Posted on 02/26/2015 1:33:18 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
FULL TITLE: Hillary Clinton’s Top Aides Knew from First Minutes that Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack, E-mails Disclose
From the very first moments of the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aides were advised that the compound was under a terrorist attack. In fact, less than two hours into the attack, they were told that the al-Qaeda affiliate in Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility.
These revelations and others are disclosed by a trove of e-mails and other documents pried from the State Department by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The FOIA litigation focuses on Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the government actions before, during, and after the Benghazi attack, in which Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was murdered by terrorists. Also killed in the attack were State Department information management officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who were contract security employees and who had fought heroically, saving numerous American lives. At least ten other Americans were wounded, some quite seriously.
At 4:07 p.m., just minutes after the terrorist attack began, Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s chief-of-staff, and Joseph McManus, Mrs. Clinton’s executive assistant, received an e-mail from the State Department’s operations center (forwarded to her by Maria Sand, a special assistant to Secretary Clinton). It contained a report from the State Department’s regional security officer (RSO), entitled “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi is Under Attack.” The e-mail explained that approximately 20 armed people had fired shots at the diplomatic mission, that explosions had been heard as well, and that Ambassador Stevens was believed to be in the compound with at least four other State Department officials.
About a half-hour later, another e-mail — this one from Scott Bultrowicz, then director of diplomatic security (DSCC) — related:
15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is. At approximately 1600 [4 p.m.] DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 [4:14 p.m.] RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire.
At 6:06 p.m., another e-mail that went to top State Department officials explained that the local al-Qaeda affiliate had claimed responsibility for the attack:
Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): “(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli”
Despite this evidence that her top staffers were informed from the start that a terrorist attack was underway and that an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group had claimed credit for it, Secretary Clinton issued an official statement claiming the assault may have been in “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”
This was a reference to an obscure anti-Islamic video trailer for a film called Innocence of Muslims. Secretary Clinton’s statement took pains to add that “the United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” — further intimating that the video was the cause of the attack.
I have previously recounted that this official Clinton statement was issued shortly after 10 p.m. — minutes after President Obama and Secretary Clinton spoke briefly on the telephone about events in Benghazi, according to Clinton’s congressional testimony. The White House initially denied that Obama had spoken with Clinton or other top cabinet officials that night. The president’s version of events changed after Secretary Clinton’s testimony.
As I’ve also previously detailed (see here and here), Gregory Hicks, Ambassador Stevens’ deputy who was in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi attacks, was the main State Department official in Libya briefing his superiors that night. He testified before Congress that he briefed Secretary Clinton and her top aides at 8 p.m. He further testified that the video was a “non-event” in Benghazi.
Hicks added that he was clear in his briefing and other communications with his superiors that the Benghazi operation was a terrorist attack. