Image 01 Image 03

New docs reveal administration knew about Benghazi 10 days before attack

New docs reveal administration knew about Benghazi 10 days before attack

Judicial Watch’s latest FOIA efforts pack a big punch

I’m struggling to concoct a scenario more damning than this.

After filing a FOIA suit, thanks to a court order Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Department of Defense and Department of State which indicate the Obama administration knew al Qaeda was planning the attack in Benghazi ten days before it happened. TEN DAYS.

hillary gif benghazi FOI dept state scandal judicial watch

Immediately following the 9/11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in 2012, the DOD had identified the culprits and indicated the attack had been planned “ten days or more” prior.

A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.” The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council. The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).” The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”

The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks on the World Trade Center buildings.

“A violent radical,” the DIA report says, is “the leader of BCOAR is Abdul Baset ((AZUZ)), AZUZ was sent by ((ZAWARI)) to set up Al Qaeda (AQ) bases in Libya.” The group’s headquarters was set up with the approval of a “member of the Muslim brother hood movement…where they have large caches of weapons. Some of these caches are disguised by feeding troughs for livestock. They have SA-7 and SA-23/4 MANPADS…they train almost every day focusing on religious lessons and scriptures including three lessons a day of jihadist ideology.”

The Defense Department reported the group maintained written documents, in “a small rectangular room, approximately 12 meters by 6 meters…that contain information on all of the AQ activity in Libya.”

(Azuz is again blamed for the Benghazi attack in an October 2012 DIA document.)

But that’s not the end. Evidently, the administration was also aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria.

The new documents also provide the first official confirmation that shows the U.S. government was aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria. The documents also include an August 2012 analysis warning of the rise of ISIS and the predicted failure of the Obama policy of regime change in Syria.

Intelligence should be tracking who is shipping arms to whom, but according to Judicial Watch, this is the first documentation that shows the administration had constructive knowledge of the arms shipments.

Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.

During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.

Of course the State Department has yet to turn over any documents from Hillary’s secret email accounts, as Judicial Watch notes.

The release of this information ahead of Hillary’s Congressional hearing will certainly serve to draw even more scrutiny to the former Secretary of State’s involvement in the Benghazi cover-up. Revelations like these exposed by Judicial Watch’s FOIA suit underscore the necessity of a forensic investigation of Hillary’s private email servers.

If ever there was a time to unearth all of those “deleted” emails, that time is now.

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Bitterlyclinging | May 18, 2015 at 7:43 pm

“The attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration
against an internet video, not some failure of policy..”
Ohhh! That’s it!

What difference does it make? Hilldebeast should try rehashing that line.

Of course, the Administration knew of the arms shipments. They were facilitating them. Just as they did with Fast and Furious. Only this time, four Americans officials got killed. That is the main reason, Hellary the Hun and Odildo covered it up, b blaming a cheap rate video for the mess.

Well, the legendary, lengthening legion litany of lies jus’ keepa gettin’ lengthier…

Sid “Vicious” Blumenthal is a notorious, flaming anti-Semite, among lots of other nasty things. This is really uuuuuugly.

Ol’ Walleyes and her lawyer caught flat-footed in MORE lies.

We really have to ask just who comes out a winner if the Clintons are destroyed.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that an enemy of my enemy is my friend, but rather another foe.
Odd that all of this opposition research is used so early .. before any caucuses or primaries.
It’s almost as if another Democrat is angling to take down Hillary … and make it look like it was the Republicans who did it.
So, who comes out of this looking good, I do mean another Democrat, if the Clintons are destroyed ?
I suggest you take a look at who didn’t jump to support the Democratic nominee apparent so far ? .. like Mr Obama for instance, but don’t stop there.

    scooterjay in reply to Neo. | May 18, 2015 at 9:33 pm

    I have been saying this all along….that O is trashing the Clintons because Hils has all the dirt on O, and subsequently the two of them must be destroyed. I wonder how hot this little war will get when HRC decides to hit back?

    Skookum in reply to Neo. | May 19, 2015 at 9:17 am

    It was other ‘Rats who took down sHrillary in 2008. In no way is she a more likeable candidate today. I can easily see other ‘Rats taking her down this time, too. But, the ‘Toons are far more dangerous this time around, because they have an organization in place and ready access to millions of dollars. I have no doubt that Soetoro has good dirt on sHrill and Bill, but the ‘Toons have to have good dirt on Soetoro, too. An open fecal storm between the two factions would be entertaining.

