We want answers about Benghazi
It’s time for answers regarding Benghazi-gate. Bengazi-gate? We know about the advance warnings of terrorist threats in
Libya. We also know that requests
for increased security were denied [Because the Conservatives wouldn't let go of the money.]. We know help was requested at the
onset of the attack, but a “stand down” order was given, even though air
support was a mere 20 minutes away, troops only two hours out, and the
firefight lasted nearly eight hours [You would have us send a drone missile into a crowd of innocents just to kill a handful of terrorists? Are you really that hawkish? ].
Two ex-Navy Seals ignored this order
and rushed to the aid of their fellow Americans, saving most of the CIA
operatives and killing approximately 80 attackers before succumbing to
rocket or mortar fire.
During or immediately following the incident, several high-ranking military officers were fired or forced
into retirement. During the attack, a
drone was dispatched, giving the White House, Defense Department and
intelligence agencies a real-time aerial view of the compound attack.
Immediately after the incident, the
White House and State Department blamed the incident on an obscure
anti-Islamic YouTube video and doggedly denied that the attack was an
act of terrorism, counter to intelligence reports.
Some obvious unanswered questions:
When did President Obama know about the attack and what did he do in
response? Who ordered the military to do nothing? Were officers relieved
of duty for trying to save Americans? Why did the administration
willfully lie to the American people repeatedly?
The president knew about the attack as it was going on...he said so in the Rose Garden and also said it was an attack by terrorists. He ordered the the Military to stand down and not kill innocents in the street...can you imagine what the blow-back would be if we sent in a drone missile...are you nuts? No, the military folks who lost their jobs were not fired because of Bengazi. The administration did not 'repeatedly' lie to us.
During congressional hearings, other
serious concerns have arisen. For example, it was disclosed that
between 10,000 and 20,000 American shoulder-to-air rockets went missing
after the CIA-sponsored revolution in Libya and are now presumed to be
in the hands of al-Qaeda. Were these weapons used to attack our own
embassy? No.
If you think we deserve the truth
regarding this debacle, please contact Congressman Labrador at 888-3188
or 454-5518 and urge him and his colleagues to continue their efforts to
uncover the facts.
n Jerry Stark, Nampa
Ah Jerry, I have an answer for you. People died by the hands of terrorists. Did that satisfy you? I didn't think so. Let me go a bit farther. Let's look at the REAL timeline...
Sept. 11: The Attack
2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time):
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to
say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time.
(“Everything is calm at 8:30,” a State Department official would later
say at an Oct. 9 background briefing for reporters. “There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.”)
3 p.m.: Ambassador Stevens retires to his bedroom for the evening. (See Oct. 9 briefing.)
Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the
Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and
“gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the
Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large
number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the
compound.”
About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack that was given to reporters at a Sept. 12 State Department background briefing.
An administration official identified only as “senior administration
official one” provides an official timeline of events at the consulate,
but only from the time of the attack — not prior to the attack. The
official says, “The compound where our office is in Benghazi began
taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists.” (Six of the next seven
entries in this timeline — through 8:30 p.m. EDT — all come from the
Sept. 12 briefing. The exception being the 6:07 p.m. entry, which comes
from Reuters.)
About 4:15 p.m.: “The attackers gained access to the
compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire.
The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At
that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador
Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information
Management Officer Sean Smith.”
Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead.
About 4:45 p.m.: “U.S. security personnel assigned
to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group
also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.”
About 5:20 p.m.: “U.S. and Libyan security personnel … regain the main building and they were able to secure it.”
Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under
fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that
continued for about two hours. It was during that time that two
additional U.S. personnel were killed and two more were wounded during
that ongoing attack.”
6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center
sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government
agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on
its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not
disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)
About 8:30 p.m.: “Libyan security forces were able
to assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all
of this – and frankly, we do not know when – we believe that Ambassador
Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a hospital in
Benghazi. We do not have any information what his condition was at that
time. His body was later returned to U.S. personnel at the Benghazi
airport.”
About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video [this took place only 7 hours later].
Clinton: Some have sought to justify
this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on
the Internet [She said 'some' not everybody.]. The United States deplores any intentional effort to
denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious
tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be
clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’
Sept. 12: Clinton issues a statement confirming that four U.S. officials, not one, had been killed. She called it a “violent attack.”
