Posted by Tina
Benghazi investigators have found another email that supports the accusation that the administration purposely presented a false story about the events in Benghazi to the American people prior to the last election.
The email was sent to the State Department from a Tripoli embassy official on September 14, 2012, two days before Susan Rice pushed the video as the main reason for the attack on Sunday political talk shows.Breitbart has the details:
“Colleagues, I mentioned to [redacted] this morning, and want to share with all of you, our view at Embassy Tripoli that we must be cautious in our local messaging with regard to the inflammatory film trailer, adapting it to Libyan conditions,” the official wrote.
Our monitoring of the Libyan media and conversations with Libyans suggest that the films [sic] not as explosive of an issue here as it appears to be in other countries in the region. The overwhelming majority of the FB comments and tweets we’ve received from Libyans since the Ambassador’s death have expressed deep sympathy, sorrow, and regret. They have expressed anger at the attackers, and emphasized that this attack does not represent Libyans or Islam. Relatively few have even mentioned the inflammatory video. So if we post messaging about the video specifically, we may draw unwanted attention to it.
“And it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence,” the official continued. “It is our opinion that in our messaging, we want to distinguish, not conflate, the events in other countries with this well-planned attack by militant extremists. I have discussed this with [redacted] and he shares PAS’s view.”
Matt Wolking, press secretary of the House Select Committee on Benghazi remarks on the newly uncovered email:
This email shows that State Department staff privately raised serious concerns about conflating the terrorist attacks in Benghazi with a video on the Internet, even as the Secretary of State and other Obama administration officials continued to do so publicly. Furthermore, according to the former head of the CIA, intelligence “analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks.” So while Secretary Clinton may use the “fog of war” as a convenient excuse for why she said one thing in private and something else in public, the reality is that’s just another smokescreen.
Back in 2013 Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) expressed his concerns to AG Eric Holder in a Senate Judiciary Committee that the big institutions (banks) had become “too big to jail.”
One has to wonder if some of the people who claim to serve the people have not also become “too big to jail.” Is Hillary too big to jail? According to one national security lawyer, Edward McMahon Jr, she is! The political conundrum this case presents will be interesting to watch:
The theory is that high-profile defendants such as Clinton get off for the same type of behavior that lower level officials go to jail for. The idea may come as a surprise to Scooter Libby, an aide for Vice President Dick Cheney, who was prosecuted for revealing the name of CIA analyst Valerie Plame to the media. General David Petraeus, a former CIA director, was forced to plead guilty to a misdemeanor on the charge of mishandling classified documents when he showed them to his biographer, who also happened to be his mistress.
FBI Director James Comey, a Republican, would be the official who would recommend an indictment of Hillary Clinton. However Attorney General Loretta Lynch, an Obama appointee, would make the final approval. The situation sets up a nightmare scenario for the Democrats. If Comey recommends an indictment and Lynch refuses, the charge of political justice follows as night follows day. On the other hand, if Lynch decides to indict, Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency is, for all practical purposes, over.
This situation affords the American people an opportunity to witness the depth of corruption that permeates our government. Keep your eyes wide open and your ears perked!
Addendum to initial post: The former CIA Chief and acting CIA director, Michael Morell has written a new book in which he disputes claims made by Hillary that “bad intelligence” led her to blame the attack in Benghazi on the video:
In Morell’s 2015 book The Great War of Our Time, he writes that while the CIA knew “the demonstration and violence in Cairo were sparked by people upset over a YouTube video,” intelligence “analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks.” (p. 205-206)
Why you continue to beat this dead horse is beyond me. I have seen nothing illegal. I’ve only seen a lot of my tax money wasted.
Pete, please report to your optometrist.
$hrilLIARy was complicit in lying to the Benghazi victims families and the American people with her support of the “Blame the Video” cover-up. She also admitted under oath that she had emailed Chelsea even before the video cover-up started that the attack was “Al-Quaida-like” as well as her email to Egyptian leader Mubarek.