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Skookum. | May 19, 2015 at 3:19 pm

      You mean the ObamaRats.

      Remember the Obama Zombie Cry of “Hillary Crys Like A Girl!”

Judicial Watch is being led down a rabbit trail. There was absolutely no plan to kill Americans. You can be sure of that since that is what she described as an alternative scenario to preface her saying what difference does it make now.

Then plan, which was hatched in the WH, was for Stevens to be ‘kidnapped’ and then swapped for the blind sheik. The one unplanned part was the CIA guys coming to the rescue. That screwed up everything. They got Stevens killed while trying to save him.

Just remember you heard it here first.

Now the media goes into the “circle the wagons” mode. At this moment there is undoubtedly fierce communication between the White House and The State Press on how to brush this off as nothing of importance. They are not journalists – they don’t even pretend anymore.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to gasper. | May 19, 2015 at 3:23 pm


    RE: “They are not journalists – they don’t even pretend anymore.”

Gremlin1974 | May 18, 2015 at 8:26 pm

Please tell me that Judicial Watch is sharing all of this with the committee investigating this massive screw-up.

That GIF of Clinton in the post is awesome–the only dialogue that REALLY fits is: “I like big boobs, and I cannot lie!” 🙂

–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

It is the stuff of nightmares to think that there is, and there is, a possibility that this woman could end up controlling the most powerful military in the world.

If she is elected the title of the Commander in Chief will be Madam President. Think about that if you are so pure that you will stay home rather than vote for a “RINO” or some other Republican candidate that does not meet 100% of your political ideals.

    Paul in reply to Anchovy. | May 18, 2015 at 9:13 pm

    That vile whore will never be POTUS.

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Paul. | May 19, 2015 at 3:26 pm

      That’s what I believe. I look for another primary stealing ploy similar to 2008 – in favor of Michelle Obama or Lizzie Borden Warren.

    Barry in reply to Anchovy. | May 19, 2015 at 12:51 am

    “Think about that if you are so pure that you will stay home rather than vote for stupid enough to nominate a “RINO””

    Hal Jordan in reply to Anchovy. | May 19, 2015 at 1:15 pm

    That’s an excellent point. As the Presidential campaign gets going, I’m sure we will start seeing the same posts on social media and Free Republic as we have seen during other election cycles, i.e., “I will NEVER vote for [Republican candidate] because he’s nothing but a RINO!!! I am throwing ALL my support behind [minor third party candidate], the ONLY true conservative in the race!!!” I suspect those posts are all made by paid Democratic operatives and designed to fragment the conservative support of whoever opposes the Dem candidate. So yeah, you have hit the figurative nail right on its metaphorical head.

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Hal Jordan. | May 19, 2015 at 3:27 pm

      You do know tons of that style post are from life long Democrats don’t you?

      DaveGinOly in reply to Hal Jordan. | May 19, 2015 at 4:45 pm

      “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
      John Quincy Adams

      If I don’t like a candidate, I won’t vote for that candidate – no matter who the opposition is. If I vote for a candidate I don’t like and that candidate wins, I’ve helped that person win. If that candidate’s opponent wins, the people who voted for that candidate are responsible not me – whether I vote or not. I prefer to not be responsible for helping to put a person into office who will contribute to the erosion of this country’s Constitution, no matter if that candidate is taking the slow road to destruction (RINO/NeoCon/Establishment Republican) or the fast (Progressive/Leftist/Socialist/Democrat). Helping to determine how fast we get there isn’t the idea – the idea is to prevent us from getting that at all. Anyone who votes for a candidate who keeps us on either of those roads is responsible for keeping us heading towards that destination.

So, how does this NOT wrap up with articles of impeachment?

    peg_c in reply to MrE. | May 19, 2015 at 10:25 am

    It doesn’t because the GOP has no stones. It’s inconceivable to me that any Democrat president will be impeached in our grandkids’ lifetimes.

      Milhouse in reply to peg_c. | May 19, 2015 at 5:34 pm

      Tell me what exactly would be achieved by having him impeached and then acquitted, as he surely would be. Do you really think he would not parade his acquittal as a vindication, just as Clinton did? Until there are 67 votes in the senate to convict, there is no point in impeaching.

