• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

HE LIED

Tam

Well-known member
U.S. told within hours Libya attack was probably a planned terror plot, but stuck to ‘protest’ story for two weeks
Mark Hosenball and Tabassum Zakaria, Reuters | Oct 3, 2012 10:53 AM ET | Last Updated: Oct 3, 2012 10:57 AM ET
More from Reuters

WASHINGTON — Within hours of last month’s attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama’s administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al-Qaeda were involved, three government sources said.

Despite these reports, in public statements and private meetings, top U.S. officials spent nearly two weeks highlighting intelligence suggesting that the attacks were spontaneous protests against an anti-Muslim film, while playing down the involvement of organized militant groups.

It was not until last Friday that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office issued an unusual public statement, which described how the picture that intelligence agencies presented to U.S. policymakers had “evolved” into an acknowledgement that the attacks were “deliberate and organized” and “carried out by extremists.”

The existence of the early reports appears to raise fresh questions about the Obama administration’s public messaging about the attack as it seeks to fend off Republican charges that the White House failed to prevent a terrorist strike that left a U.S. ambassador and three others dead.

“What we’re seeing now is the picture starting to develop that it wasn’t a problem with the intelligence that was given, it’s what they did with the intelligence that they were given,” Representative Mike Rogers, chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, said in an interview on Tuesday.

“This picture is still a little fuzzy but it is starting to come into focus and it appears that there were, very early on, some indications that there was jihadist participation in the event,” he said.

The Obama administration has strongly defended its public accounts of what happened in Benghazi, and said its understanding has evolved as additional information came in.

“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,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney.

Some officials said U.S. spy agencies tried to avoid drawing premature conclusions about how the violence began and who organized it.

“Unless you have very good reports that strongly suggest who was behind the attack for sure, it is prudent to be careful, because placing emphasis publicly, even tentatively, on any one group or groups too soon can lead everyone down the wrong path,” said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Republicans have sought to make the shifting stories told by administration officials about the attack, and inadequate security precautions at the U.S. diplomatic site in Libya, a major issue in the presidential campaign leading up to the Nov. 6 election.

Two House Republicans said they would hold Congress’ first hearing on the matter on Oct. 10.

CIA TALKING POINTS

The stream of intelligence flowing into Washington within hours of the Benghazi attacks contained data from communications intercepts and U.S. informants, which were then fashioned into polished initial assessments for policymakers.

Officials familiar with them said they contained evidence that members of a militant faction, Ansar al-Sharia, as well as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, were involved in the assaults.

The report did not allege the attacks were a reaction to the anti-Muslim film, but acknowledged it was possible that the attackers sought to use an outbreak of violence in Cairo over the film, which insulted the Prophet Mohammad, as a pretext for attacks.

One official said initial reporting suggested militants had begun planning attacks on U.S. targets in Benghazi before Sept. 11, but may well have decided to use the protests as a pretext for moving forward that day.

Reuters reported on Sept. 12, citing U.S. government officials, that the attacks may have been planned and organized in advance, and that members of Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM may have been involved.

Yet on Sept. 15, administration officials, relying upon what they said was other information from intelligence agencies, circulated to members of Congress a set of talking points prepared by the CIA that purported to summarize what U.S. intelligence knew.

The talking points said: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex.”

The document then noted that “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” It contained no further elaboration.

The talking points reflected information that White House officials and Congress were given in closed-door intelligence briefings in the days immediately after the attacks. In one such session, CIA director David Petraeus used lines which paralleled the talking points.

“It seems increasingly clear that the briefings provided to Congress and the public about the Benghazi attack were at best incomplete and at worst misleading,” Senator Saxby Chambliss, the Republican vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Reuters.

“Within hours of the attack, intelligence assessments highlighted the role of al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists, but the administration focused instead on a video that appears to have had little, if anything, to do with the violence in Benghazi,” Chambliss said.

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, also appeared to use information contained in the talking points on Sunday Sept. 16 when she made five appearances on TV talk shows.

On CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Rice said the Benghazi attacks were triggered by a “hateful video,” which prompted a “spontaneous protest” that “spun from there into something more violent.” Regarding militants, she said only that it was “clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence.”

Congressman Peter King, a New York Republican, has urged Rice to resign over the issue, a call the State Department has rejected.

A ROLE FOR ANTI-MUSLIM FILM?

The Daily Beast website reported last week that in the hours after the attack, U.S. intelligence agencies monitored communications between members of Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM. Ansar al-Sharia operatives “bragged” about their attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission and acted as if they were “subordinate” to AQIM, it quoted a U.S. official as saying.

It now appears questionable that the anti-Muslim film, which sparked a violent protest against the U.S. Embassy in Cairo earlier on Sept. 11, played a significant role in the Benghazi attack. Some U.S. officials have not foreclosed that possibility.

But Rogers, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, said he had never seen intelligence reporting to support such an assertion.

“I haven’t seen anything that shows that the intelligence community said on the day of, or the immediate day following, that this was a spontaneous event,” he said.

Within hours Obama had a dozen intelligence reports saying it was a PLANNED Terrorist Attack and not one intelligence report claiming it was a spontanious riot over a video but yet Obama spent two weeks LIEING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and spending tax payers money apologizing for something that he WANTED TO BLAME THE ATTACKS ON.

HE OPENNLY LIED FGS. And he and his Adminstration need to be held accountable for those deaths and the coverup. :mad: :mad: :mad:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Most of America knew it was a planned attack within a day... and all we had was the news coverage...

why is it we knew and figured it out before the president?.. have things gotten that bad under his leadership... or is he really that dumb?


Within hours Obama had a dozen intelligence reports saying it was a PLANNED Terrorist Attack and not one intelligence report claiming it was a spontanious riot over a video but yet Obama spent two weeks LIEING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

and if Obama didn't lie,... he is inept... which is just as dangerous..
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
I'm not sure they requested it, but why wouldn't they when Chris's
diary was found and he mentioned several times that he was concerned
that the security wasn't adequate.

You know, when all this first started, I watched while Hilary said that
she personally asked Chris to be the Ambassador to Libya as they
were personal friends. :shock:

If that's what a friend does, who needs enemies?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Hereford76 said:
did the ambassador or embassy request a higher level of security before all this went down?

Comment on House GOPers’ Assertions that Libyan Mission Requested Security Prior to 9/11/12 Attack

White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to comment on an assertion by the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that requests from diplomats in Libya for added security prior to the September 11, 2012 attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, were denied.

“I’m not going to get into a situation under review by the State Department and the FBI,” Carney said.

Earlier today, chairman of the committee Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the chair of the subcommittee on national security, homeland defense, and foreign operations, wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asserting that “multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 (2012) attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these requests by officials in Washington.”

The two congressmen also listed thirteen incidents leading up to the attack – ranging from I.E.D. and RPG attacks to a “posting on a pro-Gaddafi Facebook page” publicizing early morning runs taken by the late Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security detail around Tripoli.

“Was State Department headquarters in Washington aware of all the above incidents?” they asked Secretary Clinton, requesting written responses by October 8. “If not, why not?”

“If so, what measures did the State Department take to match the level of security provided to the U.S. Mission in Libya to the level of threat?” they asked. The two also asked for details of “any requests made by Embassy Tripoli to State Department headquarters for additional security, whether in general or in light of specific attacks” detailed in the letter.

Carney said that “embassy security is a matter that is in the purview of the State Department,” and noted that “Secretary Clinton instituted an accountability review that is underway as we speak” while the investigation of the attack itself is being conducted by the FBI.

The press secretary said that “from the moment our facility was attacked” the president has been focused on providing security to all diplomatic posts “and bringing the killers to justice.”

About the list of security issues, Carney said it was a “known fact that Libya is in transition” and that in the eastern part of Libya in particular there are militant groups and “a great number of armed individuals and militias.”

Carney made his comments in an off-camera gaggle in Las Vegas, Nevada. President Obama is in nearby Henderson, Nevada, preparing for his fist debate with Mitt Romney, to be held Wednesday night.

