Image 01 Image 03

Newly discovered e-mails raise more questions for Obama about Benghazi

Newly discovered e-mails raise more questions for Obama about Benghazi

Last night, a series of e-mails from the night of the 9/11 Benghazi attacks were released. The e-mails were from the State Department to various high level groups and intelligence agencies within the government. Among them were the White House Situation Room, the office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the FBI.

These e-mails, which discuss the nature of the attack and those who claimed responsibility in the immediate aftermath, give rise to serious doubts to the story that the administration was using the “best information at hand” when they were telling the American people that the attack was the result of a video.

Below are excerpts of the e-mails, beginning at 4:05pm EST on September 11th.

“US Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” — “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/embassy) personnel are in the compound safe haven.”

At 4:54 p.m., less than an hour later, another alert: “the firing… in Benghazi…has stopped…A response team is on site attempting to locate COM (embassy) personnel.”

Then, at 6:07 p.m., State sent out another alert saying the embassy in Tripoli reported the Islamic military group “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibilty for Benghazi Attack”… “on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

Ansar al-Sharia has been declared by the State Department to be an “al-Qaeda affiliated group.”

These e-mails were sent during, and immediately following, the attack on our Benghazi consulate. Why, then, were various arms of the Obama administration so confused about what to tell the American people? If they already had an al-Qaeda linked group claiming responsibility for the attack hours after it had occurred, why is the Obama Administration’s explanatory timeline so muddled?

Below is a look at when and what the administration was saying at various times following the attack.

September 12: President Obama is in the Rose Garden. While talking about the Benghazi attack, and 9/11/01, he declares that, “[n]o acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation…” Yet he fails to actually say that the Benghazi attack was, in fact, an act of terror.

September 15: Despite the Libyan President’s assertion that the Benghazi attack was planned “for months,” Ambassador Rice tells CBS’ Face the Nation that “based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present, is that, in fact, it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to [the Cairo protests] that were sparked by this hateful video.” Rice went on to say, “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was pre-meditated or pre-planned.” [Emphasis mine].

September 18: Whitehouse Press Secretary, Jay Carney, doubled down on Ambassador Rice’s remarks from 3 days prior. [Emphasis mine]

“Based on information that we — our initial information … we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video.” Carney went on to say “that is what we know” based on “concrete evidence, not supposition.”

September 20: For the first time since the Benghazi attack, the Whitehouse acknowledges that it was an act of terrorism, as Carney changes his story.

“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently and the result was four deaths of American officials – that’s self-evident.”

September 20: That very same day, on a Univision forum, President Obama offers a different take when asked whether the attack was an act of terror.

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 excused as an excuse by the extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

In light of the e-mail evidence now in hand, evidence that was readily available to the  highest levels of the Obama administration practically in real time, how could the they peddle the theory that the Benghazi attack was a reaction to a film?

The e-mails show that plenty was known about the nature of the attack as it was happening. Moreover, they stand in stark contrast to the Obama Administration’s continued insistence that the so called video-explanation was based on “the best information we have to date.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Bryan, one complaint…

this COOKS Obama. It doesn’t raise more questions. It answers them.

‘Al-Qaida’s on the run — running right into our consulates, apparently’
—John Bolton

    Correct. It’s directly implicating. It’s the smoking gun. Obama knowingly peddled a false narrative about the cause of the riot for a number of political ass-saving reasons, principally the abject failure of his policies and his and the Left’s mind-bending ideological misunderstanding of Islam having come to its inevitable implosion. It also put to rout the fantasy that bin Laden’s death was a signal achievement and the end of al Qaeda.

    But it doesn’t matter. Obama knows the major media won’t pursue this except, at best, to cite such causes as the “fog” of war and/or governmental breakdowns and confusions apart from Obama. Obama has always known this, and he is safe in his knowledge.

      Ragspierre in reply to raven. | October 24, 2012 at 12:06 pm

      Bolton on Greta asked an interesting question in his utter bemusement over this…

      (paraphrasing) “Are they so ideologically blinkered they cannot see reality?”.

      That is ONE possibility, certainly. There are some other, darker, ones. Especially in light of the influences entering the WH, and Hill-larry’s own assistant.

      These are very deep waters, indeed, but why would we be blind to them?

      bongobear in reply to raven. | October 24, 2012 at 12:08 pm

      I agree with you, raven. I’ll bet they all come out of this smelling like the proverbial rose. These people seem to be able to get away with everything.

I’ll ask the same question here that I asked at my blog – if I may – if the radical Muslim world finds the relatively obscure YouTube posted trailer for the schlock “movie”, The Innocence of Muslims, so offensive, how do you think the chaps in the Taliban and al Qaeda feel about Barack “Kill List” Obama and Joe “Bin Laden is dead and GM is on life support” Biden running victory laps around bin Laden’s fish eaten corpse in campaign ads and on national TV?

It would seem that if they want to make the argument that this laughable movie trailer caused demonstrations in Cairo and led to the Benghazi disaster (and the death of four Americans, including an ambassador), the daily bin Laden Memorial 10K’s make Obama and Biden personally responsible for those deaths.

Obama and his people don’t have the honor and sense of duty to be in power (that Hillary is in the middle of this is surprising to me, I’ve never been a fan but she once seemed to have a modicum of integrity) . If I was serving in a civilian position in the Middle East or South Asia, I really would be questioning the commitment of these people to my safety. If I was part of Obama’s camp, given his propensity for hypo-vehiculating people, I would be seriously questioning whether I was prepared to go down with the ship or not.

Maybe Romney’s debate strategy was right. It seemed that he figured that the sheer weight of the facts would eventually overwhelm them on this one and he won’t have to be seen as holding down Obama and giving him a haircut.

Things seem to be getting heavier.

    GrumpyOne in reply to utahprez. | October 24, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Well… It certainly has taken the heat off of Fast ‘n Furious as we hardly hear anything about that as of late.

    This administration is riddled with corruption, incompetency and deception and it is that weight which will sink it…

      Yes, but will the sinking occur before the election results are in?

      But the larger issue is all the dead people in his wake of incompetence.

      300 dead Mexican citizens and 2 dead US border agents, couldn’t make the MSM bother to hold Obama accountable for his incompetence. What makes anyone think Obama, his incompetent minions or the MSM give a crap about 4 dead Embassy staff in Libya, it hardly rates their interest after overlooking over 300 dead people.

      Now lets add to that context millions of poor people are pushed further into poverty in foreign countries due to Obama’s EPA refusing to relax the ethanol standard from E10 to E5. The UN has repeatedly implored them to change course. No, it’s full speed ahead to E15, who gives a crap about the piles of dead bodies as long as they don’t end up on his doorstep. Do you hear the MSM breathlessly reporting on the consequences of his policies? Nope. Obama’s tone deafness to the plight of those suffering as a consequence of his policies is the real issue.

      Feed a lobbyist, starve a country –

      Obama Administration Looking at Ethanol Rules –

All the Øbama folks have to do is to keep the lid on this for 13 more days. They can do that easily.

These guys are a conniving bunch, and they saw as soon as the attack happened and Ambassador Stevens was murdered that it presented a political problem. GM is alive (and selling a helluva lot of cars in China, I might add) and Bin Laden is dead. And al Qaeda is on the run.

So obfuscate, misrepresent, muddy the waters, deceive. The American people will soon forget about it, and the press won’t remind them.

Move along here people, there’s nothing to see.

American troops were one hour away in Italy; Hillary gave approval to send in; Someone overturned her decision; Who has such authority? Regardless, if Hillary authorizes troops, how is the President not aware?

    Browndog in reply to rookwood. | October 24, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    Hillary cannot authorize sending in more “troops”.

    She can, but didn’t, authorize additional security personnel.

    I really wish people would stop confusing the Department of Defense with the Department of State.

    Icepilot in reply to rookwood. | October 24, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    Only the Commander-in-Chief can order U.S. military forces to cross international borders and project force. Naval Air Station, Sigonella, Italy includes the following Commands:

    Command Helo Wings Atlantic
    Fleet and Industrial Supply Center (FISC)
    Helicopter Combat Sup Sqdrn FOUR
    Naval Computer and Telecom Sta.
    Commander Fleet Air Det CFAD
    Tactical Support Center

    When “the balloon when up” in Benghazi, things got very busy; secure calls throughout the chain of command, squadrons scrambled, logistics and satellites assessed …

    Within 90 minutes, President Obama was presented options on how to respond to an on-going attack on the United States (that included F-18s and AC-130 gunships, just an hour away), he chose … to go to Vegas.

I am not sure anyone is going to care, everyone knew Obama was lying about this. Everything else was prevarication to gain some tactical positioning in the debate, hopefully to move things along enough that when the truth came out it wouldn’t have much impact because people would be too confused to care.

The question still remains: Why all the lies? What is it that the Obama regime is hiding?

