Susan Rice Has No Regrets On Benghazi Remarks

The National Security Adviser defends her controversial remarks after 2012 attacks

  • Share
  • Read Later
NICHOLAS KAMM / AFP/Getty Images

Susan Rice in 2013.

National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Sunday she had no regrets about statements she made in 2012 on the attacks at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, saying her talking points were reflective of what she knew at the time and were not intended to mislead the American public.

Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, the former ambassador to the United Nations defended her remarks on ABC, Fox, CNN, NBC and CBS in 2012 shortly after the attacks, when she called the Benghazi attacks “spontaneous” and not pre-planned. The interviews set off a firestorm, with Republican lawmakers accusing Rice and the White House of deliberately downplaying the attacks ahead of the presidential election that year.

“[W]hat I said to you that morning, and what I did every day since, was to share the best information that we had at the time,” Rice told host David Gregory. “The information I provided, which I explained to you, was what we had at the moment. It could change. I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning, was provided to me and my colleagues and, indeed, to Congress, by the intelligence community.  And that’s been well validated in many different ways since.”

In 2012, Rice—then ambassador to the U.N.—called the Benghazi attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans a spontaneous reaction by a crowd of Libyan protestors to an offensive video denigrating Islam. The administration later acknowledged the attack was likely pre-planned, and a separate Senate investigation found the attacks in Benghazi were likely preventable.

Rice conceded some of her statements may not have been correct, but insisted she did not mislead the public and was speaking based on information she had at the time. A recent New York Times investigation has supported the view that widespread fury in Libya over the video was a partial cause for the attacks.

“That information turned out, in some respects, not to be 100 percent correct,” she acknowledged. “But the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false.  And I think that that’s been amply demonstrated.”

90 comments
firesidechet
firesidechet

Of course she has no regrets, the plan is working perfectly. The plan of course was to obfuscate the truth right from the beginning.

Hollywooddeed
Hollywooddeed

Somebody get Grand Theft Issa on the phone. This thing needs to be investigated,

reallife
reallife

You need to have a conscience to have regrets.





quillerm
quillerm

This is insane, does Rice think we are a Nation of idiots?  We now know that Obama was briefed by the Secretary if Defense that the mythical spontaneous mon was really a terrorist group affiliated with Al Qaeda.  He knew that the day after the attack.  Why is Rice still misleading the Nation about Benghazi?  Is this some way of confusing low information Americans before the 2016 elections?  This Administration just can't tell the truth.


Obama purposely mislead Americans about Obamacare for three long years so the Legislation would pass.  He also has no regrets for not telling the truth.  

KevinACarterB
KevinACarterB

Bengazzi? The whole war is lame! Warmongers can have more war in a country that can't see 911.


Doublethink it and watch This Is An Orange on y ou t ube.


when you understand, know you aren't alone.

jmac
jmac

". . . defends her controversial remarks. .. ."


There was absolutely nothing controversial about her remarks except form the point of view of the Main Stream Media repeating Fox News.    The hullabaloo that was made over this  (after we went through the invasion of Iraq) shows how distorted our country has become because a band of right-wingers and their propaganda channel controls not only Republicans, but the media.   


AmitAtlantaUSA
AmitAtlantaUSA

What if this woman Susan Rice had been the US Sec. of State? Incidentally, Kerry was Obama's a distant second choice!

ahandout
ahandout

Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified Friday that the CIA believes the Benghazi attacks were conducted by terrorists, not a spontaneous demonstration, according to lawmakers who provided accounts of the closed hearing before Congress...

“The original talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement,” King said, later adding that Petraeus didn’t know why the references to Al Qaeda were removed from the final version.


Petraeus told lawmakers the CIA believed it to be a terrorist attack from the beginning, King said.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83966.html#ixzz2uClWxFOs

firesidechet
firesidechet

The bigger the lie, the more the people will believe it.

