idea.

Viator on May 2, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Fascinating. Thanks. Everyone should take a look.

de rigueur on May 2, 2014 at 5:26 PM

certainly is thought provoking.
again, no idea if hes right or not but it makes more sense than most explanations.

dmacleo on May 2, 2014 at 6:05 PM

Assuming just for the intrigue of it that he is right, then, tying this to the Andrew McCarthy timeline on the video fraud that was linked above– and also here, and here, and here– who brought it to the attention of the Grand Mufti of Egypt, whose denunciation of the video in Cairo on September 9 gave State Department officials in Cairo cover to blame the video for the September 11 riots in Cairo– although neither the first CIA round of talking points, nor the Cairo press made any mention of the video? (As McCarthy compellingly outlines, the real cause of the riots was a) the 9/11 anniversary, of course, coupled with b) Egyptian Islamic Jihad leaders’ threats to storm the embassy to take hostages to free the Blind Sheik.)

You’d almost think that some Clintonistas and Obamaniacs were holding this video in readiness for whenever it became useful to them. And so it proved to be, to save Hillary’s! hide and insure Obama’s re-election.

de rigueur on May 2, 2014 at 6:28 PM

I’m not sure why people point to the CIA talking points as though they weren’t politicized. Even the first draft had to be approved by a political appointee since they run the show, just like at every other governmental department. Just because they became more politicized as the week went on doesn’t mean the CIA didn’t start the ball rolling.

BKeyser on May 2, 2014 at 6:37 PM

WHY OR HOW, WITHIN JUST A FEW HOURS OF THE BENGHAZI FIASCO, WAS THIS VIDEO AVAILABLE AS THE KEY DISTRACTION FROM THE TRUTH? Someone like van driver and NSC spokes-Pajama Boy Vetior do a google search and find it? Really?

de rigueur on May 2, 2014 at 5:03 PM

The video indeed! “The play’s the thing wherein we’ll catch the conscience of the king” One would think a Select Congressional Committee might want to have a word with the infamous film’s director, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, especially before something untoward happens to him while in Federal custody, not that anything would, but Nicoula was in Federal custody before, having been convicted in Federal Court of bank fraud in 2010, one year prior to the creation of the video “Innocence of Muslims”.

So a convicted Federal prisoner got out of Federal Prison early, only to amazingly film the video at the source of the Benghazi scandal. And despite its not having being seen by anyone in the Muslim world,(or the rest of the world either, for that matter) the video would be blamed for the attack that took four lives, including our Ambassador to Libya.

Does any one remember the old TV show, The Fall Guy?

ariel on May 2, 2014 at 6:39 PM

Does any one remember the old TV show, The Fall Guy?

ariel on May 2, 2014 at 6:39 PM

The name is familiar but I don’t remember what it was about or who was in it.

crankyoldlady on May 2, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Further to de rigueur on May 2, 2014 at 6:28 PM:

*adjusting tinfoil hat* If the video was being held in readiness to cover inconvenient messes like Cairo and Benghazi, what else was being held in reserve by the Obama regime?

Interesting observation by a commenter at the site posted by dmacleo on May 2, 2014 at 5:16 PM, above.

We can’t forget Candy Crowley stepping in during the debate with Mitt Romney-she threw a cloak around Obama. Funny thing for a ‘moderator’ to do.

Remember how stunningly convenient it all was that, in the middle of a presidential debate, in order to deflect the obvious truth that he’d denied terrorist involvement at Benghazi so he could blame the attack on a video, Obama could summon a TRANSCRIPT of a Rose Garden speech and the compliant debate “moderator” could produce it on demand? How many other transcripts did she have on hand?

de rigueur on May 2, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Gowdy is up on Greta.

novaculus on May 2, 2014 at 7:01 PM

The name is familiar but I don’t remember what it was about or who was in it.

Lee Majors played the role of the hapless fall guy who somehow always seemed to came out on top. I wonder if Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is fairing as well as Lee Majors’ character did during the series. The question is: Will Nakoula be rewarded for taking the fall, or will he be eliminated because he knows too much?

ariel on May 2, 2014 at 7:13 PM

This Benghazi attack will end up like the Warren Report about JFK, so full of BS it’ll be another fifty years before the truth is known.

mixplix on May 2, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Ok, Id love to know just what Obama was doing that night. BUT, besides not giving security to them as requested (which I dont know why that doesnt get enough attention), what are we really looking for here? The CIA clearly were the ones who pointed to a video and demonstrations. That wasnt started by the Obama Admin.

Just what is the goal of this? I think some of you are expecting this to turn out to be some huge cover up….but why? What evidence is there of that? I dont see any. I cant stand this Admin as much as anyone else, but I think this just might be a waste of time. I dont see any real smoking gun here.

bucsox79 on May 2, 2014 at 7:18 PM

It appears that the Youtube video story was concocted by Hillary, during a phone conversation with Obama that took place at 10:00 PM of the night of the attack. Any facts that would have discredited that story would, of course, be ignored by the principles.

oldennis on May 2, 2014 at 7:19 PM

To be accurate about what happened, Hillary Clinton lied to the families of the deceased Americans about what caused the death of their loved ones. She did it for political reasons.

oldennis on May 2, 2014 at 7:22 PM

Gowdy is up on Greta.

novaculus on May 2, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Darn I missed it. I lost track of time looking for something on my computer.

crankyoldlady on May 2, 2014 at 7:25 PM

why was Hillary Clinton blaming the Mohammed video at the memorial service two days later?

Never let a crisis go to waste. It was a good kick off to meet the OIC’s request to begin criminalizing speech deemed mean to Muslims. Seems that program has stalled since Americas favorite installed Islamists, the MoBros have fallen from favor in Egypt. I suppose Hillary thought it was a two-fer. Please the OIC and disguise the American sponsored Jihad.

BL@KBIRD on May 2, 2014 at 7:26 PM

How does Hillary Clinton live with herself after lying right to the face of the families of the slain Americans.

Does she not fear the Lord?

Lee Jan on May 2, 2014 at 7:57 PM

It was 2 months before the presidential elections. Save the emperor.

And Hillary was desperate for it to be the video to cover herself being responsible for the death of 4 Americans. She belongs in jail!

TfromV on May 2, 2014 at 8:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2