Skip to comments.Lawmakers get first look at Benghazi attack video
Posted on 11/15/2012 5:08:52 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
WASHINGTON -- A congressional investigation viewed video Thursday that was recorded by security cameras the night of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
The first video of the attack was captured by cell phones. But it took about 10 more days for the FBI to get its hands on video taken by security cameras at the consulate. That classified video, shown to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, answers some of the many questions surrounding the attack.
There has been a lot of controversy about whether the Sept. 11 attack -- which killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador -- was planned by terrorists or the result of a mob angered by an internet movie ridiculing Islam.
A U.S. intelligence official said the first video shows no sign the assault arose -- as first thought -- out of a demonstration. But it also indicates the attack, though intentional, was not well planned.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Under what grounds are the videos “Classified?”
So, does "not well planned" somehow make this something less than a TERRORIST attack? It only "counts" if it's deemed to be "well planned?!" Not sure who this "intelligence official" is, but they're not very smart for saying something so damn' stupid!
For some, winning an election would be more important than trying to save lives.
For an attack that was not well planned, it certainly was successful.
Is this man saying that the US cannot repel a poorly planned attack, because that is apparently the case.
Yeah. What’s one more ping list? More or less.
Did they see the Ambassador on any video? If so, when? If not, why not?
Well, there's obviously nothing to see here then, all is a okay.
That is the problem of approaching the argument with whether the attack was because of a video or was it just spontaneous or whatever. The argument should be who gave the order to stand down 3 times? Then next question, Why was the stand down order given?
The implication is .. we're incompetent
Another smokescreen ... if ... IF Petraeus grows a pair.
Methinks you’re right.
“But it took about 10 more days for the FBI to get its hands on video taken by security cameras at the consulate.”
10 days? I do not believe that.
Hmmm? What about the annex, did it have cameras? I have read numerous reports that the US had people in there the “next day” to sweep delicate information. (and I am to believe they didn’t go over to the consulate....liars) OK, they had video from the annex by 9-12 or 13. Why is no one talking about the annex? Isn’t it just as important considering 2 CIA agents were murdered there as well!
David Martin has given the term 'obtuse' a whole new meaning.
Either that or CBS has decided to lower the bar on lying even further.
What about the video feeds from teh drone that was ovehead. Where are those?
I'm certain the consulate's video was available real time on a secure internet-like network.
Now, when they release the audio/video tapes of the 2way communication tapes with the infamous “situation room” state department, CIA, etc. then we will know what response the Seals received from their CIC.
Yes, I agree, even home security units have that capability. They are just such liars!
As first thought by whom? This is a load of baloney.
If it took them 10 days to “get their hands on the video”, then that means it wasn’t being sent real time to D.C. It also means the video didn’t come out with the Americans. The bad guys or “looters” had the video. And what would looters want a videotape for?
Now, if you’re the thugs, and you’ve got the Americans bottled up, why only drop five mortar rounds on them? Could be because they didn’t have more ammo, but I wouldn’t think so. Could be because they were afraid they might get hit from the air. Then did the whole attack stop, or just the mortars?
If you’ve got the Americans bottled up, and they have no counter battery (their own mortars), why not just sit back and drop mortars on them and save your thugs?
what about the film in the drones? Must have been a lot of footage there?
I see it differently. It is a terrorist attack “not well planned” and we still didn’t have the support to stop it.
I see it as more damning evidence against the State Department.
Kudos to Greta Van Sustern on her show last Night . Greta is not known as a Conservative and she is the only Host I Have seen on TV ask the Question of What was the CIA doing In Benghazi? Were they Running Guns to the Syrian Rebels?
She asked this of the supposed Right wing attack dog Dana Rohrbacher Representative from California,Yeah the same one who yesterday called Obama a Liar about this Coverup. But even Mr. Attack dog ran for the tall Hills when Greta asked that one.
Folks this dog and Pony Show we are Watching is a Massive Coverup,and BOTH sides Know what Happened and NO one wants to go there. The public is so used to being led by the ring in their Nose they cant even awake from their Stupor and their Brainwashers and think Critically and ask that same question that Greta asked and she has been grappling with for some time,Why would people make up such stupidity about a Video,What was Stephens and the CIA doing in the hot Bed of Alqueda,Benghazi? Greta hit it,They were running Guns to the Syrian rebels,Alqueda Jihadists. That is the rosetta Stone here folks all this why did No One Help,Blah Blah Blah,
Why are we arming the Jihadists that are trying to Destroy us? Because Obama wants to Help in creating the Caliphate for the Muslim Brotherhood. He would love to keep talking about the sex scandal with Petraeus,or his poor UN ambassador Susan Rice. Wake up folks
When did the drone show up? It is my understanding the drone was not armed what was its purpose? Who controls the drones?
Maybe you missed my reply to this on another thread. They weren’t just running guns to the Syrians. They were smuggling guns through Turkey to hamas in gaza through the mb in Egypt using the Rafah tunnels. The very same weapons that are being used against Israel now.
Its purpose was observation. Don’t know who was controlling it.
So it took 'pictures'? It had to be an overt order to send that drone to hover over Benghazi. IF it took pictures it would observe 'road' and 'water' traffic. Those terrorist did leave the scene of the crime. Where did they go after they robbed, murdered Americans and burned an American mission?
And wasn't a second unarmed drone offered as 'help'? Did it in fact get sent?