JimWard
JimWard

While the Obama Administration never blamed the Benghazi attacks on the video, there is no doubt that the armed militants, unarmed protesters and looters descended on the compound as part of the regional unrest over the video. The early news reports, including interviews with protesters and militants at the scene, clearly described how the already well-armed members of the attacking militia were prompted to act after viewing on TV the protests in Cairo over the anti-Islam propaganda video. We also know that the video impacted the local security that were there to reinforce U.S. security:

— Independent (UK): Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the Tripoli government-sanctioned Libya's Shield Brigade, effectively a police force for Benghazi, maintained that it was anger over the Mohamed video which made the guards abandon their post. "There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate. The deaths are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet." (September 14, 2012)

— Washington Post: Stevens arrived Monday from the embassy in Tripoli. “A friend who spent Monday and Tuesday with him said Stevens held meetings with nongovernmental organizations and militia leaders on both days. When the friend dropped Stevens off at the consulate Tuesday afternoon, he said, nothing appeared to be amiss – beyond the protesters.”

“The first protesters had showed up around noon. Wanis al-Sharif, the deputy Libyan interior minister, said in an interview that the demonstrators were angered by a low-budget American film that portrayed the prophet Muhammad in a blasphemous manner. As the day wore on, Sharif said, the anger escalated and people with weapons infiltrated the crowd.”

“By late Tuesday evening,” heavily armed militants “joined protesters outside the consulate who were demonstrating against an American movie that they believed denigrated the prophet Muhammad. They said, `We are Muslims defending the prophet. We are defending Islam,’ ” Libyan television journalist Firas Abdelhakim said in an interview." (September 12, 2012)

— Associated Press: Al-Sharef said "the militants used civilians protesting an anti-Islam film as cover for their action." He stated that, "First, a small group of gunmen arrived, then a crowd of civilians angry over the film. Later, heavily armed men with armoured vehicles, some with rocket-propelled grenades, joined, swelling the numbers to more than 200."

— CNN quoted Libyan officials describing that "an “angry crowd” marched on the U.S. compound Tuesday, furious about an American-produced online film considered offensive to Muslims." (September 12, 2012)

— The Daily Telegraph: One eyewitness told “how an armed group infiltrated the ordinary protesters and sounded a warning. They told those nearby to stay back, that they had guns.” (September 12, 2012)

— The New York Times: The Times, which had two journalists on the ground the night of the attack, also reported on demonstrators on the scene who were motivated by the anti-Islam film. “A group of armed assailants mixed with unarmed demonstrators gathered at the small compound that housed a temporary American diplomatic mission” in Benghazi. “Interviewed at the scene on Tuesday night, many attackers and those who backed them said they were determined to defend their faith from the video’s insults,” the Times reported. (September 12, 2012)

— AP reported that, “A lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.” "One of the Benghazi outpost’s private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him “an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet.” (October 27, 2012)

— CBS/AP reported that “Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.” (September 12, 2012)

— Reuters, which also had reporters in Benghazi, reported that “the attackers were part of a mob blaming America for a film they said insulted the Prophet Mohammad.” The article quoted 17-year-old Haman, who took part in the attack, as saying: “The protesters were running around the compound just looking for Americans, [and] they just wanted to find an American so they could catch one.” “Hamam said Ansar al-Sharia cars arrived at the start of the protest but left once fighting started.” (September 12, 2012)

— Reuters reporter on NPR: “Almost Everybody Here Believes That It Was A Reaction To The Movie.” NPR’s Morning Edition, the network interviewed Hadeel Al-Shalchi of Reuters, who “had been talking with authorities and protestors.” (September 13, 2012)

— The Wall Street Journal quoted Mohammed Farraj, a soldier who was part of a four-member Libyan military unit permanently stationed at the facility. "He said he heard commotion on the dirt road outside the compound about 8:30 p.m. and was told by walkie-talkie of a group of armed, bearded protesters gathering." (September 14, 2012)

— Al Jazeera: Attackers Were Responding To News Of “American Movie Insulting The Prophet Mohammed.” Al Jazeera producer Suleiman El Dressi reported from Benghazi that "a group of people calling themselves as “Islamic law supporters” heard the news that there will be an American movie insulting the Prophet Mohammed. Once they heard this news they came out of their military garrison and they went into the street calling [unintelligible] to gather and go ahead and attack the American consulate in Benghazi." (September 12, 2012)

— New York Times: “Libyans Who Witnessed the Assault And Know The Attackers Say They Cited The Video.” The New York Times reported having spoken with “fighters involved in the assault,” who told the paper “in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon.”

