Kristen Powers: Why Can't Obama Tell Us The Truth About Benghazi

[ClosedCaption]

wrong:

At least one of those security contractors, a former U.S. Army Ranger, was told to “wait” at least twice, and he argued with his security team leader, according to his testimony, related by Westmoreland. Westmoreland declined to share the names of the officers who testified because they are still CIA employees."

Being told to wait is not a stand down order.

The CIA team leader in Benghazi apparently was rounding up more support in people and weapons to counter attack with, and didn't his men to rush into an ambush.

splitting hairs.

"captain, those americans are getting killed, we can help them, we need to go now"

"no, wait "

"captain, its getting worse, they are overwhelmed, let us help them"

"no, wait"

See when he says a stand down order happened REdfish really means it didnt happen. But he'll continue to say it did happen because....uh....splitting hairs or something.

When Redfish KNOWS the truth but keeps lying about why even go back and forth with someone so slimy?

 

[Redfish]

Yup, totall Pubcrappe as always....

Yeah...Susan Rice didn't go out and lie her ass off 5 times in one day.

Never happened.

You are so stupid, you should be prevented from breeding.

I suspect that his appearance and body odor prevent breeding.

 

[Redfish]

Being told to wait is not a stand down order.

The CIA team leader in Benghazi apparently was rounding up more support in people and weapons to counter attack with, and didn't his men to rush into an ambush.

splitting hairs.

"captain, those americans are getting killed, we can help them, we need to go now"

"no, wait "

"captain, its getting worse, they are overwhelmed, let us help them"

"no, wait"

See when he says a stand down order happened REdfish really means it didnt happen. But he'll continue to say it did happen because....uh....splitting hairs or something.

When Redfish KNOWS the truth but keeps lying about why even go back and forth with someone so slimy?

OK,dingleberry, tell us the difference between "stand down" and "wait"

 

[francoHFW]

Mincing words.

Total bullcrap.

Four people died.

And an administration that was more worried about PR than being responsible.

Sorry some people fought back against a tidal wave of unpatriotic BULLSHYTTE, HATER DUPE. Everything you ''know'' about Bengazi is pure propaganda and lies. There were 20 protests/attacks earlier that day in reaction to that RW video, and no body knows the Bengazi motive, SO WHAT DOES BS ABOUT the motives MATTER...

 

[Redfish]

Mincing words.

Total bullcrap.

Four people died.

And an administration that was more worried about PR than being responsible.

Sorry some people fought back against a tidal wave of unpatriotic BULLSHYTTE, HATER DUPE. Everything you ''know'' about Bengazi is pure propaganda and lies. There were 20 protests/attacks earlier that day in reaction to that RW video, and no body knows the Bengazi motive, SO WHAT DOES BS ABOUT the motives MATTER...

first of all it was not a RW video, it was a poorly made anti-muslim video that only a handful of people world wide had seen.

You obviously still believe the lies told by Rice, Clinton, and obama. It has been proven that they lied.

but I get it, your simple mind cannot accept the truth about your heroes and idols.

 

[BlindBoo]

wrong:

At least one of those security contractors, a former U.S. Army Ranger, was told to “wait” at least twice, and he argued with his security team leader, according to his testimony, related by Westmoreland. Westmoreland declined to share the names of the officers who testified because they are still CIA employees."

Being told to wait is not a stand down order.

The CIA team leader in Benghazi apparently was rounding up more support in people and weapons to counter attack with, and didn't his men to rush into an ambush.

splitting hairs.

"captain, those americans are getting killed, we can help them, we need to go now"

"no, wait "

"captain, its getting worse, they are overwhelmed, let us help them"

"no, wait"

The conversation was not happening between DC and Benghazi as so many have tried to frame it. It was an operational decision made on the scene in Benghazi.

"captain, those americans are getting killed, we can help them, we need to go now"

"no, wait, I don't want you going in undermanned and getting yourself killed. I don't want to have to tell your parents....... "

"captain, its getting worse, they are overwhelmed, let us help them"

"no, wait, We're getting reinforcements, cool your jets. I can't have you rush into an ambush, what the fuck would I tell your wife??????"

 

[ClosedCaption]

splitting hairs.

"captain, those americans are getting killed, we can help them, we need to go now"

"no, wait "

"captain, its getting worse, they are overwhelmed, let us help them"

"no, wait"

See when he says a stand down order happened REdfish really means it didnt happen. But he'll continue to say it did happen because....uh....splitting hairs or something.

