Skip to comments.Obama, Hillary Knew Benghazi Was Terrorism And They Watched Our People Die
Posted on 10/25/2012 5:58:37 AM PDT by raptor22
Credibility: When President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton stepped into the Rose Garden the morning of Sept. 12, they likely knew the attack on our Benghazi consulate the day before was organized by terrorists.
They knew because they were likely privy to a flurry of emails among administration officials discussing the attack in real time. Yet they said nothing about what they knew and, worse, had done nothing to mount a rescue despite American forces being less than an hour away during the seven-hour blitz.
According to Fox News, 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. These people work directly under the nation's top national security, military and diplomatic officials.
The first email was sent at 4:05 p.m. Washington time, about 25 minutes after the attack began, with the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU)" It read: "Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM (chief of mission) personnel are in the compound safe haven."
In the flurry of emails that fateful day and night, there was no mention of a protest turned violent by a little-seen, months-old Internet video trailer. But in a third email, sent at 6:07 p.m. to a distribution list that included the White House Situation Room and titled "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU)," was this gem: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."
Granted, false claims of responsibility for terrorist acts are often made and must be verified.
(Excerpt) Read more at tcotblog.ning.com ...
I wonder if Doherty and Woods’ hours-long stand on that rooftop was witnessed by anyone via drone.
Ask yourself: What kind of person watches four people get tortured and slaughtered, doesn't raise a finger to help, and then flies to Vegas for a campaign and fund raising rally?
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin!
Question: Why did they lie? What were they covering up? It makes no sense to me? There must be a reason—disinformation to catch the killers? Was there something else? Spies? CIA? A link with Syria? Was it a botched “October Surprise” mission to seize the ambassador and then have Obama rescue him? Was it a trade for the Blind sheikh? We are not being told the truth—again. WHY? More too it than Obama’s ego—How is Hillary involved? Why did people have to die and what is the lame Video being used to cover it up? What ever it is—it must stink to high heaven.
It’s unreal to me that they didn’t send any help from our military...
A lie must be plausible. The administration’s lies are not. The emails are not necessary to reveal this. Irate film critics do not normally carry high powered weapons when they protest. Obama took 16 hours to decide whether to assassinate Osama. He did not have 16 hours to make the decision to save the embassy staff. Why was no effort made to rescue them?
There is a rancid stench of treason in the air...hanging over our nation.
An American Lament in 2012
They probably cheered
I had a bit of an epiphany regarding this yesterday. I think the pushing of the YouTube video narrative had a different motive than just not contradicting the “Al Qaeda is crippled” meme the administration’s been using during the campaign season.
I believe that, as the events unfolded, immediately mindful that requests for increased security had been ignored and/or denied, the thinking that evolved was “if this was due to an event that wasn’t a predictable contingency...” such as a spontaneous demonstration over a video, “... then we can’t have been expected to have been prepared for it.”
This gives them some room to indulge the fantasy that their established level of security would have been adequate if the attack HAD been a premeditated, coordinated one, because they might have received intelligence in advance to deal with it.
For the attack to have been a planned terrorist act immediately makes them accountable for having ignored all the requests for increased security, not to mention their complete blindness regarding the significance of the 9/11 anniversary.
Sources say counterterror chief reprimanded for calling Libya attack terror, White House denies
By Catherine Herridge
Published October 24, 2012
Congressional sources tell Fox News that a top administration counterterrorism official was reprimanded by the White House last month after he testified that the Sept. 11 attack in Libya was terrorism.
The White House and the official are pushing back on the claim. But the allegation would appear to raise questions about recent administration statements that they were labeling the attack terrorism from the start.
Sources told Fox News that, in fact, the White House was unhappy with Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, after his Sept. 19 comments, and told him to tone it down afterward.
Olsen had told a Senate committee, in reference to the four Americans killed in the attack: “They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.”
Benghazi not as sexy as Trump, Allred
- October 25, 2012 - What news stories are perching up high on the top rocks, screeching down at undecided voters with less than two weeks left in a long presidential campaign?
To get past the subscribe just click your Print Preview and scroll down.
These leaked e-mails are probably coming from Hillary’s State Dept. I would bet there’s been some friction between Hill and Tom Donilon, the president’s National Security Advisor.
Donilon had no qualifications for this position. He was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae from 1999 to 2005, has zero military experience. He is, like nearly everyone else in the West Wing, a political operative.
The decisions involving Benghazi were political decisions, made by political operatives. They didn’t see the new power structure in Libya as the enemy. They obviously believed, as Nicholas Berg did when he refused security in Iraq, that their favoring of the Islamists would make everyone safe.
Benghazi is the result of Nicholas Berg foreign policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.