“Interviewed at the scene on Tuesday night, many attackers and those who backed them said they were determined to defend their faith from the video’s insults,” the Times reported. “Their attack followed by just a few hours the storming of the compound surrounding the United States Embassy in Cairo by an unarmed mob protesting the same video.” (September 12, 2012 and October 16, 2012)

JimWard
JimWard

From the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Benghazi report, pages 40 and 41:

"Intelligence suggests the attack was not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic."

"Intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video."

From multiple public sources:

Date: September 12th, 2012

Location: U.S. State Department Treaty Room

“Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together.” – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Date: September 16, 2012

Location: Face the Nation, CBS Studios

Ambassador Susan Rice told Bob Schieffer that the attackers brought heavy weapons and that some had extremist ties. She clearly stated, “Whether they were al-Qaida affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al-Qaida itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.”

roknsteve
roknsteve

Republicans don't care about all the thousands who died in 9/11 or the millions killed in Bush's 2 wars. All they care about is 4 people who died in Benghazi.  Republicans - The Phony Party.

ahandout
ahandout

Rice is in it up to her neck.  Mantis and aztecian, here is a fellow liberal back in 09.  Guess he was just spreading right wing propaganda against the "blame the video" BS before it even happened.  LOL.


As for the Main Stream media not covering it, be serious.  The MSM have been kissin' on Barry since he first appeared at the DNC.  This is the same administration that wants the FCC to monitor newsrooms.  Do, you see anything about that in TIME?  Time, and the MSM are a joke.  They already have Obama operatives writing for them.

Just Say No To Blasphemy: U.S. Supports Egypt in Limiting Anti-Religious Speech

1, October 19, 2009 by jonathanturley

Here is today’s column in USA Today on the Obama Administration’s decision to join the U.N. Human Rights Council and support Egypt in recognizing limits on free speech for those who insult or denigrate religion. While the exception was included in a resolution heralding free speech, it was viewed as a major victory for Muslim countries seeking to establish an international blasphemy law. 

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/19/just-say-no-to-blasphemy-u-s-supports-eygpt-in-limiting-anti-religious-speech/ 

Susan Rice signed onto another anti-blasphemy UN resolution in Decemeber 2011.  Again, that is why they came up with the blame the video story, and lied about it, and continue to lie about it.


Could You Be A Criminal? US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure

Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the “defamation of religion,” were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval –despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/12/30/could-you-be-a-criminal-us-supports-un-anti-free-speech-measure/

ahandout
ahandout

@quillerm The whole story was a lie, just like all the other lies that come from Obama.  The delusion liberals here would defend him and vote for him no matter what he does. 

JimWard
JimWard

— Independent (UK): Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the Tripoli government-sanctioned Libya's Shield Brigade, effectively a police force for Benghazi, maintained that it was anger over the Mohamed video which made the guards abandon their post. "There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate. The deaths are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet." (September 14, 2012)

— Washington Post: Stevens arrived Monday from the embassy in Tripoli. “A friend who spent Monday and Tuesday with him said Stevens held meetings with nongovernmental organizations and militia leaders on both days. When the friend dropped Stevens off at the consulate Tuesday afternoon, he said, nothing appeared to be amiss – beyond the protesters.”

“The first protesters had showed up around noon. Wanis al-Sharif, the deputy Libyan interior minister, said in an interview that the demonstrators were angered by a low-budget American film that portrayed the prophet Muhammad in a blasphemous manner. As the day wore on, Sharif said, the anger escalated and people with weapons infiltrated the crowd.”

“By late Tuesday evening,” heavily armed militants “joined protesters outside the consulate who were demonstrating against an American movie that they believed denigrated the prophet Muhammad. They said, `We are Muslims defending the prophet. We are defending Islam,’ ” Libyan television journalist Firas Abdelhakim said in an interview." (September 12, 2012)

— Associated Press: Al-Sharef said "the militants used civilians protesting an anti-Islam film as cover for their action." He stated that, "First, a small group of gunmen arrived, then a crowd of civilians angry over the film. Later, heavily armed men with armoured vehicles, some with rocket-propelled grenades, joined, swelling the numbers to more than 200."

