Alleged Benghazi Ringleader Was Reportedly Responding To The Anti-Islam Video

[sana8410]

An alleged ringleader of the September 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, who is now in U.S. custody, reportedly told other Libyans during the attack that he was responding to an anti-Islam video that had been published on YouTube, demolishing a prominent right-wing media attack.

Conservatives in the media have fixated on Obama administration statements shortly after the attacks suggesting that the video had been a motive for the attackers. Conservatives have alleged that these statements were part of a deliberate effort to deceive the American people about the cause of the terror attacks in order to bolster President Obama's re-election campaign.

Ahmed Abu Khattala was captured Sunday by U.S. military and law enforcement in response to an indictment for murder in connection with his role as a suspected ringleader of the Benghazi attacks.

Abu Khattala told Libyans the night of the attack "that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video," according to The New York Times. From the Times:

    What he did in the period just before the attack has remained unclear. But Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video.

    An earlier demonstration venting anger over the video outside the American Embassy in Cairo had culminated in a breach of its walls, and it dominated Arab news coverage. Mr. Abu Khattala told both fellow Islamist fighters and others that the attack in Benghazi was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

    In an interview days after the attack, he pointedly declined to say whether he believed an offense such as the anti-Islamic video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. "From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad," he said.

The Times article is consistent with media reports from the scene of the attack that suggested the anti-Islam video had been a motive for at least some of the attackers. That video triggered anti-American protests across the Muslim world.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/17/captured-alleged-benghazi-ringleader-was-report/199771
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-captured-benghazi-suspect-in-secret-raid/2014/06/17/7ef8746e-f5cf-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html?hpid=z1

[1714193957]

1714193957

[1714193957]

1714193957

[1714193957]

1714193957

[1714193957]

1714193957

[Rigon]

So we are supposed to be persuaded the administration did not the peddle a lie for WEEKS that Benghazi was a spontaneous protest over a video,  which went awry when some bad characters seized the opportunity to join the fray.  And the proof of that is a Media Matters piece which is based on a NYSlimes piece that just happen to come  out after the lie unraveled but before the election?  So this piece makes unsourced claims that a terrorist said something in private conversations? 
Let me get this straight.  WHILE in the middle of a preplanned terror attack, Abu decided then would be a good time to inform his follow terrorists why they were there? And it was nothing but pure coincidence that it happened on the anniversary of 9/11?   
And this, to you, is more compelling than the testimonies of all those who were there, and every piece of hard evidence we have that shows the administration (both the CIA and SD) knew in real time there was no spontaneous protest and those attacking our unsecured facilities were Ansar Al Sharia? 
Let me guess...you believe that only the computers of those tied to the IRS scandal actually crashed and destroyed pertinent email records and that was just one of those unlucky happenstances when there are multiple redundant backups required by law?   

Lol.   Yeah, I think that is about all I need to say about it.

[noviapriani]

Lying about it will not help him anymore, it didn't save his presidency from failing…If it comes from a liberal, it's a lie

[zolace]

An alleged ringleader of the September 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, who is now in U.S. custody, reportedly told other Libyans during the attack that he was responding to an anti-Islam video that had been published on YouTube, demolishing a prominent right-wing media attack.

Conservatives in the media have fixated on Obama administration statements shortly after the attacks suggesting that the video had been a motive for the attackers. Conservatives have alleged that these statements were part of a deliberate effort to deceive the American people about the cause of the terror attacks in order to bolster President Obama's re-election campaign.

Ahmed Abu Khattala was captured Sunday by U.S. military and law enforcement in response to an indictment for murder in connection with his role as a suspected ringleader of the Benghazi attacks.

Abu Khattala told Libyans the night of the attack "that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video," according to The New York Times. From the Times:

    What he did in the period just before the attack has remained unclear. But Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video.

    An earlier demonstration venting anger over the video outside the American Embassy in Cairo had culminated in a breach of its walls, and it dominated Arab news coverage. Mr. Abu Khattala told both fellow Islamist fighters and others that the attack in Benghazi was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

    In an interview days after the attack, he pointedly declined to say whether he believed an offense such as the anti-Islamic video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. "From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad," he said.

