Timeline: The Benghazi E-Mails

How the Obama Administration created the Benghazi talking points

  • Share
  • Read Later
Getty Images

White House press secretary Jay Carney answers questions during a press briefing at the White House on May 10, 2013

Eight months after the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi was attacked, leaving four Americans dead including Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, new internal documents have provided a fuller sense of how the Obama Administration approached the aftermath.

The e-mails confirm White House statements that they did not substantively edit the talking points over the description of the attack in Benghazi or potential perpetrators. However, press secretary Jay Carney’s assertion that the Administration made just a single semantic edit to the talking points appears to have been false. According to senior Administration officials, Carney had not reviewed the full e-mail chain when he said in November that “the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word consulate to diplomatic facility because consulate was inaccurate.” In fact, White House officials had a longer back-and-forth with the intelligence community, and the State Department objected to a substantial portion of the talking points that CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell ultimately cut.

The following timeline has been compiled from the 100 pages of e-mails released to the press by the White House on Wednesday.

Friday, Sept. 14, 2012, 11:15 a.m.

After members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) ask for unclassified talking points on what happened in the Benghazi attack, the director of the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis writes an initial draft for the CIA. The White House is first notified at 11:17 a.m., but is not yet presented with the draft.

Benghazi TP 1

Sept. 14, 12:23 p.m.

The CIA’s Office of General Counsel recommends an edit to the first bullet point, so as not to impede any future criminal prosecution.

Benghazi TP 2

Sept. 14, 3:04 p.m.

These talking points are sent to then White House national-security spokesman Tommy Vietor, deputy national-security adviser for strategic communication Ben Rhodes, and other Administration officials.

Sept. 14, 3:27 p.m. 

A CIA official e-mails, “We still have a number of components coordinating here on these points and we will have further edits. We are multi-tasking due to the time constraints.” The official promises another version of the talking points around 4 p.m.

Sept. 14, 4:42 p.m.

CIA officials circulate a revised copy of the talking points for review before sending to the White House. This draft cuts an explicit mention of “ties to al Qa’ida” in the second bullet point due to concerns from the general counsel about potential criminal prosecution. The draft also adds language about CIA warnings to the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the State Department about threats to diplomatic facilities, including from extremist groups tied to al-Qaeda.

Benghazi TP 3

Sept. 14, 5:09 p.m.

A slight change is made to the CIA internal draft before being sent to the White House at 5:09 p.m. and to the FBI at 5:20 p.m.

Benghazi TP 4

Sept. 14, 6:21 p.m.
Vietor e-mails the CIA with the White House’s first edit — adding Cairo to the first bullet point for clarity. He adds, “[Deputy National Security Adviser] Denis [McDonough] would also like to make sure the highlighted portions are fully coordinated with the State Department in the event that they get inquiries.”

Screen Shot 2013-05-16 at 12.46.21 PM
Benghazi TP Denis

Sept. 14, 6:41 p.m.

Shawn Turner, director of public affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, e-mails the CIA and the White House to swap the word warned with notified in the first bullet point and rewrites it.

Benghazi TP 5

“I’ve been very careful not to say we issued a warning,” he writes.

Screen Shot 2013-05-16 at 1.10.42 PM

At 6:43 p.m. a CIA official writes, “I think that’s a good adjustment” and loops in the State Department for the first time.

Screen Shot 2013-05-16 at 1.00.00 PM

Sept. 14, 6:52 p.m.

Vietor e-mails edits from John Brennan, then assistant to the President for homeland security and counterterrorism, to the CIA. The edits deal with the language used in the second bullet point.

Screen Shot 2013-05-16 at 1.12.37 PM
The updated talking points:
Benghazi TP 7

Sept. 14, 7:16 p.m.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland e-mails for the first time to ask for information about “knowing” that the perpetrators were extremists. She asks for answers to the expected follow-up questions of “how do we know, who were they, etc.,” so as to be prepared when asked by the media.