— CNN quoted Libyan officials describing that "an “angry crowd” marched on the U.S. compound Tuesday, furious about an American-produced online film considered offensive to Muslims." (September 12, 2012)

— The Daily Telegraph: One eyewitness told “how an armed group infiltrated the ordinary protesters and sounded a warning. They told those nearby to stay back, that they had guns.” (September 12, 2012)

— The New York Times: The Times, which had two journalists on the ground the night of the attack, also reported on demonstrators on the scene who were motivated by the anti-Islam film. “A group of armed assailants mixed with unarmed demonstrators gathered at the small compound that housed a temporary American diplomatic mission” in Benghazi. “Interviewed at the scene on Tuesday night, many attackers and those who backed them said they were determined to defend their faith from the video’s insults,” the Times reported. (September 12, 2012)

— AP reported that, “A lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.” "One of the Benghazi outpost’s private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him “an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet.” (October 27, 2012)

— CBS/AP reported that “Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.” (September 12, 2012)

— Reuters, which also had reporters in Benghazi, reported that “the attackers were part of a mob blaming America for a film they said insulted the Prophet Mohammad.” The article quoted 17-year-old Haman, who took part in the attack, as saying: “The protesters were running around the compound just looking for Americans, [and] they just wanted to find an American so they could catch one.” “Hamam said Ansar al-Sharia cars arrived at the start of the protest but left once fighting started.” (September 12, 2012)

— Reuters reporter on NPR: “Almost Everybody Here Believes That It Was A Reaction To The Movie.” NPR’s Morning Edition, the network interviewed Hadeel Al-Shalchi of Reuters, who “had been talking with authorities and protestors.” (September 13, 2012)

— The Wall Street Journal quoted Mohammed Farraj, a soldier who was part of a four-member Libyan military unit permanently stationed at the facility. "He said he heard commotion on the dirt road outside the compound about 8:30 p.m. and was told by walkie-talkie of a group of armed, bearded protesters gathering." (September 14, 2012)

— Al Jazeera: Attackers Were Responding To News Of “American Movie Insulting The Prophet Mohammed.” Al Jazeera producer Suleiman El Dressi reported from Benghazi that "a group of people calling themselves as “Islamic law supporters” heard the news that there will be an American movie insulting the Prophet Mohammed. Once they heard this news they came out of their military garrison and they went into the street calling [unintelligible] to gather and go ahead and attack the American consulate in Benghazi." (September 12, 2012)

— New York Times: “Libyans Who Witnessed the Assault And Know The Attackers Say They Cited The Video.” The New York Times reported having spoken with “fighters involved in the assault,” who told the paper “in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon.”

“Interviewed at the scene on Tuesday night, many attackers and those who backed them said they were determined to defend their faith from the video’s insults,” the Times reported. “Their attack followed by just a few hours the storming of the compound surrounding the United States Embassy in Cairo by an unarmed mob protesting the same video.” (September 12, 2012 and October 16, 2012)

ahandout
ahandout

@quillerm  Obama voters can't tell the difference between the truth and the BS that hear from Obama.  Obama tells them what they want to hear, and they choose to believe the lie.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@quillerm Idiot. She provided the information as relayed to her at the time. Read the article, that is all it says. So please stop with your conjecture and lies. You want a cover up, find out why to this day information concerning the Saudi involvement in 9/11 is hidden from the American public.

quillerm
quillerm

@jmac  Rice lied about Benghazi for two weeks after the attack.  The Secretary of Defense told Obama the day after the attack that there was NO spontaneous mob, it was a terrorist group affiliated with Al Qaeda.  The Investigations have found the Administration totally Incompetent in the Benghazi massacre.  Thanks to FOX News for getting out the truth as all the Investigations proved they were right.  

JimWard
JimWard

"Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/africa/benghazi-not-petraeus-affair-is-focus-at-hearings.html?_r=0

quillerm
quillerm

@ahandout  Liberals won't listen to the facts, they have to accept the lies Rice tells them.  In spite of ALL the Investigations that have proved the Administration knew a Terrorist Group attacked Benghazi they had to make a Cover Up story to protect Hillary.  Obama and Hillary knew she had denied Ambassador Stevens Security, which resulted in his torture and death.  The only way to deceive the public was to act as if a Spontaneous attack hit the compound  which couldn't be defended against.  But the lie fell apart when investigations uncovered that the FBI interviews with witnesses the day after the attack, killed the spontaneous mob story.  

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ahandoutNow finish the rest of the article



Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said Rice’s initial report was based on the unclassified version of the intelligence community’s understanding of events.

“The confusion arises between the difference between what is classified and unclassified,” Conrad said. “What is classified cannot be discussed publicly because it would reveal, potentially, the sources and methods used to gather intelligence.

“The notes that Ambassador Rice were speaking from were in an unclassified setting,” Conrad continued. “She did entirely the responsible thing by answering questions based on what was unclassified and agreed to by the entire the entire intelligence committee as reflecting their unclassified views at the moment she used those talking points.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83966_Page2.html#ixzz2uCmxpc00

jmac
jmac

@firesidechet  And the lie is that her statement wasn't controversial.  

ARTRaveler
ARTRaveler

@roknsteve  And they still haven'rt investigated the 87 who died in 13 embassy attacks on George W Bush's watch because they weren't important?  Issa can't be bothered as he must find something to justify all the waste of time and valuable air he has wasted in his shameless lying investigations(?) of the Obama administration while the cheating and war-mongering of the REPUBLICAN Bush 2 administration with a cost of trillions and damage to the national debt is just not important..

ahandout
ahandout

@roknsteve Millions stevie?  Did you move to Colorado to legally partake?

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@roknsteve If Benghazi had happened under Bush or Reagan, Fox would have talked about once or twice and never again.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ahandout Guess what that video caused unrest throughout the Muslim world. And we still don;t know who funded the creation of that video, or who made sure it was uploaded to Jihaddi sites on the anniversary of 9/11.

ahandout
ahandout

@JimWard  They had a drone watching the scene, and they had contact with the ambassador and security personal before, during and after the attack.  What you are posting is a bunch of non-sense from mis-information.  Do you think that Rice got her information from the news?  Geez talk about dumb.


The deadly September attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya was not precipitated by an anti-American protest, as had originally been reported, the State Department disclosed Tuesday night. According to reports from ABC and the Associated Press, the State Department now acknowledges that "gunfire and explosions near the front gate" were the first signs of danger precipitating the attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

This revelation stands in contrast to the story originally reported by the Obama administration and others, who claimed that a protest against the anti-Islam film "The Innocence of Muslims" outside the American consulate was co-opted by violent extremists. 

Around 8:30 p.m.:

Stevens finishes his final meeting of the day and escorts a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the consulate. The situation is calm. There are no protests.

Around 9:40 p.m.:

Agents hear loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks at the entrance housing the local militiamen is burnt down. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/libya-consulate-attack-protests_n_1953057.html

ahandout
ahandout

@JimWard  Seems that your sources and quotes are just a bunch of cherry picked BS.  From YOUR article in the Washington Post

Preliminary reports speculated that the violence grew spontaneously out of anger over the film. But U.S. and Libyan officials cast doubt on that theory, with some suggesting that the attackers took advantage of the diversion created by protesters.

Sharif said the Libyan government suspected the gunmen were loyal to former leader Moammar Gaddafi, who was overthrown with American help last year and was later killed.

An attack on Sept. 11

Other fingers pointed to possible al-Qaeda affiliates. The suspicion of al-Qaeda involvement was supported by the Sept. 11 timing as well as the release of a recording this week by al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri urging Libyans to avenge the death by CIA drone strike of his deputy, Abu Yahya al-Libi.

There had been signs of a threat earlier. On June 5, a bomb exploded outside the gates of the consulate in the first attack on an American facility since the fall of Gaddafi. No one was injured.

A jihadist group calling itself “Brigades of Imprisoned Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman” claimed responsibility, according to the Site monitoring service. The group posted a message on jihadist forums saying the attack was a response to the drone strike that killed Libi in Pakistan on June 4. The group is named after the blind Egyptian sheik who is serving a life sentence for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

On June 10, two British bodyguards were injured in an attack in Benghazi on a convoy carrying the British ambassador. The assailants used rocket-propelled grenades to attack the convoy as it was pulling out of the British Consulate.

Militants also have been blamed for attacks on the Tunisian Consulate in Benghazi and on the International Committee of the Red Cross in Libya.

A senior Obama administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity in a conference call with reporters Wednesday afternoon, said there was a “robust American security presence” at the consulate. When asked whether security had been strengthened after the recent attacks, the official said, “We don’t ever talk about the details of those kinds of things.”