The Times article is consistent with media reports from the scene of the attack that suggested the anti-Islam video had been a motive for at least some of the attackers. That video triggered anti-American protests across the Muslim world.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/17/captured-alleged-benghazi-ringleader-was-report/199771
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-captured-benghazi-suspect-in-secret-raid/2014/06/17/7ef8746e-f5cf-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html?hpid=z1

Why do you think most Americans now depend on FOXNews for the truth and ignore sources like MediaMatters? Why do you think that the New York Times is failing financially and is no longer trusted?
Could it be because they have been openly carrying Obama's water for the last six years and have given up any pretense of unbiased reporting?

[Rigon]

Why do you think most Americans now depend on FOXNews for the truth and ignore sources like MediaMatters? Why do you think that the New York Times is failing financially and is no longer trusted?
Could it be because they have been openly carrying Obama's water for the last six years and have given up any pretense of unbiased reporting?

 yeah.. the NY times debunked that shit... in their first interview with him... when the obama administration could not find him... he said absolutely nothing about any video...

and now... what a miracle... its about the video... what utter bull..... this is...

[umair127]

Conservatives in the media have fixated on Obama administration statements shortly after the attacks suggesting that the video had been a motive for the attackers.

First, the administration didn't just "suggest" it then...they flat out lied about it for weeks.  On September 14, the WH official blowhole flat out said that they did not have any intelligence that it was anything but a spontaneous riot over a video when we know for a fact that they knew that was completely and utterly false. 


Second, Mrs. Clinton was the first to "suggest" it that night before the attack was even over.  Where did she get that intel, given both the SD and the CIA on the ground were saying the opposite in real time?  We know for a fact from an email send to Mrs. Clinton the next morning that the SD had already informed Libya it was AaS.   


There is zero doubt the administration lied and they knew they lied.  That is not even disputable any more

[bryant.coleman]

Earlier the prophet cartoons in the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten and now the anti-Islam video made by some Egyptian. Why these people are so intolerant? Worse things are said about other religions (some of them by Muslims themselves), and they seldom react the way Muslims do.

[noviapriani]

I find it fascinating how the Obama administration has turned their supporters into just flat out blatant liars…
And how fast they run for the lie,  they don't care if it makes them look foolish....

[sana8410]

Just a few general questions here:

First, should we not all first and foremost agree that capturing this guy is good news?

Second, trial and conviction is perfect. We have over 200 such terrorist convictions under US law. Seven under military tribunal.

Third, those citing the NY Times investigation are exactly the same people for denounced the NY Times investigation for the conclusions it did make. And now they are here to cite the Times for what it did not conclude. Now that is funny.

Fourth, if the guy who led the terrorist attack claims it all started with a protest against the movie, who here thinks they know more than he did about that night?

Fifth, if it all did begin as a protest against the movie, so what? The first Intel reports given by Rice suggested that and that is good, it means they were right and the movie was a factor.

Sixth, there appears to be no al Qaeda connection here, offsetting a right wing claim that the intent was to coverup Al Qadea's continued existance.

 

Now if what the  guy said is confirmed, then everything the administraiton said is absolutely true, largely the NY Times conclusion of their investigation.

So what? Good news, your government got it right.

[zolace]

One week before the attack on Benghazi, Barack Hussein Obama boasted to the world at the Democrat convention that he had destroyed the terrorists, so he could ill afford to admit he was so wrong just before an election. Therefore he and his staff concocted a story and blamed it on ordinary folks who were just a little upset over a video.

That was their story (Hillary Clinton used it at 10:00 pm, and while Americans were still fighting and dying!), and they stuck to it long enough to get the lying bastard re-elected, with the help of the loyal media, like Candy Crowley, supporting his bullshit.

Barack Hussein Obama is wrong about almost everything, and the United States is falling apart at all levels under his horrible 'leadership'. Let this be a lesson to those Americans who voted for liberals.