Clinton: All the Americans we lost in
yesterday’s attacks made the ultimate sacrifice. We condemn this vicious
and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to
helping the Libyan people reach for a better future.
Sept. 12: Clinton delivers a speech
at the State Department to condemn the attack in Benghazi and to praise
the victims as “heroes.” She again makes reference to the anti-Muslim
video in similar language.
Clinton: Some have sought to justify
this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our
Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material
posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes
back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear — there
is no justification for this, none.
Sept. 12: Obama delivers a morning speech
in the Rose Garden to address the deaths of U.S. diplomats in Libya. He
said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great
nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we
stand for.” He also makes reference to the anti-Muslim video when he
says: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that
respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the
religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no
justification to this type of senseless violence. None.” He uses
the term “act of terror” later that night when talking about the attack
at a campaign event in Las Vegas.
Sept. 12: After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for “60 Minutes.”
Obama says he didn’t use the word “terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech
because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.” Steve
Kroft, the show’s host, wonders how the attack could be described as a
“mob action” since the attackers were “very heavily armed.” Obama says
“we’re still investigating,” but he suspects “folks involved in this . .
. were looking to target Americans from the start.”
Sept. 12: Senior administration officials, who did not permit use of their names, hold a briefing
with reporters to answer questions about the attack. Twice officials
characterize those involved in the attack as “extremists.” In one case,
an official identified only as “senior administration official one” is
asked by Fox News reporter Justin Fishel if the administration had ruled
out the possibly that the attack was in response to the anti-Muslim
video. The official says, “We just don’t know.”
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell asks officials to address news reports that the
attack has been “linked to a terror attack, an organized terror
attack,” possibly al Qaeda. The official refers to it as a “complex
attack,” but says it is “too early to say who they were” and their
affiliation.
Sept. 12, 4:09 p.m.: At a press briefing
en route to Las Vegas, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is asked,
“Does the White House believe that the attack in Benghazi was planned
and premeditated?” He responds, “It’s too early for us to make that
judgment. I think — I know that this is being investigated, and we’re
working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I
would not want to speculate on that at this time.”
Sept. 12: Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, tells the BBC that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. The little-known militant group issues a statement that says it “didn’t participate as a sole entity,” neither confirming nor denying the report.
Sept. 12: Citing unnamed “U.S. government officials,” Reuters reports
that “the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance” and that
members of Ansar al-Sharia “may have been involved.” Reuters quotes one
of the U.S. officials as saying: “It bears the hallmarks of an organized
attack.”
Sept. 13: ‘Clearly Planned’ or ‘Spontaneous’ Attack?
Sept. 13: Clinton meets with Ali Suleiman Aujali — the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. — at a State Department event
to mark the end of Ramadan. Ambassador Aujali apologizes to Clinton for
what he called “this terrorist attack which took place against the
American consulate in Libya.” Clinton, in her remarks, does not refer to
it as a terrorist attack. She condemns the anti-Muslim video, but adds
that there is “never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
Sept. 13: At a daily press briefing,
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was asked if the Benghazi
attack was “purely spontaneous or was premeditated by militants.” She
declined to say, reiterating that the administration did not want to
“jump to conclusions.”
Sept. 13: Clinton met with
Moroccan Foreign Minister Saad-Eddine Al-Othmani. She condemned what
she called the “disgusting and reprehensible” anti-Muslim video and the
violence that it triggered. She said, “Islam, like other religions,
respects the fundamental dignity of human beings, and it is a violation
of that fundamental dignity to wage attacks on innocents. As long as
there are those who are willing to shed blood and take innocent life in
the name of religion, the name of God, the world will never know a true
and lasting peace.”
Sept. 13: At a campaign event in Colorado,
Obama again uses the phrase “act of terror.” He says: “I want people
around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act
of terror will go unpunished.”
Sept. 13: CNN reports
that unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi
was a “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the
anti-Muslim movie.
CNN: “It was not an innocent mob,” one
senior official said. “The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could
be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned
military-type attack.”
Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack
Sept. 14: Clinton spoke
at Andrews Air Force Base at a ceremony to receive the remains of those
killed in Benghazi. She remarked that she received a letter from the
president of the Palestinian Authority praising Stevens and “deploring —
and I quote — ‘an act of ugly terror.’ ” She, however, did not call it
an act of terror or a terrorist attack and neither did the president.