“In Morell’s 2015 book The Great War of Our Time, he writes that while the CIA knew “the demonstration and violence in Cairo were sparked by people upset over a YouTube video,” intelligence “analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks.” (p. 205-206)”
OK. But Michael Morrell has also said this:
“While there are no shortage of new arguments on this old subject, there are also some old ones that resurface on a regular basis. One is the debate on whether an anti-Islam YouTube video played any role in sparking the Benghazi attacks. The short answer is that we still don’t know with absolute certainty. Intelligence community analysts in the days immediately after the attack said that the attackers were probably motivated by an attack that happened in Cairo earlier in the day. We know that that attack was motivated at least in part by the video. However the analysts also said that the attack in Libya might have been motivated by Al Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri’s call just two days before the Benghazi attack for avenging the death of the terrorist Abu Yaya al-Libi earlier in the summer.
The most strident voices on Benghazi ridicule the notion that a video might have played any role. But among those who have argued that the video may have been a factor include the FBI, who told the House Intelligence Committee in February 2014 that the attacks were ordered in response the YouTube video and to Zawahiri’s call for avenging the death of al-Libi. You can read that on page 18 of the House Intelligence Committee’s report on Benghazi.”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/michael-morell-debunking-the-benghazi-myths-118271#ixzz3qGyjFSZr
Chris, you keep thinking this information is justification for pushing the video.
In fact it is justification for the argument that the video should never have been pushed as the main cause because, as Morrell put it, “we still don’t know with absolute certainty.”
Well if you”still don’t know” you say that you don’t know for sure. You might include the video in a list of possible causes but you do not purposely push it front and center on the Sunday political talk shows and you do not make statements as Hillary did to the parents of the fallen:
See also here and here.
The systematic way that this administration went about perpetrating a myth, or at best a half truth, suggests cover up, plain and simple. They wanted the American people to think a terrorists attack and the death of four Americans was the fault of a bad American and not Islamic terrorists. At least two things guided the reasoning behind this decision:
1. The coming election. Obama had been telling the American people that he had basically had decimated the terrorists, referring to the emerging threat as a JV team.
2. Protecting Hillary’s record at state and her future prospects for becoming president.
There is no other reasonable or sensible purpose for pushing that video as the cause of the attack.
“They wanted the American people to think a terrorists attack and the death of four Americans was the fault of a bad American and not Islamic terrorists.”
Then why did Obama specifically say this at the UN?
“And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. (Applause.) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. ”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly
That seems to place the blame pretty clearly on the terrorists who attacked Benghazi in response to the video, not on the maker of the video.
“There is no other reasonable or sensible purpose for pushing that video as the cause of the attack.”
Other than believing the video was the cause of the attack.
“we still don’t know with absolute certainty”
“probably motivated”
“might have been motivated by Al Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri’s …”
“may have been a factor”
Gee whiz, and the Hillary’s office and the administration presented as fact the YouTube video was the cause for the Benghazi attacks for weeks.
This woman should never be president, she is far to incompetent and oblivious.
That Chris seeks to let Hillary off the hook is understandable. His motivations are purely political.
Well Pete, does it matter that people in positions of authority deceitfully manage their official communications so that damning information in them never makes it into the permanent record? Is it okay that officials lie to Congress? Does it matter that a deadly incident was miss-characterized repeatedly in the media so that the American people were led to believe a lie prior to an election? Does it matter that attempts were made to destroy emails and obstruct justice? Does it matter that a person accused of these things, with evidence and testimony to back it up, could become the next president of the United States? (Additional information to follow in my next comment)
Yes, Pete, I think it matters. I think it matters a lot. I’m appalled that otherwise lucid and intelligent human beings living in America would not at the very least want to see the matter adjudicated. Your dismissal, dead horse, demeans our entire legal process, the interests of the people, and possibly the survival of our free nation.
The NY Post article, Hillary Clinton’s Rogue Agenda: Why Sid Blumenthal Matters adds another layer to the Benghazi incident.
Whether actual laws were broken remains to be seen. One thing is certain, Hillary Clinton is an unethical, deceitful woman and unfit to serve this great nation.
Okay then J.,
Prosecute or get off the pot. That’s all I’m saying. Yes Hillary does lie, but find me a politician that doesn’t. And don’t talk down to me! It’s rude.
I agree with Pete. Hillary should be prosecuted, but if that unlikely event ever happens my bet it will be over her violations of classified material in her emails, not her Benghazi debacle.
“She’s too big to jail.” — National security attorney Edward MacMahon Jr.
MacMahon represented former CIA employee Jeffrey Sterling in 2011 in a leak case that led to an espionage prosecution and 3½-year prison term.