[Rigon]

Just a few general questions here:

First, should we not all first and foremost agree that capturing this guy is good news?

That does not mean we can't note the timing or the subsequent bullshit from Obama water carriers. 

Second, trial and conviction is perfect. We have over 200 such terrorist convictions under US law. Seven under military tribunal.

I have no comment on that other than to say reasonable people disagree on the best way to deal with captured terrorists.  But certainly I want him tried, convicted, and executed.

Third, those citing the NY Times investigation are exactly the same people for denounced the NY Times investigation for the conclusions it did make. And now they are here to cite the Times for what it did not conclude. Now that is funny.

Utterly false.  There are those who believe only what Obama water carriers tells them to believe, and then there are those who can actually think critically.   

Fourth, if the guy who led the terrorist attack claims it all started with a protest against the movie, who here thinks they know more than he did about that night?

Who cares about "if" other than Bots?  Do facts not matter, Phud?  The point is there is no verifiable evidence he did.  But there is verifiable evidence there was no reports from those on the ground that night regarding a spontaneous protest or a video.

Fifth, if it all did begin as a protest against the movie, so what? The first Intel reports given by Rice suggested that and that is good, it means they were right and the movie was a factor.

Uh, the point is that it did not begin that way and regardless what was given to Rice, the initial reports did not include the meme.  Again, do facts not matter, Phud? 

Sixth, there appears to be no al Qaeda connection here, offsetting a right wing claim that the intent was to coverup Al Qadea's continued existance.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has now released its declassified review of the intelligence surrounding the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. The bottom line is this: Multiple parts of al Qaeda’s international terrorist network were involved.

Members of both Ansar al Sharia in Derna and Benghazi took part in the attack, according to the U.S. State Department. Some have tried to distance Ansar al Sharia in Libya from al Qaeda’s network, despite the fact that Ansar al Sharia in both Yemen and Tunisia are officially recognized by the U.S. government as being tied to al Qaeda. Ansar al Sharia in Yemen is, in fact, an obvious rebranding of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
See here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/al-qaeda-network-attacked-benghazi_774703.html

Now if what the  guy said is confirmed, then everything the administraiton said is absolutely true, largely the NY Times conclusion of their investigation.

Uh, no.  Nice try.  The administration has already confirmed their meme was, at the very least, not correct.  I know you want to pretend they weren't trying to sell it as a SPONTANEOUS protest, but it is a FACT that they did and a FACT that was totally false and that they knew it in real time.

So what? Good news, your government got it right.

Their incompetence created an ungovernable terrorist hidey hole in Benghazi, got four Americans killed on 9/11's anniversary, and then after a blatant coverup and continued stonewalling, they finally picked up the guy who has been walking around in the open since it happened.   This following the much touted release of 5 major Gitmo terrorists and the very quiet release of 12 more the same week from the military prison near Kabul.

[umair127]

One week before the attack on Benghazi, Barack Hussein Obama boasted to the world at the Democrat convention that he had destroyed the terrorists, so he could ill afford to admit he was so wrong just before an election. Therefore he and his staff concocted a story and blamed it on ordinary folks who were just a little upset over a video.

That was their story (Hillary Clinton used it at 10:00 pm, and while Americans were still fighting and dying!), and they stuck to it long enough to get the lying bastard re-elected, with the help of the loyal media, like Candy Crowley, supporting his bullshit.

Barack Hussein Obama is wrong about almost everything, and the United States is falling apart at all levels under his horrible 'leadership'. Let this be a lesson to those Americans who voted for liberals.

Facts always matter, and you do not have the facts.

The President took credit for decimating the core of Al Qaeda's leadership including the killing of Bin Laden, all accomplishments of this administration, Special Forces and the agressive use of drones. He did not claim an end to terrorism, and that is your lie.

No president will end terrorism, and your claim is laughable.

As to the details of the attack, we now have the leader of the attack claiming it started over the movie and you saying republicans know better than the guy who was there. Seriously?