Sept. 14: At a State Department press briefing,
spokeswoman Nuland says the department will no longer answer any
questions about the Benghazi attack. “It is now something that you need
to talk to the FBI about, not to us about, because it’s their
investigation.”
Sept. 14: At a White House press briefing,
Press Secretary Carney denies reports that it was a preplanned attack.
“I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were
not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on
the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is
false.” Later in that same briefing, Carney is told that Pentagon
officials informed members of Congress at a closed-door meeting that the
Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack. Carney said the matter
is being investigated but White House officials “don’t have and did not
have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the
film.”
Sept. 14: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta meets with the Senate Armed Services Committee. Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, reports that Republicans and Democrats came away with the conclusion that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack.
Sept. 15-16: Susan Rice Contradicts Libyan President
Sept. 15: Obama discusses the Benghazi attack in his weekly address.
He makes no mention of terror, terrorists or extremists. He does talk
about the anti-Muslim film and “every angry mob” that it inspired in
pockets of the Middle East.
Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation”
that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance.
But Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS
News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads
us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it
began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours
earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest. (It
was later learned that Rice received her information from the CIA.)
Sept. 16: Magariaf says in an interview with NPR:
“The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest
that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.
We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that
was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.”
Sept. 17: State Defends Rice and ‘Initial Assessment’
Sept. 17: Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman,
is asked about Rice’s comments on “Face the Nation” and four other
Sunday talk shows. Nuland says,
“The comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our
government’s initial assessment.” Nuland uses the phrase “initial
assessment” three times when discussing Rice’s comments.
Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’
Sept. 18: Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on “The Late Show with David Letterman.”
The president said, “Here’s what happened,” and began discussing the
impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said, “Extremists and
terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies,
including the consulate in Libya.” He also said, “As offensive as this
video was and, obviously, we’ve denounced it and the United States
government had nothing to do with it. That’s never an excuse for
violence.”
Sept. 18: Asked about Magariaf’s assessment that the video had nothing to do with the terrorist attack in Benghazi, the White House spokesman says
Obama “would rather wait” for the investigation to be completed. “But
at this time, as Ambassador Rice said and as I said, our understanding
and our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that
caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that
helped — that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and
elsewhere,” Carney says. “What other factors were involved is a matter
of investigation.”
Sept. 18: After meeting with Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Patricia Espinosa, Clinton speaks with reporters
and is asked if the Libyan president is “wrong” that “this attack was
planned for months.” Clinton says, “The Office of the Director of
National Intelligence has said we had no actionable intelligence that an
attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent.” She does not
say if Magariaf is right or wrong.
Sept. 19: Olsen Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’
Sept. 19: Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, tells a Senate subcommittee
(at 1:06:49 in the video) that the four State Department officials in
Benghazi “were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our
embassy.” It is the first time an administration official labeled it a
“terrorist attack.” But he also tells the senators that he has no
“specific evidence of significant advanced planning.”
Sept. 19: At a State Department briefing,
the department spokeswoman is asked if she now believes that the attack
was a “terrorist attack”? She says, “Well, I didn’t get a chance to see
the whole testimony that was given by Matt Olsen of the NCTC, but
obviously we stand by comments made by our intelligence community who
has first responsibility for evaluating the intelligence and what they
believe that we are seeing.”
Sept. 19: The White House spokesman does not call it a “terrorist attack” in his press briefing.
Carney says, “Based on the information we had at the time — we have
now, we do not yet have indication that it was preplanned or
premeditated. There’s an active investigation. If that active
investigation produces facts that lead to a different conclusion, we
will make clear that that’s where the investigation has led.”
Sept. 20: W.H. Spokesman Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’ — Not Obama
Sept. 20: Carney calls
it a “terrorist attack” after being asked how the White House now
classifies the attack. But he says the White House has no evidence that
it was “a significantly preplanned attack” and blames the video for
igniting the incident in Benghazi.
Sept. 20: Obama, at a town hall meeting,
says “extremists” took advantage of the “natural protests” to the
anti-Muslim video to attack the consulate in Benghazi. He does not call
it a “terrorist attack.”
Question: We have reports that the White
House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do
you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al Qaeda was behind
organizing the protests?
Obama: Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and
there are going to be different circumstances in different countries.
And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the
information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose
because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by
extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.
Sept. 21: Clinton Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’
Sept. 21: Clinton, speaking to reporters
before a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar,
calls it a “terrorist attack” for the first time. She says, “Yesterday
afternoon when I briefed the Congress, I made it clear that keeping our
people everywhere in the world safe is our top priority. What happened
in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have
tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four
Americans.”
Sept. 24-25: Obama Refuses to Call It a Terrorist Attack
Sept. 24: Clinton meets
with the Libyan president and calls the Benghazi attack a “terrorist
assault.” She says, “As we all know, the United States lost a great
ambassador and the Libyan people lost a true friend when Chris Stevens
and three other Americans were killed in the terrorist assault on our
consulate in Benghazi.”
Sept. 24: Obama tapes an appearance on “The View,” and he’s asked
by co-host Joy Behar whether the Libya attack was an act of terrorism
or caused by the anti-Muslim video. He does not call it a terrorist
attack and says, “We’re still doing an investigation.”
Sept. 25: Obama speaks
at the United Nations. He praises Chris Stevens as “the best of
America” and condemns the anti-Muslim video as “crude and disgusting.”
He does not describe the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack.
Sept. 26: ‘Let’s Be Clear, It Was a Terrorist Attack’
Sept. 26: Carney is asked at a press briefing aboard Air Force One
en route to Ohio why the president has not called the Benghazi incident
a “terrorist attack.” He said, “The president — our position is, as
reflected by the NCTC director, that it was a terrorist attack. It is, I
think by definition, a terrorist attack when there is a prolonged
assault on an embassy with weapons. … So, let’s be clear, it was a
terrorist attack and it was an inexcusable attack.”
Sept. 26: Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, in an interview with Al Jazeera,
is asked whether he agrees with the president of Libya that the
Benghazi attack was premeditated and had nothing to do with the
anti-Muslim video. He said: “It’s clear that the attack which took the
lives of Chris Stevens and three other colleagues was clearly
choreographed and directed and involved a fair amount of firepower, but
exactly what kind of planning went into that and how it emerged on that
awful night, we just don’t know right now. But I’m confident we’ll get
to the bottom of it.”
Sept. 27: When Did Administration Know?
Sept. 27: At a press briefing, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says
that “it was a terrorist attack,” but declines to say when he came to
that conclusion. “It took a while to really get some of the feedback
from what exactly happened at that location,” he said. “As we determined
the details of what took place there, and how that attack took place,
that it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that
attack.”
Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
at the same briefing addresses what the U.S. knew in advance of the
Benghazi attack. He says there was “a thread of intelligence reporting
that groups in … eastern Libya were seeking to coalesce, but there
wasn’t anything specific and certainly not a specific threat to the
consulate that I’m aware of.”
Sept. 27: In a report on “Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees,”
Fran Townsend, former Homeland Security adviser to President George W.
Bush, says the administration knew early on that it was a terrorist
attack. “The law enforcement source who said to me, from day one we had
known clearly that this was a terrorist attack,” she says.
Sept. 27-28: Intelligence ‘Evolved’
Sept. 27: The White House spokesman is asked yet again
why the president has refused to call the incident a terrorist attack.
“The president’s position [is] that this was a terrorist attack,”
Carney says.
Sept. 28: Shawn Turner, a spokesman for the director of national intelligence, says in a statement
that the office’s position on the attack evolved. It was first believed
that “the attack began spontaneously,” but it was later determined that
“it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack,” he says.
Turner: In the immediate aftermath,
there was information that led us to assess that the attack began
spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in
Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials
and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the
attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout
our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered
was preliminary and evolving.
As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial
assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a
deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists. It
remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and
control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their
members to participate.
Oct. 2-3: Clinton Cites ‘Continuing Questions’
Oct. 2: White House spokesman Carney at a press briefing
in Nevada: “At every step of the way, the administration has based its
public statements on the best assessments that were provided by the
intelligence community. As the intelligence community learned more
information they updated Congress and the American people on it.”
Oct. 3: Clinton tells reporters
after a meeting with Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Erlan Idrissov:
“There are continuing questions about what exactly happened in Benghazi
on that night three weeks ago. And we will not rest until we answer
those questions and until we track down the terrorists who killed our
people.”