Screen Shot 2013-05-16 at 11.52.44 AM

At 7:29 p.m. a CIA official e-mails Nuland’s question around internally, asking “Can we soften this a bit?”

Screen Shot 2013-05-16 at 11.54.21 AM

Sept. 14, 7:39 p.m.

Nuland e-mails again, this time raising concerns about giving the media and Congress information that the State Department isn’t making public because they don’t want to prejudice the investigation, including a reference to the extremist group Ansar al-Sharia.

Additionally, Nuland objects to the second-to-last bullet point because it would “feed” congressional criticism of the department by potentially creating the impression that it did not heed CIA warnings.

Screen Shot 2013-05-16 at 11.56.00 AM

Sept. 14, 8:58 p.m.

The CIA circulates a revised draft of the talking points that addresses FBI and State Department concerns. The major change is a removal of references to Ansar al-Sharia so as not to prejudice the investigation. It also softens language about the involvement of Islamic extremists in the demonstrations.

Benghazi TP 7

These are circulated at the CIA at 9:15 p.m., with one official writing: “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind.”

Screen Shot 2013-05-16 at 1.16.33 PM

Sept. 14, 9:24 p.m.

Nuland e-mails in response to the latest draft of CIA talking points, saying they are still unacceptable to State Department leadership, and notes that the department is consulting with White House national-security staff.

Screen Shot 2013-05-16 at 11.58.48 AM

At 9:34, Rhodes e-mails all parties and says: “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.” The matter, he adds, will be discussed the next morning at a deputies meeting.

Screen Shot 2013-05-16 at 11.59.54 AM

Saturday, Sept. 15

On Saturday morning, White House officials convene the “deputies meeting.” Officials discuss the talking points, according to an e-mail sent by a staffer working for the U.S. Mission to the U.N. at 1:23 p.m.

The author of the e-mail, whose name has been redacted, writes that the initial draft of the talking points was unsuitable “because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack on our embassy.” The author writes that Morell, deputy director of the CIA, “noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy editing hand to them.” The e-mail continues: “[Morell] noted that he would be happy to work with [State Department Deputy Chief of Staff] Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points.”

Benghazi USUN

According to senior Administration officials, the unnamed U.S. Mission to the U.N. staffer is incorrect. According to these officials, there was only a short discussion of the talking points at the end of the meeting and that Morell made the changes unilaterally and in his own hand. The officials say Morell did not act at the behest of the State Department; rather, he believed all along that information about the warnings should not have been included in the talking points because it made the department look bad and did not explain their response.

Sept. 15, 9:45 a.m.

Morell’s changes are e-mailed internally at CIA for sign-off. Morell crosses out the line, “There are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations,” but according to senior administration officials that was inadvertent.

Screen Shot 2013-05-16 at 12.02.49 PM

The latest version of the talking points:

Benghazi TP 8

Sept. 15, 9:49 a.m.

The author of the first draft of the talking points e-mailed CIA officials saying, “They are fine with me but pretty sure HPSCI won’t like them :-)”

Screen Shot 2013-05-16 at 12.05.51 PM

Sept. 15, 11:08 a.m.

Morell e-mails his edited talking points to all the stakeholders, adding in the line about “Islamic extremists.”

Benghazi TP 9

Sept. 15, 11:25 a.m.

Rhodes e-mails a single edit for accuracy, to cut the term consulate and replace it with diplomatic post. Moments later the State Department makes the same suggestion and fixes a typo. These become the final talking points, which are distributed to lawmakers and used by Susan Rice on the Sunday shows the following morning.

Benghazi TP 10

Sept. 15, 12:21 p.m. 

The final talking points are sent to David Petraeus for review.

Sept. 15, 2:27 p.m.
Petraeus replies to CIA officials, complaining that references to the cable to the Cairo embassy were cut. “I’d just as soon not use this, then,” he wrote. “NSS’s call, to be sure; however this is certainly not what Vice Chairman Ruppersberger was hoping to get for unclas use.” Senior Administration officials say Petraeus, unlike Morell, wanted the warnings to be included in the talking points.