The President cited the attack on Sept. 14th as an act of terror, and Susan Rice in her Sunday presentation on Face the Nation noted terrorists were at benghazi. Candy Crowly was correct. And the challenges to Benghazi came out long before the elections and voters took those into account in re-electing the President. Facts matter.

Finally, the nation is doing pretty well. Our economy is stronger than any Western democracy, our deficit has been cut in half, all jobs lost in the recession have been restored, the Federal reserve estimates the economy will grow at 3% this year and unemployment will fall to 6% or less by the end of the year. Corporate profits are strong and the stock markets are solid. College loans are being reduced, health cars costs are falling, the ACA has enrolled 13 million and rising. Our production of oil is at its highest level in 40 years and our total enegry production is higher than ever in our history.

We are ending two nation building wars where there was zero chance of success and we will no longer field troops on the ground in the ME where they cannot change the course of history.

The world and the nation still have problems, aways will. But this presidency has done a good job, and no, we are not falling apart anywhere but on Fox.

[zolace]

It makes no sense in the administration's narrative of pushing that it wasn't a pre-planned attack (even though we now know they knew otherwise) that the perp now suddenly claims that the attack was because of the video, even though he didn't mention the video when the New York Times interviewed him over frappes.  lol.  Or at least, it makes no sense to anyone but those of you invested in believing that the administration wasn't twisting the evidence to suit themselves.
You realize that we now know that these terrorists were talking to each other on our men's cell phones and we were listening in the night of the attacks as they called their superiors, and you still have no problem with them lying to the American people for weeks saying that they really had no evidence that it was a pre-planned, organized attack?

I don't really know what I can say to you that will make you pull your head out of your collective asses, but here's a timeline for your review:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

[sana8410]

It makes no sense in the administration's narrative of pushing that it wasn't a pre-planned attack (even though we now know they knew otherwise) that the perp now suddenly claims that the attack was because of the video, even though he didn't mention the video when the New York Times interviewed him over frappes.  lol.  Or at least, it makes no sense to anyone but those of you invested in believing that the administration wasn't twisting the evidence to suit themselves.
You realize that we now know that these terrorists were talking to each other on our men's cell phones and we were listening in the night of the attacks as they called their superiors, and you still have no problem with them lying to the American people for weeks saying that they really had no evidence that it was a pre-planned, organized attack?

I don't really know what I can say to you that will make you pull your head out of your collective asses, but here's a timeline for your review:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

I followed your link to factcheck and nothing in the timeline is a smoking gun, as you put it.  It shows the confusion of interviews with eye witnesses, data collected by investigators, the administration's reluctance to state categorically that it was one thing or another.  Why would they jump to a conclusion that it was pre-planned, when that wasn't know for sure?  As far as those who attacked and killed Americans that night talking on their phones to their "superiors", it just means that the used the dead people's phones because they were convenient and available.  How does that prove it was pre-planned?  I really don't care what makes sense to you , because a lot of perfectly logical things don't make sense to CONs, so why should this be any different. 

[Spendulus]

.... this presidency has done a good job....

This assertion does not even rise to the level of wrong, it is wronger than wrong.

[noviapriani]

Amazing things happen every day in the Obama administration. The newly caught terrorist miraculously confirms the 'video' bullshit and her dog ate Lois Lerner's hard drive.

[zolace]

It makes no sense in the administration's narrative of pushing that it wasn't a pre-planned attack (even though we now know they knew otherwise) that the perp now suddenly claims that the attack was because of the video, even though he didn't mention the video when the New York Times interviewed him over frappes.  lol.  Or at least, it makes no sense to anyone but those of you invested in believing that the administration wasn't twisting the evidence to suit themselves.
You realize that we now know that these terrorists were talking to each other on our men's cell phones and we were listening in the night of the attacks as they called their superiors, and you still have no problem with them lying to the American people for weeks saying that they really had no evidence that it was a pre-planned, organized attack?

I don't really know what I can say to you that will make you pull your head out of your collective asses, but here's a timeline for your review:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

I followed your link to factcheck and nothing in the timeline is a smoking gun, as you put it.  It shows the confusion of interviews with eye witnesses, data collected by investigators, the administration's reluctance to state categorically that it was one thing or another.  Why would they jump to a conclusion that it was pre-planned, when that wasn't know for sure?  As far as those who attacked and killed Americans that night talking on their phones to their "superiors", it just means that the used the dead people's phones because they were convenient and available.  How does that prove it was pre-planned?  I really don't care what makes sense to you , because a lot of perfectly logical things don't make sense to CONs, so why should this be any different. 

Answer this:  How can our officials have told us for weeks that there was no evidence of a pre-planned terrorist attack the night of the 9/11 anniversary as they were listening to those very terrorists communicate with their terrorist superiors from their terrorist organization on our men cell phones as it happened?  Yes, suddenly I suppose there were indeed "convenient and available" cell phones, as you put it, on which to contact the superiors in the organized attack since they had likely just taken their cell phones off their bodies.  
And the link shows the number of times, days and weeks after, which this administration refused to admit what they knew that it was.  You realize that the president of Libya was telling us it was obviously a pre-planned terror attack?  And that the state department was telling Libya which organization it was who carried it out as they were telling us it was a spontaneous protest over a video, right?  And that there was no spontaneous protest, or any protest at all at that location?  
The administration was trying to cover their asses with the "spontaneous and unexpected" attack story.  They got caught with their pants down on the anniversary of 9/11 at a post that should have had more security just days after the company line was that terrorists were on the run.  They needed everyone to believe this just could not have been foreseen, and if it could be blamed on a video rather than poor choices by our state department and the rest of the administration, well, even better.

[sana8410]

It makes no sense in the administration's narrative of pushing that it wasn't a pre-planned attack (even though we now know they knew otherwise) that the perp now suddenly claims that the attack was because of the video, even though he didn't mention the video when the New York Times interviewed him over frappes.  lol.  Or at least, it makes no sense to anyone but those of you invested in believing that the administration wasn't twisting the evidence to suit themselves.
You realize that we now know that these terrorists were talking to each other on our men's cell phones and we were listening in the night of the attacks as they called their superiors, and you still have no problem with them lying to the American people for weeks saying that they really had no evidence that it was a pre-planned, organized attack?

I don't really know what I can say to you that will make you pull your head out of your collective asses, but here's a timeline for your review:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

I followed your link to factcheck and nothing in the timeline is a smoking gun, as you put it.  It shows the confusion of interviews with eye witnesses, data collected by investigators, the administration's reluctance to state categorically that it was one thing or another.  Why would they jump to a conclusion that it was pre-planned, when that wasn't know for sure?  As far as those who attacked and killed Americans that night talking on their phones to their "superiors", it just means that the used the dead people's phones because they were convenient and available.  How does that prove it was pre-planned?  I really don't care what makes sense to you , because a lot of perfectly logical things don't make sense to CONs, so why should this be any different. 

Answer this:  How can our officials have told us for weeks that there was no evidence of a pre-planned terrorist attack the night of the 9/11 anniversary as they were listening to those very terrorists communicate with their terrorist superiors from their terrorist organization on our men cell phones as it happened?  Yes, suddenly I suppose there were indeed "convenient and available" cell phones, as you put it, on which to contact the superiors in the organized attack since they had likely just taken their cell phones off their bodies.  
And the link shows the number of times, days and weeks after, which this administration refused to admit what they knew that it was.  You realize that the president of Libya was telling us it was obviously a pre-planned terror attack?  And that the state department was telling Libya which organization it was who carried it out as they were telling us it was a spontaneous protest over a video, right?  And that there was no spontaneous protest, or any protest at all at that location?  
The administration was trying to cover their asses with the "spontaneous and unexpected" attack story.  They got caught with their pants down on the anniversary of 9/11 at a post that should have had more security just days after the company line was that terrorists were on the run.  They needed everyone to believe this just could not have been foreseen, and if it could be blamed on a video rather than poor choices by our state department and the rest of the administration, well, even better.

