Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

New Documents Shine Light on White House Benghazi Scramble

New Documents Shine Light on White House Benghazi Scramble

*Another* video?

After the attacks on the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, the Obama Administration moved quickly to blame the carnage on “The Innocence of Muslims” video on YouTube.

Remember?

The Administration attempted to blame the violence on “an awful video that we had nothing to do with” no less than seven times, even as it became abundantly clear that the murderers who laid waste to the compound were there on a mission, and not as part of a spontaneous protest.

Now, new documents from the State Department, acquired by advocacy group Judicial Watch, show that the White House attempted to shuttle the blame onto another, more obscure YouTube video almost immediately after the attacks took place.

Judicial Watch has the text of the email [emphasis mine]:

From: [REDACTED]

Sent: September 11, 2012 9:11 PM

To: DSCC_Managment_Team; DSCC_Watch Team

Subject: (S//NF) [REDACTED] Libya

Per Ambassador Mull [Stephen Mull, then Executive Secretary of the State Department] after SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference System] conference:

DOD is looking at various resources.

[REDACTED INFORMATION]

S [then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] expected to make statements one of which may confirm KIA, notification of next of kin is pending confirmation. DCM The Hague was to call OPS when completed.

White House is reaching out to U-Tube to advise ramifications of posting of the Pastor Jon video.

(The “Pastor Jon” reference may have been to a rarely viewed video by Oregon-based Pastor Jon Courson entitled God vs. Allah, a low-key exposition of the Biblical book of Kings.)

Note the date and time stamp. Contacting YouTube “to advise ramifications” of posting a video was one of the first things the Administration did after they found out what had happened to their Ambassador and his team.

Fearless leadership, that is.

These documents also reveal a little bit more about how flawed the Administration’s “spontaneous protest” narrative was. In a September 12 “Attack Timeline,” officials close to the investigation make no mention of a protest or internet video catalyst:

At 1549 hrs, DSCC was notified that U.S. Mission Benghazi was under attack. At 1600 hrs, DSCC [Diplomatic Security Command Center] was notified by Regional Security Officer (RSO) Benghazi that armed individuals had entered the compound, and at 1614 hrs RSO Benghazi reported that an armed group had set fire to buildings inside the compound. The US Ambassador was visiting post from Tripoli, and as of 1614 hrs it was suspected that one of the buildings that had been set on fire was the building where the Ambassador was sheltering. [Redacted] Quick Reaction Force (QRF) responded from their off-compound Annex, but was turned back due to heavy hostile fire.

As of 1700 hrs, [REDACTED] QRF and host nation militia (17 February Brigade) have redeployed to the compound. One Assistant RSO (ARSO) suffered injuries from smoke inhalation. This agent was in the Principal Officer’s Residence with U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Information Program Officer (IPO) Sean P. Smith. All three moved to the safe haven when the attack began, but had to relocate to the roof as the building caught on fire. The agent reached the rooftop but lost contact with the other two. The agent reentered the residence and found the IPO killed in action (KIA), and was unable to locate the Ambassador. The agent had given his cell phone to the Ambassador.

The new timeline also confirms prior Judicial Watch disclosures that the State Department received intelligence that Ambassador Stevens may have been alive after the attack:

The QRF and friendly militia forces were unable to locate the Ambassador, and pull back to the off-compound Annex. All classified material on the compound is secured by RSO [REDACTED] personnel. Embassy Tripoli receives a phone call from the injured ARSO’s cell phone (which had been left with the Ambassador) from a male caller saying he is at the hospital with an unresponsive male who matches a physical description of the Ambassador. [REDACTED MATERIAL]. Tripoli charters an airplane and sends it to Benghazi with six personnel onboard as a response team.

The Administration is still doing its best to keep under wraps high-level discussions on the response to the attacks—but there could be light at the end of the tunnel:

Hillary Clinton will testify this Thursday before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. We’ll keep you updated on any new revelations—especially the ones the Obama Administration would rather you not know about.