The most detail about the events that unfolded Tuesday night at the consulate came from the conference call and from interviews with U.S. intelligence officials along with witnesses, most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity.

According to these officials, the protest turned into a gun battle around 10 p.m., roughly half an hour after the convoy of militants arrived at the consulate. They said men in the crowd began firing at the consulate. Within 15 minutes, the assailants had broken through the gates, scaled the walls and set fire to the main building. Images captured at the scene showed structures and vehicles engulfed in flames.

Stevens’s friend said in an interview that he returned to the compound when he heard about the fighting and found a chaotic scene. “People were panicking and crying because they were shooting, and with the shooting and explosions, it was really chaos,” said the friend, who insisted on anonymity for fear of jeopardizing his safety.

Another witness, Ben Eissa el-Mahjoub, a member of a media team that was at the scene, said the incident was not a protest.

“Armed groups broke into the American consulate,” he said, with the consulate resisting from inside. He said the security teams had tried to protect the ambassador and the consulate. At one point, he said, someone fired a rocket-propelled grenade from the back of the crowd toward the compound.

ahandout
ahandout

@JimWard This guy is a paid operative of the Obama administration.  He is on several sites spreading the same propaganda. 

JimWard
JimWard

More than 18 months of investigations. No lies. No scandal.

From the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Benghazi report, pages 40 and 41:

"Intelligence suggests the attack was not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic."

"Intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video."

From multiple public sources:

Date: September 12th, 2012

Location: U.S. State Department Treaty Room

“Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together.” – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Date: September 16, 2012

Location: Face the Nation, CBS Studios

Ambassador Susan Rice told Bob Schieffer that the attackers brought heavy weapons and that some had extremist ties. She clearly stated, “Whether they were al-Qaida affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al-Qaida itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.”

JimWard
JimWard

The Administration, of course, never blamed the Benghazi attacks on protesters angry about the video. This, in fact, is what we were told by the Obama Administration -- all well before the 2012 presidential election:

-- On September 11, 2012, in the very first Administration public statement on the Benghazi attacks and referring to the many news reports that linked the attacks to the video, Secretary Clinton could not have been any more specific in rejecting the video as a motive: "But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

-- In her remarks the very day after the attack, Secretary Clinton told the American people that, "Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings."

-- Just days later, Ambassador Susan Rice told Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation, that the attackers brought heavy weapons and that some had extremist ties. She clearly stated, “Whether they were al-Qaida affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al-Qaida itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.”

-- President Obama, of course, called the Benghazi attack "an act of terror" in the Rose Garden -- in remarks specifically scheduled to address the Benghazi attacks -- the very next day. He said this again that night in Nevada. And yet again in Colorado. (Partisans need only consult Dictionary.com, where "terror" is defined as "terrorism.")

-- On September 12, 2012 -- again, the day after the attacks -- President Obama taped a CBS 60-Minutes interview and he called the Benghazi tragedy "an attack on Americans." Steve Croft, referring to the days news reports about the regional unrest that followed the airing of the "Silence of Muslims," said to the President, "It’s been described as a mob action, but there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration." The President was clear in distinguishing the Benghazi attacks from the protests around the region: "But you're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt." President Obama clarified that the attackers were not some protesters that got out of hand, but instead were "looking to target Americans from the start."

-- That September, On the Spanish-language channel Univision, the President again clarified that "there are going to be different circumstances in different countries." He said that "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." The video, of course, has been linked to protests, riots and attacks on more than 50 U.S. Facilities in more than 20 countries.

-- Appearing on "The View" that September, the President again accurately explained that in Benghazi, "There’s no doubt the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action."

-- On "Letterman" at the time, referring to the video and rejecting the idea that the violent attacks were about protesters who got out of hand, the President clearly stated that "extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack" U.S. facilities in the region, including the outpost in Libya.

-- White House spokesman, Jay Carney, on September 13, 2012, called the Benghazi tragedy an "outrageous and shocking attack" -- not a protest.