Oct. 9: ’Everything Calm’ Prior to Benghazi Attack, No Protests
Oct. 9: At a background briefing, senior state department officials reveal there were no protests
prior to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi —
contrary to what administration officials have been saying for weeks. A
senior department official says “everything is calm at 8:30 p.m.” (Libya
time) when Stevens was outside the building to bid a visitor goodbye.
The ambassador retired to his bedroom for the evening at 9 p.m. The calm
was shattered by 9:40 p.m. when “loud noises” and “gunfire and an
explosion” are heard. (The background briefing provided on Sept. 12
also said the attack began at about 10 p.m., or about 4 p.m. EDT, but
it did not provide information about what happened prior to the attack.)
A senior official says it was “not our conclusion” that the Benghazi
attack started as a spontaneous protest to the anti-Muslim video. He
also said “there was no actionable intelligence of any planned or
imminent attack.”
Oct. 10: Administration Says It Gave Public ‘Best Information’
Oct. 10: Carney, the White House spokesman, is asked at a press briefing
why the president and administration officials described the
anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause of the attack on Benghazi when
the State Department “never concluded that the assault in Benghazi was
part of a protest on the anti-Muslim film.” He replied, in part: “Again,
from the beginning, we have provided information based on the facts
that we knew as they became available, based on assessments by the
intelligence community — not opinions — assessments by the IC, by the
intelligence community. And we have been clear all along that this was
an ongoing investigation, that as more facts became available we would
make you aware of them as appropriate, and we’ve done that.”
Oct. 10: After testifying before a House committee, Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy is asked at a press briefing
what the State Department should have done differently in releasing
information about the Benghazi attack. He said, “We are giving out the
best information we have at the time.”
Oct. 10: The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
releases State Department memos requesting additional security in
Libya. Charlene Lamb, a State Department official who denied those
requests, tells the committee that the State Department had been
training local Libyans for nearly a year and additional U.S. security
personnel were not needed. As reported by Foreign Policy:
“We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi on the night of 9/11,”
Lamb testified. Others testified differently. “All of us at post were
in sync that we wanted these resources,” testified Eric Nordstrom, the
top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Foreign Policy
reported.
Oct. 15: Clinton Blames ‘Fog of War’
Oct. 15: Clinton, in an interview on CNN,
blamed the “fog of war” when asked why the administration initially
claimed the attack began with the anti-Muslim video, even though the
State Department never reached that conclusion. “In the wake of an
attack like this in the fog of war, there’s always going to be
confusion, and I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had
the same intelligence,” Clinton said. “Everyone who spoke tried to give
the information they had. As time has gone on, the information has
changed, we’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising. That
always happens.”
Oct. 15: The New York Times reports
that the Benghazi attack came “without any warning or protest,” but
“Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers” say it was
“in retaliation for the video.”
Oct. 24: White House, State Department Emails on Ansar al-Sharia
Oct. 24: Reuters reports
the White House, Pentagon and other government agencies learned just
two hours into the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic
militant group, had “claimed credit” for it. The wire service report was
based on three emails from the State Department’s Operations Center.
One of the emails said, “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed
responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on
Embassy Tripol.” The article also noted, “Intelligence experts caution
that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often
inaccurate.” (It should be noted that Reuters first reported on Sept. 12
that unnamed U.S. officials believed that Ansar al-Sharia may have been
involved.)
Oct. 24: Clinton warns
at a press conference that you cannot draw conclusions from the leaked
emails because “cherry-picking one story here or one document there” can
be misleading. She said, “The independent Accountability Review Board
is already hard at work looking at everything — not cherry-picking one
story here or one document there — but looking at everything, which I
highly recommend as the appropriate approach to something as complex as
an attack like this. Posting something on Facebook is not in and of
itself evidence, and I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting
was at the time and continued for some time to be.”
Oct. 24: Carney, the White House spokesman, says
that “within a few hours” of the attack Ansar al-Sharia “claimed that
it had not been responsible.” He added, “Neither should be taken as fact
— that’s why there’s an investigation underway.”
Jerry, have you ever been in combat? Have you ever heard the term FUBAR? There was not GREAT BIG CONSPIRACY. Things were simply fouled up from the beginning. By the way FUBAR means Fucked Up Beyone All Recognition or Reason. When something like Bengazi happens there is so much smoke and debris that nobody knows exactly what happened and you have to wait until you do because if you open your mouth and you're wrong, you look like and idiot.
Let it go Jer.