Screen Shot 2013-05-16 at 12.14.04 PM

Sept. 15, 2:44 p.m.

The talking points are sent to Rice’s office. Twenty-five minutes later, they are sent to lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

104 comments
manlyman
manlyman

Hmm. Not seeing any emails pror to 9/14. Transparency?

shepherdwong
shepherdwong

I know that Swampland "journalists" are off for the weekends - because all news stops on the weekends - but I look forward to the update/correction first thing Monday exposing this fraud.

drudown
drudown

Conspicuously, there is absolutely ZERO benefit to the People that arises out these Benghazi hearings.

It is just Pat Tillman-esque exploitation of the dead Americans for mere partisan advantage. 

Nor can anyone cite to a single prejudice to the People that results from the purported Benghazi "scandal". 

If anything, it simply underscores how the GOP wants to "talk about" how to discredit our own government, not unlike your own barber suggesting "we cut off the left ear."

Ah, me.

The same corrupted agenda infects the GOP "messaging", year after year.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

Ok, yes, I'll admit it. I'm enjoying the Republicans being exposed as liars. Again. Even better, I'm hoping the media is on to them, too.

Earlier today, CBS News reported that at least two of the Benghazi e-mails that were leaked by Republicans last Friday were altered. The GOP leak of the altered Benghazi e-mails came five days before the White House released 100 pages of e-mail correspondence regarding the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

One of the altered e-mails was from Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes. The other altered e-mail was from U.S. State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

http://recall-all-republicans.tumblr.com/post/50632445384/odinsblog-earlier-today-cbs-news-reported



mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

Since GOP lemmings are weaving conspiracy theories I have one for you:


1) Find a gullible patsy to make a truly stupid movie mocking Allah. 

2) Release that movie on the anniversary of 9/11

3) Sit back and watch as the Muslim world erupts

4) Hope that Americans die as a result of it

5) Stand by with prepared statements of indignation as you score political points

Sure seems like an "October Surprise" worthy of Karl Rove

The disturbing part is that given the resources and motivations of the people with the most to gain from theseevents it starts to sound much more plausible than most of what we hear bandied about from the Right.

Here are three questions that I would like to see answers to that would help me sleep better at night.

1.What was the filmmakers motivations for making this movie

2.Who provided his financing

3.Why was it linked to major Muslim sites and chat rooms in the day leading up to 9/11

 

terryclifton1
terryclifton1

Why is so flipping hard for you "objective" journalist to admit that the Administration lied to the American people?  

manlyman
manlyman

Cling to that with all you have manindrag!

But don't lie and say you're enjoying any of this, when in reality all you really want in the whole world is for this to go away.

I think it's ironically funny that Benghazi is being used as the shiny object to divert attention from yet other scandals. Tells me that things are getting a mite bumpy for this current crop of "leaders".

curt3rd
curt3rd

One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.

Key word being alleged.  The media has a way of taking allegations and runnig with it and never redacting the story once it is proven wrong. 

curt3rd
curt3rd

Are you kidding me?  Are you seriously trying to blame this on Bush? I never took you for a conspiracy nut. Tell me you are joking.

curt3rd
curt3rd

Yeah someone altered the talking points.....the Obama administration.  Your president lied to you about Americans being murdered and you refuse to believe it.

Ohiolib
Ohiolib

@terryclifton1 Why is it so hard for you to realize that no body lied? Because, unless you think taking the CIAs best information and presenting it is lying, nobody lied. 

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@terryclifton1 More importantly why did GOP political operatives create and release a video that angered Muslims and got Americans killed?

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@manlyman You mean as compared to what happened during the last administration's second term_ Abu Grhaib, No WMDs, 9/11 Commission report, CIA memos showing pre 9/11 warnings, Politicization of the Justice department, revelations of years of Wireless wiretapping, Haliburton/Blackwater scandal, and I can go on and on. So what were you clinging to then GirlyGirl?

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rdThis has nothing to do with Bush. Bush couldn't have been elected again.  But perhaps you can answer some easy questions for me so that we can determine who would have something to gain?

