Benghazi: Warnings Went Unheeded

As you continue to spread misinformation about the Benghazi attacks long after the facts have painted a different picture, we are left to assume you are exploiting this tragedy for political purposes. For instance, there was no “video” feed that the President watched during the attacks. Two U.S. Predator drones were launched and — arriving after the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith — provided overhead images used by the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) operators below to map out escape routes in the Benghazi rescue and evacuation operation that saved nearly 40 Americans.

Secondly, the facts are clear that statements claiming the President “refused to provide help,” are false and outrageous. The President was visiting wounded veterans at Walter Reed Medical Center in Bethesda when the attack unfolded. He was briefed by his National Security Advisor and then proceeded to meet with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They later testified that the President ordered the immediate deployment of all necessary forces and that White House was fully engaged with the Military Command Center for the duration of the attacks. A White House photo documented the President continuing to meet with members of the a National Security Council well into the evening. At 10 pm, the President conferred with Secretary Clinton who had just conferences with the CIA director and she had also been in direct contact with Gregory Hicks in Libya. By the time the President moved from the Oval Office to the White House Residence after midnight, the attacks were over and all surviving personnel — nearly 40 Americans — were being escorted to the airport by CIA Global Response Staff (GRS) paramilitary soldiers and Pentagon JSOC commandos, as well as February 17 Brigade forces, Libyan Shield fighters, and Libyan Military Intelligence soldiers who had responded in more than 50 vehicles.

Finally, you spread the partisan disinformation about the anti-Islam propaganda video — which had just been translated to Arabic and widely televised in the region — and the resulting widespread unrest throughout the Mideast.

The President, Secretary of State, Ambassador Rice and multiple Administration officials made one point crystal clear: It made no difference what motivated the attacking militants. There was no excuse for the violence against our people. None.

And, of course, intelligence and news reports were the foundation for the public statements from the Obama Administration. Ambassador Rice described the attack as being perpetrated by well-armed extremists. On September 16, 2012, Rice told Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation, “Whether they were al-Qaida affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al-Qaida itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.”

Bloomberg reported on October 12, 2012 that the intelligence was entirely consistent with the Administration accounts and they still stand as the most accurate assessment of the attacks:
“The senior intelligence official said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the [outpost].”

“We believe the timing of the attack was influenced by events in Cairo,” the senior official said, reaffirming the Cairo-Benghazi link. He said that judgment is repeated in a new report prepared this week for the House intelligence committee.”

“Here’s how the senior official described the jumble of events in Benghazi that day: “The attackers were disorganized; some seemed more interested in looting. Some who claimed to have participated joined the attack as it began or after it was under way. There is no evidence of rehearsals, they never got into the safe room .?.?.never took any hostages, didn’t bring explosives to blow the safe room door, and didn’t use a car bomb to blow the gates.”

“It was a flash mob with weapons,” is how the senior official described the attackers. The mob included members of the Ansar al-Sharia militia, about four members of al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, and members of the Egypt-based Muhammad Jamal network, along with other unarmed looters.”

Not only has it long been disproven that the Administration was “lying” about or “covering up” the link between the attacks and the video protests, there was not even any motive for the Administration to do so. While the Administration could rightly take credit for getting bin Laden and decimating the core leadership of al Qaeda, the President never hung a “Mission Accomplished” banner in regard to the war on terror. In fact, President Obama did just the opposite when he addressed the American people on the night bin Laden was killed, reminding us that the work was not over and that the terrorists would continue to target Americans.

Again, the link between the Benghazi attacks and the anti-Islam propaganda video did not originate with the Obama Administration. The early news reports, including interviews with protesters and militants at the scene, described how the already well-armed members of the attacking militia were prompted to act after viewing on TV the protests in Cairo over the anti-Islam propaganda video:

— Washington Post: Stevens arrived Monday from the embassy in Tripoli. “A friend who spent Monday and Tuesday with him said Stevens held meetings with nongovernmental organizations and militia leaders on both days. When the friend dropped Stevens off at the consulate Tuesday afternoon, he said, nothing appeared to be amiss – beyond the protesters.”

“The first protesters had showed up around noon. Wanis al-Sharif, the deputy Libyan interior minister, said in an interview that the demonstrators were angered by a low-budget American film that portrayed the prophet Muhammad in a blasphemous manner. As the day wore on, Sharif said, the anger escalated and people with weapons infiltrated the crowd.”

“By late Tuesday evening,” heavily armed militants “joined protesters outside the consulate who were demonstrating against an American movie that they believed denigrated the prophet Muhammad. They said, `We are Muslims defending the prophet. We are defending Islam,’?” Libyan television journalist Firas Abdelhakim said in an interview.” (September 12, 2012)

— CNN quoted Libyan officials describing that “an “angry crowd” marched on the U.S. compound Tuesday, furious about an American-produced online film considered offensive to Muslims.” (September 12, 2012)

— The Daily Telegraph: One eyewitness told “how an armed group infiltrated the ordinary protesters and sounded a warning. They told those nearby to stay back, that they had guns.” (September 12, 2012)

— The New York Times: The Times, which had two journalists on the ground the night of the attack, also reported on demonstrators on the scene who were motivated by the anti-Islam film. “A group of armed assailants mixed with unarmed demonstrators gathered at the small compound that housed a temporary American diplomatic mission” in Benghazi. “Interviewed at the scene on Tuesday night, many attackers and those who backed them said they were determined to defend their faith from the video’s insults,” the Times reported. (September 12, 2012)

— AP reported that, “A lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.” “One of the Benghazi outpost’s private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him “an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet.” (October 27, 2012)

— CBS/AP reported that “Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.” (September 12, 2012)

— Reuters, which also had reporters in Benghazi, reported that “the attackers were part of a mob blaming America for a film they said insulted the Prophet Mohammad.” The article quoted 17-year-old Haman, who took part in the attack, as saying: “The protesters were running around the compound just looking for Americans, [and] they just wanted to find an American so they could catch one.” “Hamam said Ansar al-Sharia cars arrived at the start of the protest but left once fighting started.” (September 12, 2012)

— Reuters reporter on NPR: “Almost Everybody Here Believes That It Was A Reaction To The Movie.” NPR’s Morning Edition, the network interviewed Hadeel Al-Shalchi of Reuters, who “had been talking with authorities and protestors.” (September 13, 2012)

— Al Jazeera: Attackers Were Responding To News Of “American Movie Insulting The Prophet Mohammed.” Al Jazeera producer Suleiman El Dressi reported from Benghazi that “a group of people calling themselves as “Islamic law supporters” heard the news that there will be an American movie insulting the Prophet Mohammed. Once they heard this news they came out of their military garrison and they went into the street calling [unintelligible] to gather and go ahead and attack the American consulate in Benghazi.” (September 12, 2012)

— AP reported a day after the Benghazi attack, an unidentified Ansar al-Shariah spokesman said the militia was not involved “as an organization” — leaving open the possibility members were involved. He praised the attack as a popular “uprising” sparked by the anti-Islam film, further propagating the image of a mob attack against the [outpost]. (September 12, 2012)

— New York Times: “Libyans Who Witnessed the Assault And Know The Attackers Say They Cited The Video.” The New York Times reported having spoken with “fighters involved in the assault,” who told the paper “in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon.” “Interviewed at the scene on Tuesday night, many attackers and those who backed them said they were determined to defend their faith from the video’s insults,” the Times reported. “Their attack followed by just a few hours the storming of the compound surrounding the United States Embassy in Cairo by an unarmed mob protesting the same video.” (September 12, 2012 and October 16, 2012)

It was a video…you can keep your plan, period…WMDs…I did not have sex…and the list goes on and on and on and on.