-Jake Tapper
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
--I found this (and other very interesting topics) on Britebart.com:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today, Reps. Issa and Chaffetz sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking why requests for more protection at the Benghazi embassy were denied. Rep. Issa is the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee and Rep. Chaffetz is the Chairman of the subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations. The full committee will hold a hearing on October 10, 2012 to assess the security situation preceding the terrorist attack of September 11.


"Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012. It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest,” the committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, write. “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

The letter includes a long list of security concerns that occurred in Libya in the six months preceding the murder of Ambassador Stevens. Of particular concern is an attempt on the life of the British Ambassador that took place on June 10.


June 10, 2012, BENGHAZI – On or about June 10, 2012, a two-car convoy carrying the British Ambassador to Libya from a conference on reforming Libyan military law was attacked in broad daylight by a militant with an RPG. This attack was an important escalation in the violence against Western targets in Benghazi, as prior attacks had been at night and were often preceded by warnings from the attackers. Photos from the aftermath of the attack are attached.

The committee has asked the state department to make the appropriate officials available for the hearing along with answers to the following questions:


1. Was State Department headquarters in Washington aware of all of the above incidents? If not, why not?

2. If so, what measures did the State Department take to match the level of security provided to the U.S. Mission in Libya to the level of threat?

3. Please detail any requests made by Embassy Tripoli to State Department headquarters for additional security, whether in general or in light of specific attacks mentioned above. How did the Department respond to each of those requests?

A copy of the letter can be found here.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/02/Issa-Calls-For-Libya-Hearings
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
--I found this (and other very interesting topics) on Britebart.com:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today, Reps. Issa and Chaffetz sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking why requests for more protection at the Benghazi embassy were denied. Rep. Issa is the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee and Rep. Chaffetz is the Chairman of the subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations. The full committee will hold a hearing on October 10, 2012 to assess the security situation preceding the terrorist attack of September 11.


"Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012. It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest,” the committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, write. “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

The letter includes a long list of security concerns that occurred in Libya in the six months preceding the murder of Ambassador Stevens. Of particular concern is an attempt on the life of the British Ambassador that took place on June 10.


June 10, 2012, BENGHAZI – On or about June 10, 2012, a two-car convoy carrying the British Ambassador to Libya from a conference on reforming Libyan military law was attacked in broad daylight by a militant with an RPG. This attack was an important escalation in the violence against Western targets in Benghazi, as prior attacks had been at night and were often preceded by warnings from the attackers. Photos from the aftermath of the attack are attached.

The committee has asked the state department to make the appropriate officials available for the hearing along with answers to the following questions:


1. Was State Department headquarters in Washington aware of all of the above incidents? If not, why not?

2. If so, what measures did the State Department take to match the level of security provided to the U.S. Mission in Libya to the level of threat?

3. Please detail any requests made by Embassy Tripoli to State Department headquarters for additional security, whether in general or in light of specific attacks mentioned above. How did the Department respond to each of those requests?

A copy of the letter can be found here.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/02/Issa-Calls-For-Libya-Hearings


Must not be too important to those representatives-- as they decide to go home and take more than a month vacation so they could campaign rather than addressing the issue.... Which makes it sound more like hollow partisan politics !
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
--I found this (and other very interesting topics) on Britebart.com:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today, Reps. Issa and Chaffetz sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking why requests for more protection at the Benghazi embassy were denied. Rep. Issa is the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee and Rep. Chaffetz is the Chairman of the subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations. The full committee will hold a hearing on October 10, 2012 to assess the security situation preceding the terrorist attack of September 11.


"Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012. It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest,” the committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, write. “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

The letter includes a long list of security concerns that occurred in Libya in the six months preceding the murder of Ambassador Stevens. Of particular concern is an attempt on the life of the British Ambassador that took place on June 10.


June 10, 2012, BENGHAZI – On or about June 10, 2012, a two-car convoy carrying the British Ambassador to Libya from a conference on reforming Libyan military law was attacked in broad daylight by a militant with an RPG. This attack was an important escalation in the violence against Western targets in Benghazi, as prior attacks had been at night and were often preceded by warnings from the attackers. Photos from the aftermath of the attack are attached.