What will it take, what must happen, before someone actually DOES something about this outrage?

georgia peach | May 18, 2015 at 9:34 pm

Regarding the blind sheik, I recall the day after the attack, there was a report in some paper that ,no, the blind sheik was not going to be released.It seemed so odd given the circumstances.Almost as if it was written before and released because of a different scenario.Wish I had printed it.
I believe that one day we will find out that this was in fact exactly as described above.A botched kidnapping that the CIA operatives weren’t privy to.They died doing their duty;and Mr.Obama has blood on his hands.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to georgia peach. | May 18, 2015 at 11:02 pm

    Benghazi was not a botched kidnapping. What ridiculous pro-terrorist spin! (from a probably untrustworthy source.)

    Benghazi was much more likely a planned assassination.

    Which, if correct, raises a whole bunch of questions.

    AZ_Langer in reply to georgia peach. | May 19, 2015 at 12:13 am

    I’ve long thought that was an interesting possibility, though I don’t recall seeing any retraction of Morsi’s June statement that the blind sheik would be freed.

    Gee, I wonder what happened with all the questions about Hani Nour Eldin’s visa, and the purpose of his high-level meetings.

    Honestly, I wonder why anyone within government even pretends to investigate anything. The real determination in pursuit of truth seems to lie with the watchdogs organizations.

Rick the Curmudgeon | May 18, 2015 at 9:48 pm

I wonder what news event will break in the next few days to knock this off the front page?

Sammy Finkelman | May 18, 2015 at 10:54 pm

Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Department of Defense and Department of State which indicate the Obama administration knew al Qaeda was planning the attack in Benghazi ten days before it happened.

Where does anyone get the idea from the document quoted that anybody knew anything on September 1? The document doesn’t say anything like that at all!

This document is dated September 12. It is probably not even very accurate. I mean, I don’t attack had anything to do with al-Libi, although it very probably was planned.

What the document means means is that some source told someone AFTER THE ATTACK that the attack had been planned 10 or more dats before. And perhaps, in hindsight, you could notice something that, at the time, was not clear.

Look, consider another not so hypothetical example:

The United States knew right after Pearl Harbor, that it had been planned X number of days in advance, because the Japanese ships that carried the airplanes had to be sailing, but that isn’t the same thing as saying that it was not a surprise attack!

Even if shouldn’t have been for other reasons than what would lead someone to conclude afterwards that it must have bene planned X number of days in advamce.

    CloseTheFed in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | May 19, 2015 at 8:39 am

    Thank you. I thought I was the only one reading it and being perplexed by the conclusion drawn.

    Hal Jordan in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | May 19, 2015 at 1:30 pm

    I saw this report yesterday in a very confusing story, where the information was described as “jaw-dropping,” but was presented in a way that made it incomprehensible. LI has a much more coherent presentation of the information, but I agree with you that this headline is incorrect. The administration knew, the day after the attack, that planning for the attack had started ten days earlier. Or, to clarify the second paragraph of this article, “…the Obama administration knew[, the day after the attack, that] al Qaeda was planning the attack in Benghazi ten days before it happened.” The only way this could be described as a smoking gun or jaw-dropping is if we tie it to the initial White House statements that the attack was caused by some anti-Muslim video, when they knew all along that it wasn’t.

    Thank you for your questioning attitude.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | May 19, 2015 at 4:48 pm

    I read the information the same way, Sammy.

Sammy Finkelman | May 18, 2015 at 10:58 pm

What Judicial Watch discovered is still bad for the Administration, and the CIA, because by the end of the week of Tuesday, September 11, 2012 – by Saturday, September 16, 2012 – they were saying it was spontaneous and NOT planned.

So this is another piece of information or analysis that was somehow overlooked or trumped.

But saying that this proves that they knew about it on September 1 is not even nonsense – it just does not compute at all.

    Bill Adams in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | May 18, 2015 at 11:15 pm

    Absolutely right. This is what I logged in to comment, but you’ve said it all. The headline would seem to be flat out wrong.

    The new documents are damaging because they confirm that a) that the administration knew perfectly well that this was a long-planned terrorist attack and nothing to do with a silly video and b) that the administration had knowledge of weapons shipments (among other things) that should have had them anticipating trouble and protecting their people.