-- The Obama Administration's Director of National Intelligence released a statement calling Benghazi a "terrorist attack" and said, “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. However, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qa’ida.” The evidence then -- as it does now -- points to an "opportunistic" not extensively preplanned attack that occurred under cover of the regional unrest incited by the anti-Islam propaganda video.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@quillerm @ahandoutStevens was tortured? Where do you people get this idiocy from? Gen offered Stevens additional security on two separate occasions and was turned down,

quillerm
quillerm

@mantisdragon91 @ahandoutA top State Department official pressed the CIA and the White House to delete any mention of terrorism in public statements on the Benghazi terror attack to prevent critics from blaming lax security at the consulate, according to documents obtained by ABC News.

The information "goes right to the heart of what the White House continues to deny," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told USA TODAY. "For eight months they denied there's any manipulation, but this continues to shed light on something that was never true."

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement to USA TODAY on Friday that the changes were made to prevent members of Congress from "providing more guidance to the public than the administration."

ahandout
ahandout

@mantisdragon91 @ahandout  BS.  Petraeus knew, Obama knew, Rice knew, Hillary knew that it was a terrorist attack.  They pushed the blame the video for 2 weeks culminating with Obama's UN speech.

Have you every even watched the "offensive, horrible video"?  It's non-sensical.  It's so bad that, I don't know how, or why you could be offended.  Yet our president asked Google to have it removed.  Google refused and the world is still turning.  Frankly I don't care if Muslims are offended.  They need to grow up and join the rest of the world.  We shouldn't destroy our rights of free speech bowing to every little petty gripe from offended Muslims. 

JimWard
JimWard

Try to catch up. The first drone arrived an hour and a half after the gate was breached. Yes, the initial briefings included open-source intelligence, ie. media reports. But that was not why I included them in my post. The initial news reports -- including reports from reporters at the scene and interviews with the armed militants and unarmed protesters -- confirm that a mix of militants and protesters descended on the scene and that the video either incited them and/or was used as cover for the attacks.

Nevertheless, in the very first Administration public statement on the Benghazi attacks and referring to the many news reports that linked the attacks to the video, Secretary Clinton could not have been any more specific in rejecting the video as a motive: "But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

Three U.S. response teams took part in the Benghazi rescue and evacuation operation, the first responding within 25 minutes. These teams were comprised of CIA Global Response Staff (GRS) soldiers and Pentagon Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) troops. They were further reinforced by dozens of fighters from Feb. 17th Brigade and Libyan Shield, and further still by Libyan Military Intelligence soldiers arriving in more than 50 armored vehicles. The bipartisan ARB, House Intelligence Committee and Senate Intelligence Committee reports all confirm that the responding forces were not slowed by their superiors or Washington and that they responded "as quickly and effectively as possible." (Even the conservative Washington Times reported last June that there was no "stand down.")

9:40 PM -- The gate of the compound is breached by armed militants and unarmed demonstrators. Stevens and Smith die from smoke inhalation in the fire started within the first 15 minutes. The safe area is never breached -- their deaths would have been prevented if only the area was equipped self-contained breathing apparatus.

11:11 PM -- First of two surveillance drones arrive overhead the compound. The drones transmit aerial images to CIA/JSOC operators below to locate hostiles and map out evacuation routes. (The video was not watched at the White House or State Department during the attacks as the conspiracy theorists reported.)

11: 30 PM -- After multiple unsuccessful attempts by Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) and the first response team to locate Ambassador Stevens' body, they evacuate Smith's body and surviving personnel in armored vehicles to the CIA annex. The Americans notified Libyan security to retrieve Stevens's body from the compound and later from the hospital. (Ambassador Stevens was not left behind, he was not tortured and he was not dragged through the streets as the conspiracy theorists would have us believe.)

Wanis el-Sharef, eastern Libya's deputy interior minister, was running the Interior Ministry's operations room commanding security forces in Benghazi at the time of the attacks. He gave The Associated Press an account of the night's chaotic events, which was published on September 13, 2012. He reported that after the crowd stormed the compound, and the buildings were looted and burned, "plainclothes security men were sent to evacuate the personnel." That is who was photographed rescuing Stevens who, suffering from smoke inhalation, was taken directly to the Benghazi Medical Center. Doctors there worked for more than 90 minutes to try and revive him.

At the annex, there was relative quiet for nearly six hours, while the wounded are tended to and the annex is prepared for evacuation. (There was no 8-hour firefight as the conspiracy theorists would have us believe.)