MacMahon has cited a pattern of light punishments for top government officials mishandling classified information while lower level whistleblowers face harsh prosecutions for revealing sensitive information to expose waste, fraud or abuse in government.
(The above has been gleaned from various sources.)
Re: “And don’t talk down to me! It’s rude.”
Pete, calm down. Tina was not talking down to you, she was expressing her opinion and asked a series of valid questions.
For the record, Pie, I think Pete was referring to J. Soden’s remarks in the second comment.
I hate this new format. It’s impossible to track the conversation as it unfolds and as the above very long comment of mine illustrates, the narrowing of content is harder t read and annoyingly longer than need be. I’m considering going back to quotes and responses for clarity.
Pete I assure you conservatives on this blog and all across the nation would love to “prosecute or get off the pot.”
Unfortunately the already slow wheels of government were made even slower by Hillary’s refusal to cooperate and her attempts to destroy evidence. You can’t blame prosecutors for her obstructionism. It is she who wastes the people’s time and money. This is her standard operating procedure. She thinks she can make it all go away with these tactics. We harp because we don’t want her to get away with it.
(Tina P.S. I am Ken. I was debating on whether to continue posting comments here anymore and so chose an alias.)
Thanks Pie…still enjoyed the comment.
So Tina how long should we keep empaneling committees to investigate Benghazi? I’m thinking there should be as many as we empaneled to investigate our “badly flawed” invasion of Iraq and Colin Powell.
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq —
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq
“To hear Democratic lawmakers tell it, the Republicans have thoroughly perverted any semblance of a fair process by calling and interviewing witnesses without bothering to include the committee’s minority members.”
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/the-truth-about-the-benghazi-investigation/
Kinda sounds like Democrats and their crafting of Obamacare, except where Benghazi has cost around $4 million to investigate, Obamacare is costing trillions to taxpayers and in increased medical insurance costs.
Which is more perverse?
In any case, Hillary will get away with her bungling and incompetence in the Benghazi debacle. Republicans have seen to that. It is a dead ball.
Pete I can understand what must be a major frustration for you. As far as I know the main complaint against the invasion of Iraq was the “flawed” intelligence about WMD. (Bush lied people died)
But it would be difficult to prosecute every intelligence agency in the world, all of the world leaders, and all of the Democrats in America who also believed the intelligence was accurate at the time and voted to give Bush the authorization, wouldn’t it? In fact what exactly would be the crime?
Also, although WMD was made a compelling reason in talking pints and the media, it wasn’t the only justification given for going into Iraq and the Bush administration wasn’t the first to consider it.
Four retired CIA officials conducted investigations into the intelligence. The intelligence committees of both House and Senate held inquiries. Brent Scowcroft, chairman of President Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) also conducted an investigation on the intelligence.
Apparently nothing of substance, nothing that could be prosecuted, was found. If there had been I have no doubt the hearings would have been long and very public. that’s how Democrats have always conducted their hearings with the medias full cooperation. I have a feeling the following is why hearings were never held:
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” – Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” – Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” – Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” – Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” – Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” – Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real … – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
NOT ONE OF THESE FINE DEMOCRATS BOTHERED TO GO BEFORE THE CAMERA’S TO TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT “BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED” WAS ITSELF A LIE!
Re : “Yes Hillary does lie, but find me a politician that doesn’t.”
The universal rationalization for letting liars off the hook.
Chris I admit the administration was very inconsistent in it’s messaging about Benghazi, it was like watching a toggle switch being turned first up then down, up and then down.
I have concentrated most of my criticism to the obviously orchestrated Sunday talk show events. The messaging was strange and obviously political as far as I’m concerned.
Discover the Networks timeline:
Morning of September 12, 2012: In a morning speech delivered in the White House Rose Garden, President Obama says, “Make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.” In his remarks, the president makes reference to the role that the anti-Muslim YouTube video allegedly played in triggering the violence: “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 also makes a passing reference to “acts of terror” generally, right after he has referred to “troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan,” and to “our wounded warriors at Walter Reed [Hospital].” But he never actually characterizes the Benghazi attack as a terrorist act.
* Morning of September 12, 2012: After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for 60 Minutes, where he explains that he refrains from using the word “terrorism” in the speech because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.” (For unknown reasons, CBS does not release this clip until just two days before Election Day, and it attracts little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy is dominating the pre-Election Day news.)