    But they don’t indicate that the administration was warned 10 days ahead and ignored it, as the headline implies. If that is true (and I believe that there were warnings from other governments; for crying aloud it was the anniversary of 9/11), it isn’t coming from these documents.

    An easily-dismissed headline can lead to the dismissal of an important story. LI dropped the ball here.

      Matt_SE in reply to Bill Adams. | May 18, 2015 at 11:23 pm

      So it’s murder, arson and jaywalking, huh?
      Who cares about that one detail? There’s more than enough information to hang these traitors a dozen times over.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Bill Adams. | May 19, 2015 at 12:01 am

      Agreed, I think the headline is just poorly worded not an attempt to fool anyone.

      Anyone who actually paid attention to the details of the attack could see that it was not “spontaneous”. The mission was attacked from 2 separate directions under the cover or RPG and possibly mortar fire. I know things are done a bit differently in that part of the world but they still don’t “spontaneously” whip out RPG’s to cover an pincer attack. Also, if Mortar’s were used you certainly don’s “spontaneously” set one of those up and get it dialed in. This was obviously a coordinated attack by trained militia. I would also venture that whomever planned this attack was probably trained by Americans, since we practiced this tactic a lot in my Army days.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Gremlin1974. | May 19, 2015 at 4:52 pm

        “…I think the headline is just poorly worded not an attempt to fool anyone.”

        I agree that it is poorly worded, and although they may have been no overt attempt to fool anyone, it does indeed fool the reader because the headline and the story are at variance. The headline alone plainly states the administration knew the attack was coming days before it happened, but the body of the story does not support that narrative. The headline is both poorly worded and misleading.

    But they sure knew an awful lot by the end of the day. Wonder why that was?

Interesting how much they found out in one day. Unbelievably interesting. Will there be a curious reporter asking how they knew one day later that it had been planned 10 days or more in advance? The headline of this article may not be accurate based on what is actually in the report, but could be accurate depending on how the information in the report was obtained. In one day? Or sitting on someone’s desk ready to edit and forward.

Humphrey's Executor | May 19, 2015 at 12:00 am

“There were many conflicting reports. Fog of war and all that. Oh, and we just now found this e-mail. Time to move on.”

CloseTheFed | May 19, 2015 at 8:42 am

So Susan Rice was out there, peddling that ridiculous story near the election (!), and 2 1/2 years later we find out they knew it was crap the next day. Calculating manipulators, that’s all our current politicians are.

Henry Hawkins | May 19, 2015 at 2:29 pm

The video that will haunt Hillary is the one of her on the airport tarmac standing by the caskets telling flat out lies to the families.

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | May 19, 2015 at 3:31 pm


Charles Young | May 19, 2015 at 4:59 pm

One may wonder what email address was used by the DIA report to send the report. One may also wonder what was the classification of the report. The heavy redaction suggests the report was not unclassified. If it was not unclassified and it went to Mrs. Clinton’s private email account then she was receiving classified email to an unauthorized account.

Gremlin1974 | May 19, 2015 at 5:32 pm

What I also don’t understand is why “unclassified” documents, which many of them say they are, are so heavily redacted in the first place.

Is this really correct “New docs reveal administration knew about Benghazi 10 days before attack”? They knew about the attack 10 days before it happened and did nothing?

Gremlin1974 | May 20, 2015 at 5:46 pm

Actually, no that is not what I get from the documents. I think it is just poorly worded.

What they do show is that the administration knew in less than 24 hours that the attack was planned and coordinated and that they knew without a doubt that the attack had nothing to do with the “video”. They also show that in less than 24 hours they knew that there was no demonstration of any kind that ever happened at the mission in Benghazi. So there was no demonstration for the attack to “spontaneously” happen during.

They also show that in less than 24 hours they knew that it was a planned attack that was executed with military precision under the cover or RPG and possibly Mortar fire.

They also show that they knew in less than 24 hours who perpetrated the attack and that it was done because to Sept. 11th.

They also show that in less than 24 hours that information was given to Sec. Clinton’s closest aids and if they knew about it, then she knew about it, and if she knew about it so did Obama.

So they prove beyond a doubt that they knew that the line of crap that they tried to feed the American people for the next week, was just that a line of crap. They prove that they willfully and with intent lied to the American people. They also slandered, libeled, and defamed an american citizen (they guy who made the video) in order to support their lie.