Benghazi Attack: Timeline of Cover-Up

On 9/11/12, the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is attacked, leaving our ambassador and three other Americans dead. The initial claims of a protest over a video have been disproven. It was an outright terrorist attack. Since then, the story from the White House has changed several times. VP Biden clearly lied in the 10/11/12 VP debate when asked about this matter.

THE TIMELINE

9/11: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya is attacked, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans are killed.

9/12: Secretary Clinton and President Obama issue statements condemning both the video and the attacks. U.S. intelligence agencies have enough evidence to conclude a terrorist attack was involved.

9/13: Press Secretary Jay Carney condemns video and violence at a news conference.

9/14: Carney denies Administration had “actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.” The bodies of slain Americans return to Andrews Air Force Base. President Obama again blames the YouTube video.

9/16: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appears on Sunday talk shows and says the attacks were provoked by the video, exclusively. Libyan President Mohamed Magarief says, “no doubt that this [attack] was preplanned, predetermined.”

9/17: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refuses to call attacks an act of terror.

9/19: CNN reports having found Ambassador Stevens’s diary, which indicates concern about security threats in Benghazi. Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matthew Olsen tells Congress the attack in Libya was “terrorism.”

9/20: Carney tries to back up Olsen, says it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”  Obama refuses to call attack terrorism, citing insufficient information.

9/21: Secretary of State Clinton, at meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister, says, “What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

9/25: On ABC’s “The View,” Obama says, “we don’t have all of the information yet so we are still gathering.” To the U.N. assembly, Obama blames “A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”

9/26 Libya’s Magarief on the “Today” show says, “It was a preplanned act of terrorism directed against American citizens.” Published reports show U.S. Intel agencies and the Obama Administration knew within 24 hours that al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist were involved.

9/27: Innocence of Muslims filmmaker Mark Basseley Youseff (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) is arrested and denied bail on the charges of “probation violation.”

10/2: Carney declines to comment on reported requests from diplomats in Libya for additional security, citing the State Department’s internal investigation.

10/10:  In Congressional hearings on the Libya attacks, former regional security director Eric Nordstrom described his frustration with having those requests for additional security turned down by the government bureaucracy: “For me the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”

10/11: Biden at the VP debate: “Well, we weren’t told the wanted more security again.”

Sources:

http://theydontfoolme.com/6065/timeline-re-benghazi-terrorist-attacks-91112-and-obama-administration-reaction/

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/08/an-incriminating-timeline-the-obama-administration-and-libya/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/12/Fact-Check-Top-Ten-Worst-Lies-by-Joe-Biden-in-VP-Debate

WHAT IT MEANS

 

Biden’s 10/10 claims directly contradict statements by others that additional security was requested.

Obama, Clinton, and others initially blamed a video. Now it appears there never was a protest (about a video or any other issue) prior to the attack.

In the VP debate, Moderator Martha Raddatz asked Biden directly why administration spokesman “were talking about protests” in Benghazi. “When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on?”

 “Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community,” Biden said. “The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment.”http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-throws-intelligence-community-under-bus_654268.html

 Biden’s claim contradicts everything said by people on or near the scene.

Lt. Col. Andrew Wood said that when he heard of the attack on the Benghazi post on September 11, it was “instantly recognizable” that it had been a terrorist attack.

 Why?

 “Mainly because of my prior knowledge there,” Wood said. “I almost expected the attack to come. We were the last flag flying. It was a matter of time.” http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/security-officer-on-state-department-blocking-requests-for-me-the-taliban-is-inside-the-building/

This isn’t rocket science. Osama Bin Laden had been killed months earlier. This was the first anniversary of 9/11 since he died. It ought to have been standard protocol to beef up security in anticipation of unrest, protest, or even attacks. Why didn’t that happen? And, what was the ambassador doing in the consulate rather than staying in the better defended embassy? These are good questions to investigate.

Yet after the attack, why wouldn’t the first assumption be that it was a terror attack? Consider the description of the attack; does this sound like a spontaneous protest out of control?
 
On September 11, 2012, the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked by militias, heavily armed with rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, various small arms (possibly AK-47 and FN F2000 NATO assault rifles), gun trucks, and mortars, in a sustained gunbattle that lasted nearly 5 hours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_the_U.S._diplomatic_mission_in_Benghazi

UPDATE (10/12/12, 2:30PM):
Here's an interesting report on the intelligence that the White House claimed showed that the video was to blame. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/01/the-intel-behind-obama-s-libya-line.print.html

However, the intercept was one of several monitored communications during and after the attacks between members of a local militia called Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM, which, taken together, suggest the assault was in fact a premeditated terrorist attack, according to U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials not authorized to talk to the press.
 

In one of the calls, for example, members of Ansar al-Sharia bragged about their successful attack against the American consulate and the U.S. ambassador.
 

It’s unclear why the talking points said the attacks were spontaneous and why they didn’t mention the possibility of al Qaeda involvement, given the content of the intercepts and the organizations the speakers were affiliated with. One U.S. intelligence officer said the widely distributed assessment was an example of “cherry picking,” or choosing one piece of intelligence and ignoring other pieces, to support a preferred thesis.
 

One U.S. intelligence officer said the widely distributed assessment was an example of “cherry picking,” or choosing one piece of intelligence and ignoring other pieces, to support a preferred thesis.

“Even if you push out that one piece of intelligence,” said this intelligence officer, “it is still in the context of a conversation between a group with an affinity to al Qaeda and a manager of an al-Qaeda affiliate. Why were we only hearing about how the attack was inspired and not about that?”