When Redfish KNOWS the truth but keeps lying about why even go back and forth with someone so slimy?

OK,dingleberry, tell us the difference between "stand down" and "wait"

Spelling for one.

 

[francoHFW]

wrong:

At least one of those security contractors, a former U.S. Army Ranger, was told to “wait” at least twice, and he argued with his security team leader, according to his testimony, related by Westmoreland. Westmoreland declined to share the names of the officers who testified because they are still CIA employees."

Being told to wait is not a stand down order.

The CIA team leader in Benghazi apparently was rounding up more support in people and weapons to counter attack with, and didn't his men to rush into an ambush.

"ambush" but obama and clinton said it was a random street riot. an ambush requires coordination.

BS, dingbat- They said it was ''an act of terror'' that grew out of a street protest against that a-hole RW video that started all the other protests earlier that day, because that's what the CIA told them. Keep listening to Pub propaganda, and you'll continue to be the chump of the greedy idiot rich...

 

[BlindBoo]

wrong:

At least one of those security contractors, a former U.S. Army Ranger, was told to “wait” at least twice, and he argued with his security team leader, according to his testimony, related by Westmoreland. Westmoreland declined to share the names of the officers who testified because they are still CIA employees."

Being told to wait is not a stand down order.

The CIA team leader in Benghazi apparently was rounding up more support in people and weapons to counter attack with, and didn't his men to rush into an ambush.

"ambush" but obama and clinton said it was a random street riot. an ambush requires coordination.

At this point in the timeline the President had not been informed there was an attack. So how could he have said that?

 

[Sarah G]

Kristen Powers is like Mark Levin. You kind of see their names on message boards such as this one but nobody else knows who the hell you're talking about. They're nobody.

 

[Freewill]

Kristen Powers is like Mark Levin. You kind of see their names on message boards such as this one but nobody else knows who the hell you're talking about. They're nobody.

And yet you know Mark Levin's name, go figure.

Does being well known make their opinion more valuable?

 

[Freewill]

Being told to wait is not a stand down order.

The CIA team leader in Benghazi apparently was rounding up more support in people and weapons to counter attack with, and didn't his men to rush into an ambush.

"ambush" but obama and clinton said it was a random street riot. an ambush requires coordination.

BS, dingbat- They said it was ''an act of terror'' that grew out of a street protest against that a-hole RW video that started all the other protests earlier that day, because that's what the CIA told them. Keep listening to Pub propaganda, and you'll continue to be the chump of the greedy idiot rich...

BS hater dup. If you believe this source there was ONE protest on 9/11, ONE. The rest that were actually deadly occurred later. I am thinking because the POTUS got up in front of the world and told the world about this silly video. Then he had Rice go out and spread the word creating even more riot.

You really need to check your fact before bleating out what your DNC Sheppard tells you.

Timeline: Protests over anti-Islam video - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

 

[Freewill]

For all those who want us to take their word for the timeline here it is from CNN:

(CNN) -- September 11, 2012, in America was a day of solemn remembrance. In Libya, it was a day of violence that ended with four Americans killed, starting a debate over whether the Obama administration should have better protected them and whether it tried to cover its tracks after the debacle.

Ambassador Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi that day to meet with officials over the hunt for ousted dictator Moammar Ghadafi's weapons stockpiles and to open a cultural center. Here is how events played out that day (all times local):

9:40 p.m.: Gunfire is heard outside the Benghazi diplomatic mission, then a loud explosion. Dozens of armed militiamen charge the main gate and set fire to a barracks building as they make for the ambassador's residence.



CORRECTION
An earlier version of this story misidentified Gregory Hicks, who was deputy mission chief at the time of the attacks.
10 p.m.: Attackers breach the mission walls and make for the ambassador's residence. Stevens and information officer Sean Smith run to a safe room with one security agent.

An alert is sent to the CIA security team at an annex about a mile away, the State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. Stevens calls deputy mission chief Gregory Hicks at the embassy and tells him, "Greg, we're under attack."

Exclusive: Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack

10:30 p.m.: Stevens and Smith have taken refuge behind a fortified door with heavy metal bars that keeps the attackers from breaking in, but they set fire to the villa with diesel fuel. Within minutes, Stevens and Smith are overwhelmed by smoke.