And the link shows the number of times, days and weeks after, which this administration refused to admit what they knew that it was.

And yet, here we are with the leader of the attack saying the video created the initial response and the attack followed. So the administration did say this, and it turns out to be absolutely correct. What is false is the right wing insistence that the video was not a factor...when the NY Times investigation discovered exactly the opposite.

You realize that the president of Libya was telling us it was obviously a pre-planned terror attack?

No, I do not realize that because it is not the truth. He said it was a terrroist attack, which it was, surrounded by a mob protesting a video. He made NO claim of pre-planning and there is no evidence of pre-planning.

And that the state department was telling Libya which organization it was who carried it out as they were telling us it was a spontaneous protest over a video, right?  And that there was no spontaneous protest, or any protest at all at that location?

You are 100% wrong here. Both the NY Times investigation and the captured terrorist say there was a protest at Benghazi. 
The administration was trying to cover their asses with the "spontaneous and unexpected" attack story.
 
This is simply a lie, and now you know better. retract your lie in the face of the facts.
 
  They got caught with their pants down on the anniversary of 9/11 at a post that should have had more security
Yes, absolutely...as anyone knows AFTER the attack.
 
 
 just days after the company line was that terrorists were on the run.
The facts are most of the Al Quada leadership, including Bin Laden were killed. No one made any claim that terrorism was ended. That was a conservative lie.
 
  They needed everyone to believe this just could not have been forseen, and if it could be blamed on a video rather than poor choices by our state department and the rest of the administration, well, even better.

I realize this is all pointless as you're quite dug in and invested in your position.Given the factual evidence it is you who are invested in a false position.

[zolace]

No, I do not realize that because it is not the truth. He said it was a terrroist attack, which it was, surrounded by a mob protesting a video. He made NO claim of pre-planning and there is no evidence of pre-planning.

Ahem.
Sept. 16: Magariaf says in an interview with NPR: “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.”

[sana8410]

I stand corrected on the Libyan Presidents "belief" of pre-planning, but note that the leader of the attack states that it was not pre-planned but seen as an opportunity when the protest over the movie was taking place.

But, like Republicans, I have no doubt the President of Libya knew more about the attack than the guy leading the attack, right?

Seriously, just how will you defend the indefensible when the attackers say the movie was part of the events of the day?

What kind of insanity claims republicans know more than the guys leading the attack?

[noviapriani]

The attack was inspired by the video at least among some attendees just as the administration believed and told the public.  Jihadists were involved as the administration also told the public.  When it was planned and the extent of the planning remain unknown.

Hindsight suggests security could have been better.  Consulate security budget increases were shot down by the GOP.

and oh yeah.....Obama is president and he did not fly in with a cape and save every last human.   Damn I hate him.

[Wilikon]

An alleged ringleader of the September 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, who is now in U.S. custody, reportedly told other Libyans during the attack that he was responding to an anti-Islam video that had been published on YouTube, demolishing a prominent right-wing media attack.

Conservatives in the media have fixated on Obama administration statements shortly after the attacks suggesting that the video had been a motive for the attackers. Conservatives have alleged that these statements were part of a deliberate effort to deceive the American people about the cause of the terror attacks in order to bolster President Obama's re-election campaign.

Ahmed Abu Khattala was captured Sunday by U.S. military and law enforcement in response to an indictment for murder in connection with his role as a suspected ringleader of the Benghazi attacks.

Abu Khattala told Libyans the night of the attack "that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video," according to The New York Times. From the Times:

    What he did in the period just before the attack has remained unclear. But Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video.

    An earlier demonstration venting anger over the video outside the American Embassy in Cairo had culminated in a breach of its walls, and it dominated Arab news coverage. Mr. Abu Khattala told both fellow Islamist fighters and others that the attack in Benghazi was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

    In an interview days after the attack, he pointedly declined to say whether he believed an offense such as the anti-Islamic video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. "From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad," he said.