* Afternoon of September 12, 2012: Just a few hours after having delivered his remarks in the Rose Garden, President Obama flies to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser where he likens the heroism of the dead Americans in Libya to that of his own campaign volunteers: “The sacrifices that our troops and our diplomats make are obviously very different from the challenges that we face here domestically, but like them, you guys are Americans who sense that we can do better than we’re doing…. I’m just really proud of you.”
* Afternoon of September 12, 2012: Senior administration officials hold a briefing with reporters to answer questions about the attack. Twice the officials characterize the perpetrators of the attack as “extremists.”
* Afternoon of September 12, 2012: In a phone call with the Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil, Hillary Clinton says: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.” (The substance of this conversation was first revealed on October 22, 2015, when Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan referred to it during Hillary Clinton’s testimony in a Benghazi committee hearing. Jordan learned of the conversation from a State Department email which summarized the content of that phone call.)
* September 12, 2012: The State Department’s Elizabeth (Beth) Jones prepares a summary of discussions that had been held with a Libyan ambassador, and which concluded that the attack had been a terrorist incident. …
… September 12, 2012: Within 24 hours after the attack, the U.S. government intercepts communications between two al Qaeda-linked jihadists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. In one of those communications, one of the two jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, boasts that he participated in the violence against the U.S. diplomatic post. Later that same day, the CIA station chief in Libya sends a memo to Washington, reporting that eyewitnesses to the attack identified the participants as known jihadists with ties to al Qaeda.
* Afternoon of September 12, 2012: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell asks an administration official to comment on news reports indicating that the events in Benghazi have been “linked to a terror attack, an organized terror attack,” possibly al Qaeda. The official refers to it as a “complex attack” and says it is “too early to say who they were” and with whom they were affiliated.
* During the day of September 12, 2012: The Defense Intelligence Agency sends a cable to the State Department Command Center, expaining that the attack was carried out by a “Salafi terrorism group” in “retaliation for the killing of an Al Qaeda operative.” The cable says “the attack was an organized operation with specific information that the U.S. Ambassador was present,” and it includes details about the group’s movements and the weapons it used in the attack.
* September 12, 2012: In a September 12, 2012 email, Payton Knopf, the former deputy spokesman at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, informs President Obama’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, that senior officials have already concluded that the Benghazi attack was “complex” and planned in advance.
* September 12, 2012 (Information from an exchange between Gregory Hicks and Rep. Patrick McHenry, regarding whether Hicks initially believed that the violence of the previous day was a terrorist attack or a spontaneous outgrowth of a protest against the YouTube video):
McHENRY: Was there any evidence when you were there, in Libya, on that day [September 12], that this was a protest?
HICKS: No, there was none, and I’m confident that Ambassador Stevens would have reported a protest immediately if one appeared on his door….
MCHENRY: Was there anything in connection to a YouTube video? Was there any awareness that the events occurred because of a YouTube video?
HICKS: The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya.
MCHENRY: And did you know about that within a couple of days, or the day of?
HICKS: Yes.
MCHENRY: And so, did you report to anyone in Washington, within the first couple of days, that there was a protest in connection to a YouTube video?
HICKS: No, the only report that our mission made through every channel was that there had been an attack on our consulate.
MCHENRY: Not a protest.
HICKS: No protest. (Source: May 8, 2013 hearing before the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform)
* 4:09 p.m., September 12, 2012: 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 replies, “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.”
* September 12, 2012: Hillary Clinton advisor and confidante Sidney Blumenthal sends Mrs. Clinton a memo suggesting that the attacks were carried out by “demonstrators” who “were inspired by what many devout Libyans viewed as a sacrilegious internet video on the prophet Mohammed originating in America.” Mrs. Clinton forwards the memo to her foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan.
(Sid Blumenthal is NOT part the administration but a paid adviser/confident to Clinton)
* 10:08 p.m., September 12, 2012: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton releases a public statement linking the attack against the U.S. mission in Benghazi to the YouTube video, which she describes as “inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” “I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today,” says Mrs. Clinton, adding: “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 no justification for this, none.”
* September 12, 2012: When the CIA personnel hear the Obama administration’s initial explanation that an anti-Islam video and a demonstration gone awry are to blame for the attacks, they seethe with anger because all the evidence on the ground shows clearly that it was a premeditated attack.
