However, when it comes to the debacle in Benghazi it has lied to to Americans and stone-walled any investigation to reveal the truth. The seven stooges look like the most inept members of any administration in American history, looking like deer in the headlights on all matters dealing with the attack.
Did President Obama and administration
officials mislead the public when they initially claimed that the deadly
September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began spontaneously
in response to a video?
Clinton's said on September 12 there’s “no justification — none at all — for responding to this video with violence
How things have changed. Blame the video, don't blame the video. What is the truth?
Finally, in December, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will testify, on a report expected to
be released soon on the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic post
in Benghazi, Libya.
Americans have criticized the Obama administration for its flawed
early public explanations, first, blaming it on a video no one had heard of until after the attack and then for shifting
explanations of why talking points given to U.S Ambassador to the United
Nations Susan Rice were changed to delete a reference to al-Qaida.
Events leading up to the tragedy showed nothing unusual during the day at all outside. In fact, U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens finished a meeting with a Turkish diplomat at Benghazi, one can only speculate why they did not meet in Tripoli.
Shortly after Stevens retires to for the evening a security agent at the
Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and
“gunfire and an explosion,” stated a senior State Department official during a briefing held October 9. The briefing also revealed that “the camera on the main gate revealed a large
number of armed men flowing into the
compound.”
“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.”
“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.” A short time later, “U.S. and Libyan security personnel … regain the main building and were able to secure it.”
“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.”
The State Department’s Operations Center
sent 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.
At approximately 8:30 pm our time, “Libyan security forces were able
to assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all
of this, frankly, we do not know when, we believe that 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.”
Clinton, an hour and half later, issued a statement confirming that one U.S. official was killed in an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Her statement said, "Some have sought to justify
this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on
the Internet. 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."
Victoria Nuland, a State Department spokeswoman, was asked on September 13 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.” Also, Clinton, during a meeting with a Moroccan diplomat, condemned what
she called the “disgusting and reprehensible” anti-Muslim video and the
violence that it triggered.
However, on the same day Nuland spoke, CNN reported a senior official said, “It was not an innocent mob. 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.”
The following day, on Sept. 14, 2012, three days after the assault at Benghazi, President
Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at the
transfer of remains ceremony to honor the four Americans killed. The
White House published video of their remarks.
Clinton said
“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. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”
Four days later, Clinton reiterated, “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.”
Ten days after the attack, Clinton stated, "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.”
On September 24, Clinton met
with the Libyan president and stated, “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.”
Emails
provided evidence that, contrary to Clinton’s previous remarks, just two hours into the attack, She had been
made aware that terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia claimed
responsibility for the attack. The United States had a drone or maybe
multiple drones overhead, feeding video of the battle back to the State
Department and the White House Situation Room. That video allowed
members of the administration to monitor the battle in real time.
October 9, almost a month after the tragedy, the State
Department confirmed as fact that there were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the
attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers
joined an angry mob that had formed, denouncing the anti-Muslim video.
In an October 15 interview with CNN,
Clinton claimed the “fog of war” caused the administration to blame the anti-Muslim video for the attack.
"I take responsibility. I'm in charge of the State Department's
60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts," Clinton stated.
Clinton also said. “We did everything we could to keep our people safe, which is my primary responsibility.”
Weeks later Americans learned that Ambassador Stevens and security
officers in Libya had repeatedly asked for increased security, and had
been repeatedly turned down by the State Department in Washington.
While President Obama did not blame the YouTube video during his remarks
at the transfer of remains ceremony, he did do so during his remarks to the United Nation on September 25.
He did not
describe the assault as a terrorist attack.
What did Obama know and when did he know it?
We know that Obama and others in the
administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the
underlying cause for the attack. Furthermore, they downplayed reports that it might have been a terrorist attack.
Obama delivered a speech
in the Rose Garden on September 12 to address the deaths of U.S. diplomats in Libya, however, he never called it terrorism and indirectly blamed the video. 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. 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.”
In Obama's September 15 weekly address he never discussed the Benghazi attack nor did he talk about terrorists. However, he rambled on
about the anti-Muslim film and the riots that ensued in the Middle East.
A mere five days after the attack, on September 16, Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted that it was a planned terrorist attack, but
administration officials continued for days later to say there was no
evidence of a planned attack. On the same day, Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous
protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and
preposterous.”
Over the next several days, Obama, while at various venues, continued the lie that the attack was the result of the video, never calling it terrorism , and began to dodge questions, saying the investigation is still ongoing.
E-mails show that the White House, Pentagon and State Department learned
two hours after the attack began that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic
militant group, had claimed credit for it.
Matt Olsen, the director of the National Counter-terrorism Center, was
the first administration official to call it a terrorist attack during
a congressional hearing on September 19. He advised a Senate subcommittee that the four officials in
Benghazi “were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our
embassy,” however, he also stated that he hasd no
“specific evidence of significant advanced planning.”