The ‘Base’ of His Infantile Majesty doesn’t care a whit about this stuff, of course. Most don’t know what or where it is–Trust Me. IF he were a Republican it’d be Iran-Contra/2. Happily, he and our Crazy Uncle in the Attic are going to be tossed on November 6th.

Buuu-Byeeeeeeee, Barry..! Buuu-Byeeeeeee, Bite-Me..!

Hello American Adults.

[…] Brian Jacoutut is also posting a timeline on White House […]

Seems clear to me. After having spiked the Bin Laden ball incessantly since the Dem convention, after having repeatedly declared they had al-Qaeda on its heels, and after having declared major victories in their Middle East policy, the Obama team was not about to announce al-Qaeda had just burned down our Libyan consulate and killed the ambassador and three others. Not eight weeks before the election, no sir.

They obviously knew the anti-Islam video wasn’t the cause, that there was no protest, but it was handy at the moment as a viable substitute explanation. They went with it and felt confident they could keep the truth under wraps at least until November 6th. The media could be relied on to ignore the story, so they were probably justified in their confidence. However, as a cover-up it was wildly inept, a comedy of easily traced errors, almost all of them on video with sound and widely available.

Any administration that wants to represent me needs to be far more adept at cover-ups than this clown crew. Er, well, you know what I mean.

re: All the Øbama folks have to do is to keep the lid on this for 13 more days. They can do that easily.

I really would like to see them keep the lid on this for another few weeks, up into the first week of January. After the Republicans take control, THEN is the time for the in-depth investigations. Handled properly, neither Obama nor Hillary will have another grasp at the Golden Ring of power in the government. Perchance this screw-up is handled exceedingly well, maybe both of these incompetents could spend a few years in Leavenworth.

There’s your Daddy’s dream Barry – realized in your life!

Has the Carney Carnival been held yet today? How can that weasel spin this? I hope the press does its job on this, because this is a disgraceful dereliction of duty.

1 Deliberatly muddled timeline indicates our Ambassador was sodomized then murdered along with 3 others & at best our leader wasnt to be bothered. At worst dear leader is compliciant in murder as he did nothing in the 7 hour window before the actual murder. 2 An innocent man is in jail to keep him quiet. 3 The structure of lies grows exponentially. 4 The media enablement only grows apace with a few exceptions.

The first email states: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four […] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

Who are the 17th of February militia? They were outsourced to provide security for the compound. And they also happen to be an offshoot of Ansar al-Sharia, the people responsible for the attack.

A little embarrassing, no?

Jack The Ripper | October 24, 2012 at 12:35 pm

Sadly, just about everything I mentioned in my “let’s not get too confident and complacent” post yesterday has reared its ugly head in one form or another today:

1) Voting machine irregularities alleged in North Carolina and voting suppression letters to registered Republicans about voting eligibility (Can excluding military ballots, absentee ballots, and early voting chicanery be far behind?)

2) Obama saying off the record that the Hispanic vote will carry him to victory with immigration reform as the reward (Can renewed accusations of “racism” be far behind?)

3) Mourdock in Indiana

4) Gloria Allred attempting an October Surprise

5) Allegations that Dems have offered CSU students free T-Shirts and Pizza in exchange for voting. (Can student loan “reform” be far behind?)

The debates have been wonderful for Mitt Romney, but this election is far from being “in the bag.” In fact, the Electoral College is still an uphill battle for Romney and both Intrade and the Iowa Electronic Markets have Obama re-relection chances at 60% or more.

Never let up. Never give in. Get every Romney voter you can to the polls (and I will get every Obama voter I can to the polls on November 7th.)

Jack The Ripper | October 24, 2012 at 12:36 pm

The voting suppression letters mentioned above are to Florida voters, not North Carolina voters.

As Weird Chris Matthews reminded us Monday night, “it’s all about the video.”

“The big mainstreem media has me protected
Every question deflected ‘no terrorists detected”

September 14: Secretary of State Hilary Clinton welcomed home the coffins of the four who fell while serving the diplomacy of the United States by saying, “We have seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

I’ve long believed that this was the most outrageous thing about the coverup: using THAT MOMENT to continue to promote a video on the world stage after a flunky in Cairo began the process on the 11th and to throw the the First Amendment under the bus.

She is the Secretary of State, not a film critic, and should have been focused on the deaths of those killed by the terrorist attack.