* September 13, 2012: Hillary Clinton advisor and confidante Sidney Blumenthal, citing “sensitive sources” in Libya, sends Mrs. Clinton a more thorough account of what occurred two days earlier. occurred. According to The New York Times: “[T]he memo provided extensive detail about the episode, saying that the siege had been set off by members of Ansar al-Shariah, the Libyan terrorist group. Those militants had ties to Al Qaeda, had planned the attacks for a month and had used a nearby protest as cover for the siege, the memo said. “We should get this around asap” Mrs. Clinton said in an email to [her foreign policy advisor Jake] Sullivan…. That information contradicted the Obama administration’s narrative at the time about what had spawned the attacks.” …
… * September 13, 2012: The Obama administration sends Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to deliver a televised statement denouncing not only the violence in Benghazi but also the “disgusting and reprehensible” video allegedly responsible for it, and stating “very clearly” that “the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video.” “We absolutely reject its content and message,” says Mrs. Clinton, emphasizing America’s great “respect for people of faith.”
* September 13, 2012: Hillary 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 Mrs. Clinton for what he describes as “this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya.” Mrs. Clinton, in her remarks, does not characterize it as terrorism. Rather, she says there is “never any justification for violent acts of this kind.” She also condemns the anti-Muslim video,.
* September 13, 2012: White House press secretary Jay Carney condemns the YouTube video at a news conference, blaming it for the attack in Benghazi.
* September 13, 2012: At a daily press briefing, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland is asked whether the Benghazi attack was “purely spontaneous or was premeditated by militants.” Declining to answer, she says that the administration does not want to “jump to conclusions.”
* September 13, 2012: In a meeting with Moroccan Foreign Minister Saad-Eddine Al-Othmani, Hillary Clinton denounces the “disgusting and reprehensible” anti-Muslim video and the violence that it purportedly sparked.
* Morning of September 14, 2012: After CIA director David Petraeus briefs members of Congress on Capitol Hill, Democratic Rep. Dutch Ruppersburger, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, asks the intelligence community to provide guidance on what members of Congress could say in their public comments regarding the September 11 attacks.
* 11:15 a.m. EDT on September 14, 2012: The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis distributes internally (for comment) the first draft of a response to Ruppersburger. This initial CIA draft states that the U.S. government “know[s] that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack”; that press reports have “linked the attack to Ansar al Sharia,” which seeks to spread sharia law in Libya and “emphasizes the need for jihad”; that Ansar al Sharia “has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved”; and that the mission compound in Benghazi has been the subject of jihadist surveillance during the past six months, during which there have been “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.”
* Afternoon of September 14, 2012: After the internal distribution, CIA officials amend that initial draft to include additional discussion about jihadism in both Egypt and Libya. For example: (a) “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.” And (b): “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda in Benghazi and Libya.” The reference to “Islamic extremists” remains in the revised draft, but it no longer specifies “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda.” Moreover, the initial reference to “attacks” in Benghazi is changed to “demonstrations.”
* 6:52 p.m. on September 14, 2012: Therevised CIA talking points are first distributed to top Obama administration officials via the interagency vetting process. All told, the revised talking points include more than a half-dozen references to such enemies of America as al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, and Islamic extremists.
* 7:39 p.m. on September 14, 2012: In an email to officials at the White House, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raises “serious concerns” about the talking-points draft as it is currently constituted. Specifically, she objects to the following paragraph which was part of the CIA’s talking points:
“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”
Describing herself as “concerned,” Nuland suggests that the foregoing information should be removed from the talking points because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?”
* Shortly after 7:39 p.m. on September 14, 2012: In an effort to address Nuland’s concerns, CIA officials remove all references to Ansar al Sharia and make some minor changes as well.
* 9:24 p.m. on September 14, 2012: In a follow-up email, Nuland writes that the edited draft remains problematic and that her superiors—whom she does not name—are unhappy with it. Noting that “[t]hese changes don’t resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” Nuland indicates that State Department leadership will be contacting National Security Council officials directly.
* Shortly after 9:24 p.m. on September 14, 2012: White House officials respond by stating that the State Department’s concerns will be taken into account.