Shawn Turner, a spokesman for the director of national intelligence, said in a statement on September 28, "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."
Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified on Capitol Hill thatthe
attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September was an
act of terrorism committed by al Qaeda-linked militants.
Representative Peter King, New York, said Petraeus'
testimony differed from an earlier assessment the former CIA director
gave lawmakers. "The clear impression we
were given was that the overwhelming amount of evidence
was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration, and was not a
terrorist attack," King said.
Petraeus spoke at the
House Intelligence hearing and testified in front of the Senate
Intelligence Committee. He also testified that his resignation had nothing to do with the consulate attack. Critics of the administration have suggested that his resignation might be linked to fallout over the attack.
Petraeus said there was a stream of intelligence from multiple sources,
including video at the scene, that indicated Ansar al Sharia was behind
the attack, according to an official with knowledge of the situation.
The CIA
disproved reports that indicated the violence at the consulate was triggered by protests in Egypt in response to the video, but not before Petraeus' initial briefing to
Congress. During that briefing, he raised Ansar al Sharia's possible
connection.
Petraeus testified that
he developed unclassified talking points in the days after the attack
but he had no direct involvement in developing the ones used by Susan
Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, King said.
King added, "No one knows, yet,
exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points, other
than to say the original talking points prepared by the CIA were
different from the ones that were finally put out."
The three unclassified talking points that were used by Rice on September 16 are:
> The currently
available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were
spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and
evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in
Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that
extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
>> This assessment may
change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as
currently available information continues to be evaluated.
>>> The investigation is
ongoing, and the U.S. government is working with Libyan authorities to
bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.
Petraeus said the concern is not whether the talking points were correct, but that Rice didn't go far enough. "She knew at that point
and time that al Qaeda was very likely responsible in part or in whole
for the death of Ambassador Stevens," he said.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is asked,
on September 12, while heading to Las Vegas for an Obama fundraiser, “Does the White House believe that the attack in Benghazi was planned
and premeditated?” He answers, “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.” Thus begins the cover-up, avoiding the truth.
Two days later, Carney denied reports of a preplanned attack at Benghazi.
“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.”
However, in the same briefing, Carney is told that Pentagon
officials informed members of Congress that the
Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack. Carney rebuts, saying White House officials “don’t have and did not
have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the
film.”
Carney, during the September 18 presser, doubling down on blaming the video, stated, "...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. What other factors were involved is a matter
of investigation.”
Two days later, Carney called Benghazi a terrorist attack, but downplayed the comment, stating the White House has no evidence
it was a significantly preplanned attack. He continues to blame the video for causing the attack.
A week later, Carney sidestepped questions concerning Obama not calling Benghazi a terrorist attack, giving a general response of "...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.”
Carney is asked at a press briefing in October
why the president and administration officials described the
anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause of the attack on Benghazi. He answered, “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.”
Vice President Joe
Biden claimed, "We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know
they wanted more security there," in reference to Benghazi. contradicting two State Department officials
and the former head of diplomatic security in Libya.
Biden contradicted two State Department officials
and the former head of diplomatic security in Libya. Two security officials who worked for the State
Department in Libya at the time testified
Thursday that they repeatedly requested more security and two State
Department officials admitted they had denied those requests.
Eric Nordstrom, the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, testified, "All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources. In those conversations, I was specifically told ‘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."
Lt. Col. Andrew Wood stated, "We felt great frustration that those requests were
ignored or just never met."
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice on September 16 begins her rounds on the Sunday news show circuit, stating, “We do not have information at present that leads
us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She said it
began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours
earlier in Cairo,” then “extremist elements” joined in the protest.
Rice repeatedly referred to the video directly and indirectly, appearing to be nothing more than a marionette.
The following day, Nuland
is asked about Rice’s comments on five
Sunday talk shows. She replied, “The comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our
government’s initial assessment.”
Rice has been under fire
for suggesting the attack on the consulate was a spontaneous event
spurred by a protest against the anti-Muslim film.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met with the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 14.Republicans and Democrats concluded from information he provided that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack.
Approximately two weeks later at a press briefing, Panetta said
that it was a terrorist attack, but declined 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,” Panetta 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.”
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, addressed what the U.S. knew in advance of the attack, stating 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.”
The implications are clear that the Obama Administration sought to cover-up the terrorist attacks by blaming a low budget video. While many speculate the true nature of activities ongoing at Benghazi, I believe illegal arms shipments to Syrian rebels from Libya were being coordinated with the help of Turkish diplomats and that the weapons that were already shipped have made it into the hands of terrorist groups that have flooded into Syria. These activities are what the Obama administration wanted to keep secret that is why they denied assistance three times that tragic day and that is why Obama did not give the order for nearby American forces to respond.
>>>Information for this report was gathered from various government documents, news releases and reports as well as published accounts of key testimony and public comments<<<
No comments:
Post a Comment