At about the same time, six U.S. security agents leave the CIA annex for the main building. They and 16 Libyan security guards regain control over the compound and start searching for Stevens and Smith.

Shortly after 11 p.m.: A U.S. surveillance drone arrives over Benghazi. Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey meet with President Barack Obama.

12:07 a.m., September 12: The State Department sends an e-mail to the White House, the Pentagon and the FBI indicating the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia claimed credit for the attack.

1:15 a.m.: A rescue team from Tripoli arrives in Benghazi. About 30 Americans have been rescued from the consulate building and are holed up with the Stevens at the CIA annex.

2 a.m.: Hicks informs Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that they need to evacuate all Americans from Benghazi. At about the same time, an eyewitness captures on video Stevens being pulled from the smoke-filled building.

4 a.m.: The attackers launch a full-on assault against the annex, dropping mortars on the roof. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods are killed in the attack.

10 a.m.: The bodies of Stevens, Smith, Doherty and Woods are put on the last plane out of Benghazi.

Benghazi attack timeline - CNN.com

 

[Freewill]

Here from Factcheck.org, some pertainent facts:

◾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 in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
◾Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
◾Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
◾Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.


Analysis Factcheck.org's timeline Benghazi Timeline

Sept. 11: The Attack


2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time. (“Everything is calm at 8:30,” a State Department official would later say at an Oct. 9 background briefing for reporters. “There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.&#8221

3 p.m.: Ambassador Stevens retires to his bedroom for the evening. (See Oct. 9 briefing.)

Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”

About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack that was given to reporters at a Sept. 12 State Department background briefing. An administration official identified only as “senior administration official one” provides an official timeline of events at the consulate, but only from the time of the attack — not prior to the attack. The official says, “The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists.” (Six of the next seven entries in this timeline — through 8:30 p.m. EDT — all come from the Sept. 12 briefing. The exception being the 6:07 p.m. entry, which comes from Reuters.)

About 4:15 p.m.: “The attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith.”

Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead.

About 4:45 p.m.: “U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.”

About 5:20 p.m.: “U.S. and Libyan security personnel … regain the main building and they were able to secure it.”

Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours. It was during that time that two additional U.S. personnel were killed and two more were wounded during that ongoing attack.”

6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)

About 8:30 p.m.: “Libyan security forces were able to assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all of this – and frankly, we do not know when – we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a hospital in Benghazi. We do not have any information what his condition was at that time. His body was later returned to U.S. personnel at the Benghazi airport.”

About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.


Clinton: 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.

Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’


Sept. 12: Clinton issues a statement confirming that four U.S. officials, not one, had been killed. She called it a “violent attack.”


Clinton: All the Americans we lost in yesterday’s attacks made the ultimate sacrifice. We condemn this vicious and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the Libyan people reach for a better future.

Sept. 12: Clinton delivers a speech at the State Department to condemn the attack in Benghazi and to praise the victims as “heroes.” She again makes reference to the anti-Muslim video in similar language.


Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear — there is no justification for this, none.

Sept. 12: Obama delivers a morning speech in the Rose Garden to address the deaths of U.S. diplomats in Libya. He said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” He also makes reference to the anti-Muslim video when he says: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.” He uses the term “act of terror” later that night when talking about the attack at a campaign event in Las Vegas.

Sept. 12: After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for “60 Minutes.” Obama says he didn’t use the word “terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.” Steve Kroft, the show’s host, wonders how the attack could be described as a “mob action” since the attackers were “very heavily armed.” Obama says “we’re still investigating,” but he suspects “folks involved in this . . . were looking to target Americans from the start.”

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏


















Sept. 12: Senior administration officials, who did not permit use of their names, hold a briefing with reporters to answer questions about the attack. Twice officials characterize those involved in the attack as “extremists.” In one case, an official identified only as “senior administration official one” is asked by Fox News reporter Justin Fishel if the administration had ruled out the possibly that the attack was in response to the anti-Muslim video. The official says, “We just don’t know.”

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏








NBC’s Andrea Mitchell asks officials to address news reports that the attack has been “linked to a terror attack, an organized terror attack,” possibly al Qaeda. The official refers to it as a “complex attack,” but says it is “too early to say who they were” and their affiliation.

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏








Sept. 12, 4:09 p.m.: At a press briefing en route to Las Vegas, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is asked, “Does the White House believe that the attack in Benghazi was planned and premeditated?” He responds, “It’s too early for us to make that judgment. I think — I know that this is being investigated, and we’re working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time.”