Who gave a small time felon out on parole the idea and money to create a film designed to offend and enrage Muslims?

Who made sure that the film was linked to major Muslim chat rooms and sites on 9/11?

Who stood the most to gain if these Muslims staged violent protests and possibly attacks against US facilities weeks before the election?


mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd Not even close Curt. They compared the original e-mails to the GOP claims. It would seem your boys tried to get cute with the cut and paste.

terryclifton1
terryclifton1

@Ohiolib @terryclifton1  

Did you even read the article above before spouting off and trying sadly to cover for Clinton & Company? They changed the talking points 14 times, hello!!!! Stop choking on the koolaid!! 

jmac
jmac

@Ohiolib @terryclifton1 Somebody did lie.   The GOP altered the emails.    It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.  

manlyman
manlyman

Riots from Morocco to Pakistan? Come on man...

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd I'm no longer talking about strictly Benghazi. Even I don't think the people behind the video were sick enough to actually want to see an Ambassador killed. I'm talking about creating and releasing a video that you know would cause a violent reaction, in the hopes that it would create bad press and weaken the public's perception of Obama's foreign policy.

curt3rd
curt3rd

Once again the attack had nothing to do with a YouTube video.  Go and look up Gregory Hicks testimony on Benghazi. Obama lied to you and this is a lame attempt to protect him

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd But the attack on our Embassy in Cairo did. You know the attack that Romney rushed to complain about with prepared talking points. So I ask again who would have the most to gain by producing and distributing this type of incendiary filth weeks before our election?

curt3rd
curt3rd

But the attack had nothing to do with the video. Even if the Republicans made the video which is retarded,  they never could have pedicted Obama lying about Benghazi being the result of the video.  Not even Karl Rove is that good

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd But who had the most to gain by uploading the video unto Muslim websites weeks before the election to coincide with 9/11? Who would have loved to see riots in the Muslim world that they could point to and complain about Obama's failed foreign policies?

curt3rd
curt3rd

Just face the facts. Obama lied to you and you refuse to believe it

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd How was it a lie there were riots because of the video from Morocco to Pakistan. So who produced the video and why?

curt3rd
curt3rd

It was a cordinated attack by terrorist not spontanious attack by demostrators.  This has been proven

curt3rd
curt3rd

The YouTube video was a lie so your conspiracy theory is debunked.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd Simple logical questions. Why not answer them?

Who gave a small time felon out on parole the idea and money to create a film designed to offend and enrage Muslims?

Who made sure that the film was linked to major Muslim chat rooms and sites on 9/11?

Who stood the most to gain if these Muslims staged violent protests and possibly attacks against US facilities weeks before the election?



curt3rd
curt3rd

My conclusion is you will go to any length to protect your precious Obama.  

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd What's crazy Curt. I've heard you spout thing on here that had much less substance, logic and fact behind them. But by all means answer the questions I asked and see what conclusion you come up with.

curt3rd
curt3rd

Wow, not even having this nut job discussion with you.  You would rather believe this crazy cospiracy theory than the obviouse which is Obama lied.

jmac
jmac

@mantisdragon91 @curt3rd  Talk about living under a rock.  curt3rd is exactly what the GOP and Fox count on.   Too bad he hasn't gotten the memo that it's on to the IRS and impeachment.  It's about the drum beat, Curt!   It's never about the facts for the GOP.  

In the meantime, call your conservative Congressman and tell him to vote for the Federal Shield Law and watch him squirm.  

curt3rd
curt3rd

No it didnt. Stop lying.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd And the ones they did release clearly show that the GOP lied. So what else do we need to see.

curt3rd
curt3rd

25,000 emails they refuse to release.  Not a typo, twenty thousand emails.  Just like Fast and Furious where Obama used executive order to bury files.

terryclifton1
terryclifton1

@jmac @Ohiolib @terryclifton1  

I expect nothing less than you to blame Republicans for Benghazi..It's worked so many times blaming Bush, you just can't help yourself anymore..

manlyman
manlyman

Just a lame-assed conspiracy theory dreamed up by ...you I suppose, manindrag. Keep digging, ya never know...

curt3rd
curt3rd

Whatever, still doesnt prove anything.  Maybe enough here to be called conjecture at best.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd There were protests and riots that night. If I count the protests the number would be much higher than the 20 I stated.

curt3rd
curt3rd

Not sure where the pic came from.  I guess I put that up on accident.

curt3rd
curt3rd

In addition to the attacks on diplomatic missions, there were protests in many nations, through Islamic countries in the Middle East,[84][85] Asia,[86][87] and Africa[86] as well as the United Kingdom,[86][88] France,[89] Netherlands[90] and Australia

This came off wiki also.  Protest are not exactly riots. 

curt3rd
curt3rd

What 20 countries? I remember reading only 3.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd The video caused riots in 20 countries that night, so yes its fair to say he achieved maximum impact.

curt3rd
curt3rd

Its your conspiracy theory, why do I have to show you proof?  Also I could probably find that site with google. Its not like they are hidden, they put them on the internet for a reason, to reach out to more people.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd Show me proof that he didn't. More importantly how did he know which sites to link  his video to create a Maximum reaction.

curt3rd
curt3rd

Show me proof he covered his tracka plus it was on youtube, anyone could post it anywhere

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd Sure Curt. Whatever you believe. A minor ex felon knew exactly what sites are used by Jihadists and how to cover his tracks afterwards

curt3rd
curt3rd

You have to have logic if Im expected to poke holes in it.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd Believe what you want I laid out my case, I have yet to see you poke holes in my logic.

curt3rd
curt3rd

Sure, your Israeli secret spy buddy told you that the Republicans were behing the whole thing. Tell him to give me a call, I would love to hear his thoughts on this.  Im sure he can find my phone number. If not tell him to call the Eric Holder for it, I hear he is good with phone numbers

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd Obama had nothing to do with it. A buddy of mine who works for Mossad had some time on his hand and did some digging and he was shocked by the sophistication level involved in selecting what sites to link to and the way the back track was covered to make it almost impossible to see where the link originated from.

curt3rd
curt3rd

The logical conclusion based on available evidence is Obama lied to you

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd The difference is that I'm not making stuff up merely drawing logical conclusions based on available evidence. This whole video and its distribution has a right wing stench all over it.

curt3rd
curt3rd

I thought we were in La La Land making stuff up.  Was it not my turn to play?

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd You really aren't stupid enough to claim that Radical Islamists would create and distribute a video mocking Allah?

curt3rd
curt3rd

Duh, good way to rally the troops against the infidels.  Since we are just makings stuff up now, how about blaming this on Bush or the Dalai Lama or maybe Elvis oh oh I know Tupac did it.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd Radical Islamists would produce and distribute a movie slandering Allah? Sure that makes sense.

curt3rd
curt3rd

I dont know, do you?   My most likely guess would be radical islamist.  They would benefit from a video designed to piss off muslims.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd You can say whatever word you want, so the questions bears asking again. Who specifically linked this video to sites frequented by Radical Islamists on the anniversary of 9/11 and weeks before the election? What do you think there motivation might have been?

curt3rd
curt3rd

Radical islamist.  Wait am I allowed to say that word.  We all know Obama wont.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd The video was produced in July. It was only linked to the websites frequented by Jihadists that day. So I ask again who would be interested in doing something like that week before the election on the anniversary of 9/11?

curt3rd
curt3rd

The video had been online for about 5 months before the attack.  Also, I could make a video better than that with my cellphone and get it done before 6:00 tonight.   Grasping at straws

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@curt3rd Really its not suspicious that a guy with no money who we never heard of before and who seems as dumb as a rock, makes a video designed to anger Muslism and just happens to know the exact websites to link it to for maximum reaction in the Muslim world? Oh and this all happens on 9/11 weeks before an election?

terryclifton1
terryclifton1

@mantisdragon91 @terryclifton1  

Have you ever spent much time on YouTube? There are millions of stupid videos on that site. If I'm guessing, I'm sure he put it out there on those sites. Where else could he or his group make such a spectacle? Besides, the video had absolutely nothing to do with the attack. There had been other attacks prior to the one on September 11th. Let's get that straight..The video was the patsy in all of this. Obama was pointing to the video 2 weeks after the attack, and would not call it a "terrorist" attack. He was very deliberate and vague on calling Benghazi a terrorist attack on 60 Minutes, and in briefings. They did not want us to know the truth, and that's the bottom line..