* 9:34 p.m. on September 14, 2012: White House official Ben Rhodes sends an email advising the group of White House officials that the issues raised by Nuland will be resolved the following morning in a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee, consisting of high-ranking officials at the State Department, the Defense Department, and the CIA — as well as senior White House national security staffers. Says Rhodes: “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
* September 14, 2012: Press secretary Carney says: “We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”
* September 14, 2012: President Obama again blames the YouTube video for having sparked the violence.
* September 14, 2012: The White House asks YouTube to review Innocence of Muslims to see if it complies with the website’s terms of use.
* September 14, 2012: CNN journalists find Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ diary amid the rubble of the mission in Benghazi where he was killed three days earlier. The diary reveals that Stevens had been worried for some time about constant security threats, the rise in Islamic extremism, and the fact that his name was on an al Qaeda hit list.
* September 14, 2012: At the receiving ceremony where the bodies of the 4 Americans who were killed in Benghazi are returned to the United States, Hillary Clinton addresses grieving family members. In the course of her remarks, she says: “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.” According to the father of the slain Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, Mrs. Clinton “came over … she talked with me. I gave her a hug and shook her hand and she did not appear to be one bit sincere at all and she mentioned about, ‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.’ That was the first time I even heard about anything like that.”
* September 14, 2012: Also at the receiving ceremony, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice each tell Pat Smith — the mother of slain Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith — that the cause of the violence that killed her son was the YouTube video. (Source: The O’Reilly Factor: Interview with Pat Smith on May 9, 2013).
* September 14, 2012: At a press briefing, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland says that her department will no longer answer any questions about the attack in Benghazi: “It is now something that you need to talk to the FBI about, not to us about, because it’s their investigation.”
* September 15, 2012: The Deputies Committee convenes in the morning to discuss the Benghazi talking points. Some participants meet in person, while others join via a Secure Video Teleconference System (SVTS). Soon after the meeting, a U.S. official sends an email to Ambassador Susan Rice indicating that several people who attended the meeting were — like Victoria Nuland, who did not participate in the deliberations — concerned that the CIA’s talking points might lead members of Congress to criticize the State Department for having ignored the CIA’s warning about a possible attack. Further, the email says that CIA deputy director Mike Morell and a small group of individuals from the intelligence community will work with Jake Sullivan — deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s director of policy planning — to edit and finalize the talking points before sending them on to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which had originated the request for talking points.
* September 15, 2012: Jake Sullivan, deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton, sends an email to State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland indicating that he has spoken with President Obama’s top spokesman at the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor: “I spoke with Tommy. We’ll work through this in the morning and get comments back.” In a separate email, Sullivan writes: “Talked to Tommy. We can make edits.”
* September 15, 2012: After the Deputies Committee meeting, deputy CIA director Mike Morell makes extensive changes to the six-paragraph draft of the talking points, cutting all or parts of four paragraphs of—148 of its 248 words. Most notably, he removes the references to: “Islamic extremists”; CIA warnings about al Qaeda in Libya; “jihadists” in Cairo; terrorists’ possible surveillance of the mission compound in Benghazi; and “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi.” What remains is mostly boilerplate about ongoing investigations conducted in cooperation with the Libyan government. The reference to “attacks” has been changed to “violent demonstrations” that supposedly arose spontaneously in reaction to protests in Egypt and may have included generic “extremists.”
* September 15, 2012: CIA director David Petraeus receives an email of the revised talking points from which all references to al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, and Islamic extremists have been scrubbed. The only remaining allusion to such forces indicates that “extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.” “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” Petraeus writes to a legislative affairs staffer, but he does not try to persuade the Obama administration to revert to the original CIA assessment of the September 11 attacks.
* 2:44 p.m. on September 15, 2012: In an email to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, CIA director David Petraeus expresses frustration that the talking points have been stripped of much of the information which the CIA had initially provided. Resigned to the fact that the administration is seeking to promote an alternative narrative, Petraeus acknowledges to Walter that the national security staff, and not the CIA, will make the final decisions about what to tell the American people.
* September 14-15, 2012: All told, there have been 12 different versions of the talking points about Benghazi; these evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA, to the final version distributed to Congress and to Susan Rice prior to her September 16th appearances on five television talk shows. The edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.
* September 15, 2012: In his weekly address, President Obama discusses the Benghazi attack but makes no mention of terrorism or terrorists. He does mention, however, the anti-Muslim video and “every angry mob” that it inspired in the Middle East.