Sept. 12: Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, tells the BBC that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. The little-known militant group issues a statement that says it “didn’t participate as a sole entity,” neither confirming nor denying the report.

Sept. 12, 6:06 p.m.: Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East, sends an email to top State Department officials that reads in part: “[T]he group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.” (An excerpt of Jones’ email was read by Rep. Trey Gowdy at the May 8, 2013, House oversight hearing.)

Sept. 12: Citing unnamed “U.S. government officials,” Reuters reports that “the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance” and that members of Ansar al-Sharia “may have been involved.” Reuters quotes one of the U.S. officials as saying: “It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”

Sept. 13: ‘Clearly Planned’ or ‘Spontaneous’ Attack?

Sept. 13: Clinton meets with Ali Suleiman Aujali — the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. — at a State Department event to mark the end of Ramadan. Ambassador Aujali apologizes to Clinton for what he called “this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya.” Clinton, in her remarks, does not refer to it as a terrorist attack. She condemns the anti-Muslim video, but adds that there is “never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏











Sept. 13: At a daily press briefing, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was asked if the Benghazi attack was “purely spontaneous or was premeditated by militants.” She declined to say, reiterating that the administration did not want to “jump to conclusions.”

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏










Sept. 13: Clinton met with Moroccan Foreign Minister Saad-Eddine Al-Othmani. She condemned what she called the “disgusting and reprehensible” anti-Muslim video and the violence that it triggered. She said, “Islam, like other religions, respects the fundamental dignity of human beings, and it is a violation of that fundamental dignity to wage attacks on innocents. As long as there are those who are willing to shed blood and take innocent life in the name of religion, the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace.”

Sept. 13: At a campaign event in Colorado, Obama again uses the phrase “act of terror.” He says: “I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.”

Sept. 13: CNN reports that unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi was a “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie.


CNN: “It was not an innocent mob,” one senior official said. “The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.”

Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack

Sept. 14: Clinton spoke at Andrews Air Force Base at a ceremony to receive the remains of those killed in Benghazi. She remarked that she received a letter from the president of the Palestinian Authority praising Stevens and “deploring — and I quote — ‘an act of ugly terror.’ ” She, however, did not call it an act of terror or a terrorist attack and neither did the president.

Sept. 14: At a State Department press briefing, spokeswoman Nuland says the department will no longer answer any questions about the Benghazi attack. “It is now something that you need to talk to the FBI about, not to us about, because it’s their investigation.”

Sept. 14: At a White House press briefing, Press Secretary Carney denies reports that it was a preplanned attack. “I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false.” Later in that same briefing, Carney is told that Pentagon officials informed members of Congress at a closed-door meeting that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack. Carney said the matter is being investigated but White House officials “don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.”

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏










Sept. 14: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta meets with the Senate Armed Services Committee. Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, reports that Republicans and Democrats came away with the conclusion that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack.

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏















Sept. 15-16: Susan Rice Contradicts Libyan President

Sept. 15: Obama discusses the Benghazi attack in his weekly address. He makes no mention of terror, terrorists or extremists. He does talk about the anti-Muslim film and “every angry mob” that it inspired in pockets of the Middle East.

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏










Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. But Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest. (It was later learned that Rice received her information from the CIA.)

Update, May 16, 2013: The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏































Sept. 16: Magariaf says in an interview with NPR: “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.”

Sept. 17: State Defends Rice and ‘Initial Assessment’

Sept. 17: Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman, is asked about Rice’s comments on “Face the Nation” and four other Sunday talk shows. Nuland says, “The comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our government’s initial assessment.” Nuland uses the phrase “initial assessment” three times when discussing Rice’s comments.

Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’

Sept. 18: Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on “The Late Show with David Letterman.” The president said, “Here’s what happened,” and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said, “Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.” He also said, “As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we’ve denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it. That’s never an excuse for violence.”

Sept. 18: Asked about Magariaf’s assessment that the video had nothing to do with the terrorist attack in Benghazi, the White House spokesman says Obama “would rather wait” for the investigation to be completed. “But at this time, as Ambassador Rice said and as I said, our understanding and our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped — that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere,” Carney says. “What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation.”