Arguing over the impact of a stupid video that had nothing to do with the attack is like arguing about the weather in Benghazi on the night of the attack.

curt3rd
curt3rd

You are screaming cospiracy and the video is not supicous.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@terryclifton1 Agree again. My point Terry is not to scream conspiracy, but you have to admit there are things about this video that raise eye brows, and I for one would love to know more about how and why it was produced, and who actually took the effort to link it to very specific sites and chat rooms frequented by extreme Muslim elements on 9/11 right before our election. If you Google the guy who supposedly made and distributed the video, he simply does not seem smart enough to be able to do all that.

terryclifton1
terryclifton1

I would add one thing..

The Sinola and Zeta Cartels are much more proficient and even more sadistic in their taking of human lives. They are responsible for 10 times the murders of people than Al Qaeda and every other terrorist group combined. Not that I'm ever planning to return to Mexico any time soon, but they are much more of a threat to America going forward..Just my humble opinion.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@terryclifton1 @mantisdragon91 

1) The guy had no money and never made a film in his life. So I ask again where did the sudden inspiration and financing come from?

2) Exactly. No one knows who linked these videos and the trails have been covered up with a surprising amount of cyber expertise. 

3) Agreed. Which is exactly the mentally the makers wanted to exploit. My point is that when our Embassy in Cairo was attacked because of this video, Romney reacted very quickly to take advantage of it and with seemingly prepared talking points.

 The witch hunt that GOP is holding over Benghazi has far less evidence than my conclusions about the real source of this video. And yet here you are supporting the Witch hunt.

terryclifton1
terryclifton1

@mantisdragon91 @terryclifton1  

1. His state of mind or level of intelligence doesn't matter to me. I haven't watch the film, and could care less about his motives. I'm sure there is plenty of better things I could do with my time other than to watch his movie or any movie on religion. However, I would highly recommend Silver Linings Playbook..Best film I have watched in years..

2. How in the world do I know? I'm not going to speculate just so to make some "black helicopter" leap, and neither should you. 

3. It's called Jihad..It's an awful thing, and it calls for the killing of anyone who isn't Muslim, and they really love killing Americans. They don't care who's elected in this country. All they want is blood to flow from coast to coast. They use any and all means to get their message out, and they love to use anything that defames Islam to justify their sadistic killing of human beings.  

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@terryclifton1 @mantisdragon91  

1) The  film maker is dumb as a rock and has never done anything like this before. Why now?

2) Nope the film maker released the film months prior. Who linked them to those sites specifily on 9/11?

3) Why would All Qaeda want to help Romney get elected?

terryclifton1
terryclifton1

@mantisdragon91 @terryclifton1  

1. He was a convert, and he's not the first person to speak out against Islam. I guess the cartoonist in Europe was on the Republican's dole.

2. The filmmaker put them on there, and he's still in jail. Funny, you can rob a bank, murder someone, commit about a 1,000 other crimes and still be able to be released on bail. People all around this country who are on probation, break said probation and get released..Lindsey Lohan did it on the regular..

3. Al Qaeda, they are always the benefactors of anything put out to defame Islam.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@terryclifton1@mantisdragon91I am honest. See if you can honestly answer these three questions and come up with a diffrent conclusion?

Who gave a small time felon out on parole the idea and money to create a film designed to offend and enrage Muslims?

Who made sure that the film was linked to major Muslim chat rooms and sites on 9/11?

Who stood the most to gain if these Muslims staged violent protests and possibly attacks against US facilities weeks before the election?