* September 15, 2012: Senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes sends emails to top White House officials such as David Plouffe and Jay Carney just a day before Ambassador Susan Rice would make her infamous appearances on five Sunday news programs discussing the attacks. In other words, Rice’s instructions are coming from top Obama administration communications officials.
According to Rhodes’s emails, Rice’s “goal,” would be “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.” Rhodes’s email also advises Rice to articulate that:
“[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.”
Rhodes further instructs Rice to say something to the effect of: “I think that people have come to trust that President Obama provides leadership that is steady and statesmanlike. There are always going to be challenges that emerge around the world, and time and again, he has shown that we can meet them.”
* September 15, 2012: In an email to Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell, the CIA’s station chief in Libya says that the attack in Benghazi was “not an escalation of protests.” This email is written after a teleconference during which senior CIA officials in Washington — Mr. Morell among them — told the Tripoli station chief that they were examining information which suggested that a protest had preceded the attack.
* September 15, 2012: In an email to Susan Rice, an Obama administration official boasts about Mr. Morell’s personal role in editing and rewriting the talking points. “Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy editing hand to them,” says the email. It is unclear whether the email is referring to talking points about the notion that a protest preceded the violence in Benghazi.
* September 16, 2012: President Obama’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, appears on five separate Sunday television news programs where she claims, falsely, that according to the “best information at present,” the deadly attack in Benghazi was not a premeditated assault but rather a “spontaneous reaction” to “a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world.” For example, she tells Bob Schieffer on CBS’s Face the Nation:
“We’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy … sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that—in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent…. We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”
* September 16, 2012: Rice’s assertion is quickly contradicted by Libyan security officials who say that American diplomats were warned as early as September 8th about potential violent unrest in Benghazi. (continues)
This all happened within a period of 4-5 days just weeks before the election. You are a testament to how easily the administration changed the talking points to deliver the video explanation. You can think this is innocent; I cannot.
PS (Editors have special priviledges.) I must confess I was so dissatisfied with the comment above, posted as a “reply”to Chris, that I copied it, deleted the comment, and re-posted it to avoid that narrow, difficult to read format. (I also apologize for the length…I think it’s that important.
By the way, let us not forget that Hillary was largely responsible f0r the pointless invasion of Libya which left that nation in total chaos with a complete destroyed governmental infrastruture and is now a multi-faction militia and terrorist hellhole.
“We came, we saw, he died,” Clinton joked with a television reporter in the wake of the death of the fugitive Gadhafi at the hands of a mob, days after she visited Tripoli in support of Libya’s transitional government.
But when Gadhafi fell, he left a land of eviscerated political institutions ill-prepared for its sudden freedom.”
— CNN Politics
Great comment Pie.
Let us also recall that the Bush strategy included denying terrorists bases of operation. This bunch not only created a great expansion of terrorists but also increased their base of operations. But as we know now, a strategy that includes playing patty cake with Iran is a fools game and doomed from the start.
A majority of Iranian leaders vowed ot to abandon the “death to America” slogan despite the deal made with Obama/Kerry.
Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri encouraged 911 style attacks on the West following a long period of silence.
America is being shoved around and laughed at by terrorist leaders. Weak leadership has placed us back at square one.
“Let us also recall that the Bush strategy included denying terrorists bases of operation.”
Was Iraq less of a terrorist base of operation in 2008 than it was in 2002?
Yes, Chris, it was. Saddam Hussein was a sponsor of terrorism and Iraq was a training ground for terrorists. After 911 Bush clearly told the American people and the world the problem was global:
The left had a lot of yucks over Bush’s “War on Terror” label but he could always be counted on to be clear about the fact that the war would be fought on many fronts.
Iraq was part of the larger war.
Bush had a strategy. he was determined to win. That’s more than can be said for the current administration.
Yep Tina,
Bush achieved his goal “Mission Accomplished.” What a mess he created.
Pete you seem to be a reasonable person. I’m surprised you’d use this political lie to make a case regarding the war.
Have you ever been in the military? If so, you should know what the banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln behind Bush meant.