5:15 AM -- A second U.S. response team -- this one from Tripoli -- arrives at the annex. Two CIA Global Response Staff (GRS) soldiers, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, are killed in a 5-minute mortar attack while manning a machine gun atop the CIA base. Less than an hour later everyone at the annex was evacuated with the help of "a heavily armed Libyan military unit. "

U.S. and Libyan forces reportedly killed dozens of the attacking militants in battle; the bodies of our four dead were secured; and nearly 40 Americans were on a plane out of the country within hours.

(Conspiracy theorists would have us believe that the Administration then "lied" about the attacks and said the perpetrators were video protesters. Yet, they can't produce even one such direct quote from any Administration official. But quote after quote can be cited as the Obama administration described the perpetrators as heavily armed militants/extremists/terrorists with possible links to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

From the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Benghazi report, pages 40 and 41:

"Intelligence suggests the attack was not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic."

"Intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video."

From multiple public sources:

Date: September 12th, 2012

Location: U.S. State Department Treaty Room

“Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together.” – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Date: September 16, 2012

Location: Face the Nation, CBS Studios

Ambassador Susan Rice told Bob Schieffer that the attackers brought heavy weapons and that some had extremist ties. She clearly stated, “Whether they were al-Qaida affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al-Qaida itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.”

ahandout
ahandout

@JimWard  You seem to want us to believe that Rice read it in the newspaper.  I know that works for Obama; he knows nothing until he reads in the papers, just like you.  If you want to say that Obama, Hillary and Rice are so stupid that they get national security info from newspapers, go ahead, continue.

Petraeus is on record that the original talking points referenced al Qaeda and did not say anything about a demonstration, because THERE WAS NO DEMONSTRATION.

WESTRUP: “So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack -”

BRISTOL: “Yes, sir.”

WENSTRUP: “– on the United States?”

BRISTOL: “Yes, sir. … We referred to it as the attack.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/14/fox-administration-knew-within-minutes-that-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack/

If there is no cover-up, why did Rice withdraw from seeking the Secretary of State job?  Why can't we find out WHO told her to go out and lie to the American people?  Why won't see go on multiple Sunday shows and answer questions? 

JimWard
JimWard

Your post only provides further evidence that the reports of both armed militants and unarmed protesters at the scene came from sources on the ground -- not from a "cover story" concocted by the White House. At any rate, these facts are consistent with what the Obama Administration and intelligence agencies told the American people from the beginning:

From the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Benghazi report, pages 40 and 41:

"Intelligence suggests the attack was not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic."

"Intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video."

From multiple public sources:

Date: September 12th, 2012

Location: U.S. State Department Treaty Room

“Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together.” – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Date: September 16, 2012

Location: Face the Nation, CBS Studios

Ambassador Susan Rice told Bob Schieffer that the attackers brought heavy weapons and that some had extremist ties. She clearly stated, “Whether they were al-Qaida affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al-Qaida itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.”

JimWard
JimWard

Please tell me where I can pick up my paycheck! LOL! Only on Planet Fox does direct quotes = propaganda. Nice try.

ahandout
ahandout

@mantisdragon91 @ahandout  This is probably the dumbest thing (and that's really saying something considering your constant circular logic) you have ever said.

Extremists have been using anti-American rhetoric for decades, long before the preacher in Florida came along.  Extremists get a payoff when our government bows to their actions, and you get more extremism.

So, now you don't want to offend religious groups?  Is that correct?  Or just Muslims?  Are you going to be consistent with your new found respect for religion?

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ahandout @mantisdragon91 What control do we have over that? Perhaps if we didn't have idiots here burning the Koran like that crazy preacher in Florida there wouldn't be as much hostility against us in the first place.

ahandout
ahandout

@mantisdragon91 @ahandout It doesn't matter that a bunch of extremists fooled ignorant people into rioting over a silly video that you won't even watch?


mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ahandout @mantisdragon91It doesn't matter whether you or I found the video offensive or merely ludicrous. Obviously millions of Muslims found it offensive, and thousands took to the streets to protest over it.

ahandout
ahandout

@mantisdragon91 @ahandout  Have you watched the video?  

What caused the riots are the extremists who push their insanity in order to gain power.  So, what did the extremists get out of the killing and riots?  They found out that the US will go out of its way to placate them, going so far as to buy TV time in Pakistan and apologizing for our freedom of speech.  Expect more of the same from the extremists in the future.