The Times article is consistent with media reports from the scene of the attack that suggested the anti-Islam video had been a motive for at least some of the attackers. That video triggered anti-American protests across the Muslim world.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/17/captured-alleged-benghazi-ringleader-was-report/199771
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-captured-benghazi-suspect-in-secret-raid/2014/06/17/7ef8746e-f5cf-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html?hpid=z1

The momo video was released weeks before the attack. This was not a spontaneous attack. Not a coincidence on that date. There was a plane ready to take off  This dude was roaming free since the attack. He gave a 2 hour audio only interview to CNN in 2013.



http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/06/17/damon-benghazi-ahmed-abu-khattalah-intv-2013.cnn.html

Saying this Benghazi affair is a scandal does not automatically make people who believe this Bush lovers or racist KKK members.

[Wilikon]

The attack was inspired by the video at least among some attendees just as the administration believed and told the public.  Jihadists were involved as the administration also told the public.  When it was planned and the extent of the planning remain unknown.

Hindsight suggests security could have been better.  Consulate security budget increases were shot down by the GOP.

and oh yeah.....Obama is president and he did not fly in with a cape and save every last human.   Damn I hate him.

Benghazi Whistleblower Confirms the Military was ordered to STAND DOWN
http://youtu.be/duAgvzw6MHU

This whistleblower is a long time faithful democrat, long time civil servant. No reason to believe he voted for any republicans or is a secret KKK member.

Docs show Amb. Stevens asked -personally- for more security
http://youtu.be/zFKGX4ZhH-k

[JohnnyLightning]

Wow, the propaganda never ends.  When reading the headline of this thread, my first thought was that it was an Onion article.

[Wilikon]

I stand corrected on the Libyan Presidents "belief" of pre-planning, but note that the leader of the attack states that it was not pre-planned but seen as an opportunity when the protest over the movie was taking place.

But, like Republicans, I have no doubt the President of Libya knew more about the attack than the guy leading the attack, right?

Seriously, just how will you defend the indefensible when the attackers say the movie was part of the events of the day?

What kind of insanity claims republicans know more than the guys leading the attack?

...and yet

[...]
As a radical Islamic army marches across Iraq, America is making a deal with the devil. Qassem Suleymani, the head of Iran’s secretive Quds Force, is allied with us in Baghdad — but he’s plotted to kill Americans elsewhere.

As Kenneth R. Timmerman reveals in his new book, “Dark Forces,” Suleymani was even the shadowy figure behind the killing of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, Libya.

He’s the Wizard of Oz of Iranian terror, the most dreaded and most effective terrorist alive.

He is Qassem Suleymani, the head of the Quds Force, an organization that acts as a combination CIA and Green Berets for Iran, and a man who has orchestrated a campaign of chaos against the United States around the world.

Today, the Obama Administration has allied itself with Suleymani to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. In this case, Iran’s goals — a Shi’ite-friendly government in Iraq — coincides with America’s hope that the country doesn’t fall apart. But don’t be fooled: It’s only a partnership of convenience, and one that won’t last.

http://nypost.com/2014/06/20/how-irans-spy-chief-paid-for-the-benghazi-attack/


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we need to believe that:

. this attack was not planned
. The video on youtube was the trigger
. the ambassador was responsible of his own death
. 7 hours of relentless attack was too short for a quick military intervention
. the next day obama went for fundraising in las vegas he did not know the details about how his own ambassador died
. the NSA knows everything, nothing can escape its tentacles... except how exactly those americans died
. the CIA was not involved, although their top secret compound was attacked
. the dude who made the video spent a year in jail
. the dude 'now responsible only because of the momo video' meanwhile was sipping "72 virgins edition" margaritas, waiting for him to be arrested
. obama learnt all of that reading the morning newspaper

[Spendulus]

Wow, the propaganda never ends.  When reading the headline of this thread, my first thought was that it was an Onion article.