Bush landed a “fixed wing aircraft” on the deck of the air craft carrier in a show of camaraderie and support for the men and women aboard who had, after 11 long months finally finished their mission…they were going home. According to the Presidents spokesman the message was meant for the people back home who were anxious to see their family again. Nothing in Bush’s remarks that day suggested an end to the war. The words that have been used to justify the smarmy attack are:
When President Obama took the reigns Iraq was relatively stable but he chose to shift priorities to Afghanistan. Was it a trophy kill he wanted? Killing Bin Laden is something he has bragged about. (Bush always gave our troops the credit.) Whatever his reasoning he has never, to my knowledge, articulated a clear strategy or shown that he intends to defeat our enemy. In fact it’s been just the opposite. He has collaborated with enemies and insulted our allies. His blunders have made the efforts of our military seem meaningless and created the space for a base of operations that spreads over three nations. Terror acts have become more prevalent and more creatively gruesome. He has done such a lousy job that millions of refugees are invading Europe and creating a social emergency and chaos there. Some of those refugees are likely tied to terrorist organizations.
We’ve fought Islamic terrorists for centuries. I think this is the first time we have practically surrendered to them.
People need to wake up and grow up. This is a grown up problem made worse by a president who is either terribly incompetent (doubt it) or sympathetic to the enemies cause. He certainly isn’t interested in defeating them.
Yes I served. And I shook my head when I watched that political stunt by Bush.
I knew then that things were only getting started in Iraq. The great sucking sound of tribal leaders all vying for God, glory, gold and revenge on others. All these things kept in check by a tyrant.
Bush got us into a war without an understanding of a region’s history or a plan to get us out. And so, here we are, years later, still trying to find an exit plan.
Bush’s father understood this and it’s the reason he didn’t continue on into Iraq during the Kuwait war. I respected that decision. What Did his son do? Well, he let the genie out of the bottle. Has that action made our world a safer place? No, it has not.
Yes I served.
Pete I sincerely thank you for your service to our nation. In my opinion politics has no place when it comes to support of our troops.
Your assessment is understandable given your politics but it leaves out a lot of reality.
When GHWB chose not to move further into Iraq this nation had not yet experienced the 1993 truck bombing at the World trade Center. We had not endured while Americans were targeted at the Khobar Towers military complex in 1996, the Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania truck bombs near 2 US embassies that killed 224 people, or the bombing of the USS Cole that killed 17 sailors. And finally we had not yet been shocked out of our socks when aircraft were used to attack this nation on 911 in which 3000 people were murdered.
GHWB was also not subject to the Iraq Liberation Act signed into law by Bill Clinton. The law declared it the policy of the United States to replace Mr. Hussein’s government with a democratic one. A portion of President Clinton’s remarks at the signing ceremony:
In addition the reality at the time, as we have pointed out countless times, was that Hussein had WMD. He was not cooperating with the UN. Had he cooperated, GWB’s decision might have been very different. The contrast to Hussein was Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi who agreed in 2003 to eliminate his country’s weapons of mass destruction program, including a decades-old nuclear weapons program.
You may disagree with Bush’s decision. You may choose to think everything would be peachy today had he had not chosen to make Iraq an important part of a much broader strategy to rid the world of the scourge of terror fanatics whose goal is to tyrannically control the world under a murderous religious dictate. But you cannot hold Bush responsible for the mess made over the last seven years.
Every president begins his presidency standing on the shoulders of the last and in the current circumstances in the world. Many presidents have had to step into the office and lead this nation under difficult challenges. Not all of them, in fact none in modern times, have blown it as spectacularly as president Obama. Call it an inconvenient truth, it is nonetheless true and he will leave his successor more complex problems that are even more dangerous and difficult.
At some point we have got to rise above our teenage fantasies of world peace and nirvana and face this world as adults. The time is now.
I can and do hold Bush responsible for everything that has happened in Iraq since 2003. He was a short sighted idiot.
Pete if you are going to let Obama off the hook for his part of the mess in the Middle East I think its you who are being a little shortsighted. Blame Bush if you want, but lets not forget the combat deaths that have occurred on Obamas watch and many more civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Speaking of Afghanistan, I just saw a video of a woman being stoned to death for allegedly having an affair. These are not the Taliban either, these are the people we support. So little difference between the good guys and bad guys over there sometime I think we ought to leave them all to rot in the misery they call a religion in a rock pile they call a country.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Pete.
How wonderful and convenient for Pete. I am sure Obama appreciates being let off the hook and absolved of any responsibility for the current state of affairs in Iraq by analytical geniuses like Pete.
While you are at it, toss in Syria and Lybia too.