The committee has asked the state department to make the appropriate officials available for the hearing along with answers to the following questions:


1. Was State Department headquarters in Washington aware of all of the above incidents? If not, why not?

2. If so, what measures did the State Department take to match the level of security provided to the U.S. Mission in Libya to the level of threat?

3. Please detail any requests made by Embassy Tripoli to State Department headquarters for additional security, whether in general or in light of specific attacks mentioned above. How did the Department respond to each of those requests?

A copy of the letter can be found here.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/02/Issa-Calls-For-Libya-Hearings


Must not be too important to those representatives-- as they decide to go home and take more than a month vacation so they could campaign rather than addressing the issue.... Which makes it sound more like hollow partisan politics !

If you think this issue is going away, think again. Your Terrorist Sympathizer and Warlord in Chief is gonna have some 'splainin' to do.

Allahu Akbar!
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
--I found this (and other very interesting topics) on Britebart.com:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today, Reps. Issa and Chaffetz sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking why requests for more protection at the Benghazi embassy were denied. Rep. Issa is the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee and Rep. Chaffetz is the Chairman of the subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations. The full committee will hold a hearing on October 10, 2012 to assess the security situation preceding the terrorist attack of September 11.


"Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012. It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest,” the committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, write. “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

The letter includes a long list of security concerns that occurred in Libya in the six months preceding the murder of Ambassador Stevens. Of particular concern is an attempt on the life of the British Ambassador that took place on June 10.


June 10, 2012, BENGHAZI – On or about June 10, 2012, a two-car convoy carrying the British Ambassador to Libya from a conference on reforming Libyan military law was attacked in broad daylight by a militant with an RPG. This attack was an important escalation in the violence against Western targets in Benghazi, as prior attacks had been at night and were often preceded by warnings from the attackers. Photos from the aftermath of the attack are attached.

The committee has asked the state department to make the appropriate officials available for the hearing along with answers to the following questions:


1. Was State Department headquarters in Washington aware of all of the above incidents? If not, why not?

2. If so, what measures did the State Department take to match the level of security provided to the U.S. Mission in Libya to the level of threat?

3. Please detail any requests made by Embassy Tripoli to State Department headquarters for additional security, whether in general or in light of specific attacks mentioned above. How did the Department respond to each of those requests?

A copy of the letter can be found here.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/02/Issa-Calls-For-Libya-Hearings


Must not be too important to those representatives-- as they decide to go home and take more than a month vacation so they could campaign rather than addressing the issue.... Which makes it sound more like hollow partisan politics !

By your comment I take it the death of the four in the Libyan consulate and national security means nothing to Obama, as within hours of hearing his Libyan Ambassador death he canceled a National Security briefing and flew off to Vegas to a campaign fund raiser. The reason given by one of his talking heads for him doing that was "Well if Romney would stop taking big checks from his millionaire friends Obama wouldn't need to do so much fund raising".

Kind of tells you where the Obama Admin. priority are doesn't it Oldtimer. Hell with the life of an Ambassador and three others he needed to pad his re-election coffers. :mad:

BTW Oldtimer do you ever wonder why Obama has been lying to the American People about the TERRORIST ATTACK?

And what made him jump on the video as the reason for the attack?

He and his talking heads claimed a President can't shoot first and aim later but isn't that exactly what Obama did with his Spontaneous Protest story line when the truth was it was a PREMEDITATED TERRORIST ATTACK that he had a dozen reports claiming it was yet he still blamed the video?

What I wonder is would there had been protests in over twenty countries if OBAMA HADN'T BROUGHT THE VIDEO TO THE FOREFRONT OF THE DISCUSSION?

He fed that story line to distract the topic away from the real reason and the more he and Hillary Apologized, the more riots you saw. If they had just told the truth and not lied about the video maybe the riots would have been limited but nope he needed a cover story to distract from HIS FOREIGN AFFAIRS INCOMPETENCY.

He needs to be held accountable for his lying but I doubt you will ever do that will you Oldtimer. :roll:
 
Top