No it does not end.  Appears to be strictly an Obama phenomenon in my opinion.  We sure haven't seen anything like it in the US before.  We've seen it in other countries and laughed about it.

[Wilikon]

Just a few general questions here:

First, should we not all first and foremost agree that capturing this guy is good news?

Second, trial and conviction is perfect. We have over 200 such terrorist convictions under US law. Seven under military tribunal.

Third, those citing the NY Times investigation are exactly the same people for denounced the NY Times investigation for the conclusions it did make. And now they are here to cite the Times for what it did not conclude. Now that is funny.

Fourth, if the guy who led the terrorist attack claims it all started with a protest against the movie, who here thinks they know more than he did about that night?

Fifth, if it all did begin as a protest against the movie, so what? The first Intel reports given by Rice suggested that and that is good, it means they were right and the movie was a factor.

Sixth, there appears to be no al Qaeda connection here, offsetting a right wing claim that the intent was to coverup Al Qadea's continued existance.

 

Now if what the  guy said is confirmed, then everything the administraiton said is absolutely true, largely the NY Times conclusion of their investigation.

So what? Good news, your government got it right.

Good news, your government is lying to you? Surely you would be in the streets, burning some garbage cans if Bush was in power and Rice was talking about a youtube video...

[Wilikon]

http://youtu.be/NQ0d6J2xCzg



http://youtu.be/uFf0dUH3OtU



http://youtu.be/MB-itn_LJuM



http://youtu.be/lS0kvnMFepI

You know those obama supporters here are insane when wiling to defend the words of a terrorist but wiling not to believe a long time civil servant like Hicks. They've made a full 360 in their head, embracing the very evil that made them pour so much hopenchange in that clown in "charge"... You are wiling to lose any sort of personal "honor" by defending "your" team no matter how amazingly corrupt it is. You will all go down in History with it. Don't leave the Titanic Cult yet... Lots of Kool-aid still on board...

[Wilikon]

However, when Hillary picked up the phone and heard Obama’s voice, she learned the president had other ideas in mind. With less than two months before Election Day, he was still boasting that he had al Qaeda on the run.
If the truth about Benghazi became known, it would blow that argument out of the water.
“Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.”

This adviser continued: “Hillary told Obama, ‘Mr. President, that story isn’t credible. Among other things, it ignores the fact that the attack occurred on 9/11.’ But the president was adamant. He said, ‘Hillary, I need you to put out a State Department release as soon as possible.’”
After her conversation with the president, Hillary called Bill Clinton, who was at his penthouse apartment in the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, and told him what Obama wanted her to do.
“I’m sick about it,” she said, according to the legal adviser, who was filled in on the conversation.
“That story won’t hold up,” Bill said. “I know,” Hillary said. “I told the president that.” “It’s an impossible story,” Bill said. “I can’t believe the president is claiming it wasn’t terrorism. Then again, maybe I can. It looks like Obama isn’t going to allow anyone to say that terrorism has occurred on his watch.”
Hillary’s legal adviser provided further detail: “During their phone call, Bill started playing with various doomsday scenarios, up to and including the idea that Hillary consider resigning as secretary of state over the issue. But both he and Hillary quickly agreed that resigning wasn’t a realistic option.
If her resignation hurt Obama’s chances of winning re-election, her fellow Democrats would never forgive her. Hillary was already thinking of running for president in 2016, and her political future, as well as Obama’s, hung in the balance.”

Obama had put Hillary in a corner, and she and Bill didn’t see a way out. And so, shortly after 10 o’clock on the night of September 11, she released an official statement that blamed the Benghazi attack on an “inflammatory (video) posted on the Internet.”
The Benghazi Deception was in full swing.

http://nypost.com/2014/06/22/clinton-bristled-at-benghazi-deception-book/



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, according to Hillary Clinton, NOT some unknown KKK republicans, obama is a P.O.S. Liar in Chief. She told him NOT to lie and he did it anyway... MMmmuuhahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!!!!

Sorry sana. Hillary can't lie, can she?