Sept. 18: After meeting with Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Patricia Espinosa, Clinton speaks with reporters and is asked if the Libyan president is “wrong” that “this attack was planned for months.” Clinton says, “The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has said we had no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent.” She does not say if Magariaf is right or wrong.

Sept. 19: Olsen Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’

Sept. 19: Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, tells a Senate subcommittee (at 1:06:49 in the video) that the four State Department officials in Benghazi “were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.” It is the first time an administration official labeled it a “terrorist attack.” But he also tells the senators that he has no “specific evidence of significant advanced planning.”

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏








Sept. 19: At a State Department briefing, the department spokeswoman is asked if she now believes that the attack was a “terrorist attack”? She says, “Well, I didn’t get a chance to see the whole testimony that was given by Matt Olsen of the NCTC, but obviously we stand by comments made by our intelligence community who has first responsibility for evaluating the intelligence and what they believe that we are seeing.”

Sept. 19: The White House spokesman does not call it a “terrorist attack” in his press briefing. Carney says, “Based on the information we had at the time — we have now, we do not yet have indication that it was preplanned or premeditated. There’s an active investigation. If that active investigation produces facts that lead to a different conclusion, we will make clear that that’s where the investigation has led.”

Sept. 20: W.H. Spokesman Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’ — Not Obama

Sept. 20: Carney calls it a “terrorist attack” after being asked how the White House now classifies the attack. But he says the White House has no evidence that it was “a significantly preplanned attack” and blames the video for igniting the incident in Benghazi.

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏










Sept. 20: Obama, at a town hall meeting, says “extremists” took advantage of the “natural protests” to the anti-Muslim video to attack the consulate in Benghazi. He does not call it a “terrorist attack.”


Question: We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?

Obama: Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.

Sept. 21: Clinton Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’

Sept. 21: Clinton, speaking to reporters before a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, calls it a “terrorist attack” for the first time. She says, “Yesterday afternoon when I briefed the Congress, I made it clear that keeping our people everywhere in the world safe is our top priority. What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”

Sept. 24-25: Obama Refuses to Call It a Terrorist Attack

Sept. 24: Clinton meets with the Libyan president and calls the Benghazi attack a “terrorist assault.” She says, “As we all know, the United States lost a great ambassador and the Libyan people lost a true friend when Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the terrorist assault on our consulate in Benghazi.”

Sept. 24: Obama tapes an appearance on “The View,” and he’s asked by co-host Joy Behar whether the Libya attack was an act of terrorism or caused by the anti-Muslim video. He does not call it a terrorist attack and says, “We’re still doing an investigation.”

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏










Sept. 25: Obama speaks at the United Nations. He praises Chris Stevens as “the best of America” and condemns the anti-Muslim video as “crude and disgusting.” He does not describe the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack.

Sept. 26: ‘Let’s Be Clear, It Was a Terrorist Attack’

Sept. 26: Carney is asked at a press briefing aboard Air Force One en route to Ohio why the president has not called the Benghazi incident a “terrorist attack.” He said, “The president — our position is, as reflected by the NCTC director, that it was a terrorist attack. It is, I think by definition, a terrorist attack when there is a prolonged assault on an embassy with weapons. … So, let’s be clear, it was a terrorist attack and it was an inexcusable attack.”

Sept. 26: Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, in an interview with Al Jazeera, is asked whether he agrees with the president of Libya that the Benghazi attack was premeditated and had nothing to do with the anti-Muslim video. He said: “It’s clear that the attack which took the lives of Chris Stevens and three other colleagues was clearly choreographed and directed and involved a fair amount of firepower, but exactly what kind of planning went into that and how it emerged on that awful night, we just don’t know right now. But I’m confident we’ll get to the bottom of it.”

Sept. 27: When Did Administration Know?


Sept. 27: At a press briefing, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says that “it was a terrorist attack,” but declines to say when he came to that conclusion. “It took a while to really get some of the feedback from what exactly happened at that location,” he said. “As we determined the details of what took place there, and how that attack took place, that it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack.”

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same briefing addresses what the U.S. knew in advance of the Benghazi attack. He says there was “a thread of intelligence reporting that groups in … eastern Libya were seeking to coalesce, but there wasn’t anything specific and certainly not a specific threat to the consulate that I’m aware of.”

Sept. 27: In a report on “Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees,” Fran Townsend, former Homeland Security adviser to President George W. Bush, says the administration knew early on that it was a terrorist attack. “The law enforcement source who said to me, from day one we had known clearly that this was a terrorist attack,” she says.

Sept. 27-28: Intelligence ‘Evolved’

Sept. 27: The White House spokesman is asked yet again why the president has refused to call the incident a terrorist attack. “The president’s position [is] that this was a terrorist attack,” Carney says.

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏










Sept. 28: Shawn Turner, a spokesman for the director of national intelligence, says in a statement that the office’s position on the attack evolved. It was first believed that “the attack began spontaneously,” but it was later determined that “it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack,” he says.


Turner: In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.

As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate.

Oct. 2-3: Clinton Cites ‘Continuing Questions’

Oct. 2: White House spokesman Carney at a press briefing in Nevada: “At every step of the way, the administration has based its public statements on the best assessments that were provided by the intelligence community. As the intelligence community learned more information they updated Congress and the American people on it.”

Oct. 3: Clinton tells reporters after a meeting with Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Erlan Idrissov: “There are continuing questions about what exactly happened in Benghazi on that night three weeks ago. And we will not rest until we answer those questions and until we track down the terrorists who killed our people.”

Oct. 9: ‘Everything Calm’ Prior to Benghazi Attack, No Protests

Oct. 9: At a background briefing, senior state department officials reveal there were no protests prior to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi — contrary to what administration officials have been saying for weeks. A senior department official says “everything is calm at 8:30 p.m.” (Libya time) when Stevens was outside the building to bid a visitor goodbye. The ambassador retired to his bedroom for the evening at 9 p.m. The calm was shattered by 9:40 p.m. when “loud noises” and “gunfire and an explosion” are heard. (The background briefing provided on Sept. 12 also said the attack began at about 10 p.m., or about 4 p.m. EDT, but it did not provide information about what happened prior to the attack.)

A senior official says it was “not our conclusion” that the Benghazi attack started as a spontaneous protest to the anti-Muslim video. He also said “there was no actionable intelligence of any planned or imminent attack.”

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏










Oct. 10: Administration Says It Gave Public ‘Best Information’

Oct. 10: Carney, the White House spokesman, is asked at a press briefing why the president and administration officials described the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause of the attack on Benghazi when the State Department “never concluded that the assault in Benghazi was part of a protest on the anti-Muslim film.” He replied, in part: “Again, from the beginning, we have provided information based on the facts that we knew as they became available, based on assessments by the intelligence community — not opinions — assessments by the IC, by the intelligence community. And we have been clear all along that this was an ongoing investigation, that as more facts became available we would make you aware of them as appropriate, and we’ve done that.”

Oct. 10: After testifying before a House committee, Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy is asked at a press briefing what the State Department should have done differently in releasing information about the Benghazi attack. He said, “We are giving out the best information we have at the time.”

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full transcript ⬏








Oct. 10: The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform releases State Department memos requesting additional security in Libya. Charlene Lamb, a State Department official who denied those requests, tells the committee that the State Department had been training local Libyans for nearly a year and additional U.S. security personnel were not needed. As reported by Foreign Policy: “We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi on the night of 9/11,” Lamb testified. Others testified differently. “All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources,” testified Eric Nordstrom, the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Foreign Policy reported.

Oct. 15: Clinton Blames ‘Fog of War’

Oct. 15: Clinton, in an interview on CNN, blamed the “fog of war” when asked why the administration initially claimed the attack began with the anti-Muslim video, even though the State Department never reached that conclusion. “In the wake of an attack like this in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion, and I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence,” Clinton said. “Everyone who spoke tried to give the information they had. As time has gone on, the information has changed, we’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising. That always happens.”

Oct. 15: The New York Times reports that the Benghazi attack came “without any warning or protest,” but “Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers” say it was “in retaliation for the video.”

Oct. 24: White House, State Department Emails on Ansar al-Sharia

Oct. 24: Reuters reports the White House, Pentagon and other government agencies learned just two hours into the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic militant group, had “claimed credit” for it. The wire service report was based on three emails from the State Department’s Operations Center. One of the emails said, “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripol.” The article also noted, “Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.” (It should be noted that Reuters first reported on Sept. 12 that unnamed U.S. officials believed that Ansar al-Sharia may have been involved.)

Oct. 24: Clinton warns at a press conference that you cannot draw conclusions from the leaked emails because “cherry-picking one story here or one document there” can be misleading. She said, “The independent Accountability Review Board is already hard at work looking at everything — not cherry-picking one story here or one document there — but looking at everything, which I highly recommend as the appropriate approach to something as complex as an attack like this. Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence, and I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be.”

Oct. 24: Carney, the White House spokesman, says that “within a few hours” of the attack Ansar al-Sharia “claimed that it had not been responsible.” He added, “Neither should be taken as fact — that’s why there’s an investigation underway.”

May 8, 2013: At a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, Rep. Trey Gowdy reads excerpts of a Sept. 12, 2011, email written by Acting Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East Beth Jones. According to Gowdy, Jones wrote, “I spoke to the Libyan ambassador and emphasized the importance of Libyan leaders to continue to make strong statements,” and “When he said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attack, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.” Gowdy said the email was sent to several top State Department officials, including Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy. The committee did not release the full contents of the email. House Speaker John Boehner said the State Department did not allow the House to keep a copy of it.)

May 15, 2013: The White House releases 100 pages of emails regarding the CIA’s original talking points that were developed for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and used by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice during her Sept. 16 Sunday talk show appearances. The emails show there were extensive changes made at the request of the State Department. (See “Sept. 16″ in our timeline for more information.)

Update, Nov. 6, 2012: This article was updated to add the president’s Sept. 12 interview with “60 Minutes,” which did not release the video and transcript until Nov. 4.

Update, May 9, 2013: This article was updated to include testimony from the May 8, 2013, hearing of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform.

 

[Listening]

Kristen Powers is like Mark Levin. You kind of see their names on message boards such as this one but nobody else knows who the hell you're talking about. They're nobody.

Actually, you are the nobody.

Kristen is seen by millions. Mark has a follow of some kind.

You...?

 

[Sarah G]

Kristen Powers is like Mark Levin. You kind of see their names on message boards such as this one but nobody else knows who the hell you're talking about. They're nobody.

Actually, you are the nobody.

Kristen is seen by millions. Mark has a follow of some kind.

You...?

You? Pfffftt. Zero.

 

[Sarah G]

Kristen Powers is like Mark Levin. You kind of see their names on message boards such as this one but nobody else knows who the hell you're talking about. They're nobody.

And yet you know Mark Levin's name, go figure.

Does being well known make their opinion more valuable?

As I said, if you could read for comprehension, only from places like this. Nobody else has heard of them.

 

[Listening]

Mincing words.

Total bullcrap.

Four people died.

And an administration that was more worried about PR than being responsible.

Sorry some people fought back against a tidal wave of unpatriotic BULLSHYTTE, HATER DUPE. Everything you ''know'' about Bengazi is pure propaganda and lies. There were 20 protests/attacks earlier that day in reaction to that RW video, and no body knows the Bengazi motive, SO WHAT DOES BS ABOUT the motives MATTER...

Do you ever think before you type ?

Motive ?

Either way they were unprepared and unresponsive.

4 people died.

 

[Oldstyle]

Mincing words.

Total bullcrap.

Four people died.

And an administration that was more worried about PR than being responsible.

Sorry some people fought back against a tidal wave of unpatriotic BULLSHYTTE, HATER DUPE. Everything you ''know'' about Bengazi is pure propaganda and lies. There were 20 protests/attacks earlier that day in reaction to that RW video, and no body knows the Bengazi motive, SO WHAT DOES BS ABOUT the motives MATTER...

What's amusing about idiots like Franco is that in fact we know EXACTLY what was happening that day and night at Benghazi because we were receiving streaming video from cameras at the Consulate and then from a drone overhead. The Obama Administration knew right from the start of this fiasco that there was no street protest that turned into an attack because they had video that showed empty streets around the Consulate before the attack began. They knew it but they decided to use the protests in OTHER places in the Middle East to obscure the fact that a planned terrorist attack carried out by a group affiliated with Al Queda had just killed a US Ambassador. They deliberately lied to the American people because what happened in Benghazi didn't fit their reelection narrative that Barack Obama had Al Queda on the run. This Administration was more concerned with coming up with a believable story to cover their asses than they ever were about the safety of our political operatives or in bringing those responsible to justice.

 

[Oldstyle]

And if Barack Obama WASN'T aware of the attack on our Consulate? I'd like to know why not. Were they afraid to wake him up before he jetted out of town on his fund raising trip to Las Vegas the next day? Didn't want to bother him over something as "trivial" as American diplomats under attack?