Follow Amy on Twitter @ThatAmyMiller

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Barracula and Hellary immediately went into LIE mode, and the First Amendment was thrown under the bus as a matter of convenience.

They not only KNEW what had really happened, they had largely CAUSED what happened.

Which, of course, is why they lied. They had the blood of Americans…both living and dead…on their miserable, corrupt hands.

    userpen in reply to Ragspierre. | October 20, 2015 at 3:14 pm

    “They had the blood of Americans…both living and dead…on their miserable, corrupt hands.”

    Yeah, and it won’t wash off.

    Estragon in reply to Ragspierre. | October 21, 2015 at 8:32 am

    We know Hillary spoke with Obama by phone at 10 pm while the fighting was ongoing. We don’t know where either went or what they did after that, even to the end of the battle and the determination of the losses, but there is no record of either asking for or being updated later.

    There are many questions to ask her, but that should be one of them.

The attack in Benghazi and its subsequent misdirection with the video was just a smokescreen for what was really happening. They did not want their gun running scheme to get out. Even more so, after the flak they got when Fast and Furious was exposed and caused deep pain for Odildo. To them, when they said they would get to the bottom of the situation, that meant to throw a deeper cover on the mess. They did not count on us Hobbits making sure that the coverup did not occur.

Nice one Branco, but if those britches represent Hillary’s foreign policy record, there should be a giant skid-mark on them.

So the first thought the administration had, before the bodies had even cooled, was: How do we blame this on an American?

It couldn’t be an attack by radical Islamist elements, made bold by the power vacuum Obama deliberately created in Libya on the anniversary of the original Sept 11th attacks…. no, it had to be because of an American citizen exercising his Constitutional rights in a youtube video seen by no one.

Who were the attackers? I had read in other media that they were usually hired by America, and that they had American weapons.

Why was the ambassador in Benghazi? Was he ordered to go there?

And finally, did America pay for the attack that killed the ambassador? I ask because all the evidence points in that direction.

After those questions are answered, then maybe we can look for a motive. The video was the initial motive, but everyone know that is a lie. It seems to me like the motive was that the attackers were paid to do it.

    rabidfox in reply to InEssence. | October 20, 2015 at 10:17 pm

    In essence, those are good questions. Some people think that Obama/Clinton were covering up a gun running scheme, but my opinion is a bit different. I think Obama wanted to turn the Blind Sheik over to Egypt (remember, the MB were in charge at the time) and was trying to get Stevens kidnapped and held hostage so that he could engineer an exchange for the sheik as well as looking like a hero for getting an ambassador free.

      AZ_Langer in reply to rabidfox. | October 21, 2015 at 5:31 pm

      That scenario is seldom mentioned, but there is certainly evidence to support raising the possibility. I wouldn’t dismiss the gun running plot, though. I’m afraid our tax dollars were used to stir a lot of ugly pots, and something was bound to boil over; perhaps that was the intent.

      What is most disturbing is that four precious American lives were lost in whatever the scheme/s, and their loss so rarely given a second thought.

Why has no one pointed out the fact that during that election, Romney was crucified for using subcontractors in China (later shown to be untrue) instead of Americans in some of his business dealings and yet Hillary used subcontractors for American security in Benghazi?
>
On another note, I pray there is a special place in Hell for people like Hillary who lie and steal, allowing others to suffer and die simply so they can line their own pockets.

They concentrate only on one end of the Emails. All the legitimate ones to a server that is authorized could be accounted for by time and date and address sent to. Why hasn’t any asked the questions of why the people sending the classified documents sent them to an unauthorized address. If they were included in a security investigation as to why they didn’t report a breach in security on where the communications were sent then some may speak up when they know they may be indited for security breach. Who sets the security rules and who is responsible to see they are followed? Why haven’t they been questioned?
Grampa

When it first happened, the news on tv showed Obama & Hillary watching the ” Fire Fight,” in real time on a giant Screen. How can they, Years later say that they know nothing ? ( Is that Sgt. Schultz – on Tv ? ) How juvenile of those two. Some Politicians are immune to prosecution.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend