White House Repeatedly Told Media 'No Evidence' Of Terror Attack In Libya by John Nolte White House Repeatedly Told Media 'No Evidence' Of Terror Attack In Libya 24 Oct 2012 Last night a few hundred emails were released that prove beyond any doubt the White House knew -- as the terror attack unfolded in real time -- that the assault on our consulate in Libya was the work of an al-Qaeda affiliate. What this revelation really shines a light on are at least four declarative statements made by the White House -- days after the attack -- claiming there was absolutely no evidence that the murder of four Americans was the result of anything other than a spontaneous protest gone bad. No evidence. None. And this claim was made as late as September 19 by no less than White House spokesman Jay Carney. Forget the semantic debate the corrupt media and the Obama White House are currently coordinating on in order to muddy the waters over who knew what and when. On at least four different occasions the White House blatantly lied to the American people and the media: September 14: White House spokesman Jay Carney had this exchange with ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jake Tapper: [emphasis added throughout] TAPPER: Wouldnt it seem logical that the anniversary of 9/11 would be a time that you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts? CARNEY: Well, as you know, there we are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9/11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on all the precautions being taken. But lets be - TAPPER: Obviously not vigilant enough. CARNEY: Jake, lets be clear. This these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region TAPPER: At Benghazi? CARNEY: We certainly dont know; we dont know otherwise. You know, we have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest weve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of or to U.S. policy. September 16: Susan Rice to CBS News' Bob Schieffer: BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with [Magariaf] that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago? SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned. September 16: Susan Rice to Fox News' Chris Wallace: RICE: The best information and the best assessment we have today is that was, in fact, not a pre-planned and pre-meditated attack. That what happened initially -- it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video, that people gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. Those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya. And that then spun out of control. We don't see at this point -- signs that this was a coordinated, pre-meditated attack. Obviously we'll wait for the results of the investigation and we don't want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it's important for the American people to know our best current assessment. September 19: Jay Carney to CBS News' Bill Plante: PLANTE: You are still maintaining that there was no evidence of a pre-planned attack-- CARNEY: Bill, let me just repeat now-- PLANTE: But how is it that the attackers had RPGs, automatic weapons, mortars CARNEY: Bill, I know you've done a little bit of reading about Libya since the unrest that began with Gaddafi. The place has an abundance of weapons. PLANTE: But you expect a street mob to come armed that way? CARNEY: There are unfortunately many bad actors throughout the region and they're very armed. . PLANTE: But they planned to do it, don't you think? CARNEY: They might, or they might not. All I can tell you is that based on the information that we had then and have now we do not yet have indication that it was pre-planned or pre-meditated. There's an active investigation. If that active investigation produces facts that lead to a different conclusion, we will make clear that that is where the investigation has led. Our interest is in finding out the facts of what happened, not taking what we've read in the newspaper and making bold assertions that we know what happened. Who is behind the disinformation and hiding the truth?