    Tom-Pa in reply to canb0nly1. | October 24, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    Aha, more gun supply to the ‘bad guys’ from this administration, a-la ‘fast and furious’. Thanks for the Wash Times article/link.

Is there any sweeter smell than the sulphurous stench of liberal desperation?

[…] Power, American Power, Michelle Malkin, ABCNEWS, The Hill, The Gateway Pundit, Weasel Zippers, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Scared Monkeys,, The Spectacle Blog, The Lonely Conservative and The Jawa […]

DINORightMarie | October 24, 2012 at 1:50 pm

Apparently Hillary is still trying to spin this as “TMI”: too much information flooding in to know what was happening.

However, that doesn’t wash with what THEY DID, what THEY SAID, and how the CONTINUED to spin this over the next two weeks.

Rush is KILLING THIS! His summary, in essence is that this the END for Obama’s “narrative” – their backsides are exposed! And the media is “…akin to Woodward & Bernstein helping to cover up Watergate…” (paraphr.) for the Nixon administration.

If this was a sane world, Obama would be resigning before Friday, and heads would roll (metaphorically, lefties!).

Finally, a leaker who, for whatever reason, breaks ranks and does the right thing to EXPOSE this lawless administration!! Thank you!!!

Oh, and so sweet to have Obama hoist on his own petard after that scene in the 2nd debate! So sweet, this schadenfreude. 🙂

Jack The Ripper | October 24, 2012 at 2:42 pm

Listened to Rush Limbaugh’s analysis of Benghazi.

His take is that the Obama Administration had almost real-time information during the attack and the Administration was:

1) In over its head;

2) In “Do Not Disturb Mode” due to Obama’s focus on the campaign, such as Las Vegas fundraising and TV appearances;

3) Deliberately playing down and misleading about the attack, hoping to deflect attention from al Quaeda and the success or lack thereof of Obama’s foreign relations “reset;”

or some combination thereof.

I agree, as no other explanation seems to come to mind.

I also think it is nothing short of astonishing that Hillary Clinton got roped into this the way she did and thrown under the bus. The Clintons have always been exceedingly good at ducking and weaving and having “plausible deniability” or word-parsing exits to political jams.

But, this matter invovles a paper trail, a video trail, and eyewitness accounts that cannot be scrubbed away; weaponry that is vastly inconsistent with the notion of a spontaneous mod; and the antagonizing video that supposedly prompted the spontaneous mob was little known and hardly seen.

Bill Clinton must be FURIOUS at Obama. Hillary, too, unless she’s just too exhausted.

Henry Hawkins | October 24, 2012 at 2:59 pm

Obama and Hillary. Duel with pistols. Rose Garden. 3 pm.

[No WAY Hillary and Bill let Obama drag her down with him on this. She’s gonna do something, dunno what, but watch for it.]

    Jack The Ripper in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 24, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    I hope you are right. The sound bites I heard suggest that the Obama Administration has put Hillary Clinton in the position of being perceived as:

    1) Uninformed and therefore either a lousy Secretary of State or a member of the Team that was not valued and kept outside the loop; or

    2) Informed but lying.

Henry Hawkins | October 24, 2012 at 4:24 pm

Hillary ought to know basic CYA. You know her backside is covered (I apologize if that provoked a mental image).

She’s looking at a sinking ship that she had already announced she’d be leaving this year, so no way any of this will be allowed to accrue to her.

Besides, it appears that the intel folks and the State Dept folks did communicate the crisis quickly back to the WH. Only then was a decision made to not send rescue forces, develop a cover story, arrange and educate the surrogates who’d be pushing the lies, etc. Hillary very well may be entirely blameless on this, but if not, you have to know she covered her tracks – 2016 isn’t that far away.

    Jack The Ripper in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 24, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    Well, that is the issue.

    She may have initially done everything she should have and could have, but then the flimsy explanation that it was a spontaneous mob inflamed by a film was put out there by the White House, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had the following choice:

    1) Be a team player and repeat the flimsy explanation (which both of them did);

    2) Not be a team player by remaining suspiciously silent or by saying something at odds with the “official line.”

    And so, I am guessing, that the Clintons are peeved, even if she never runs for office again or seeks any sort of confirmation by the Senate, because she has been documented as having repeated the flimsy and easily rebutted explanation, and that makes her look some combination of foolish, complicit, dishonest, incompetent, or simply not a Player/Insider who was valued by the Team but someone who was kept out of the loop.

    What did you know and when did you know it versus Why did you not know/How could you not know? Its bad. Its a pie in the face (sorry to invoke that mental image).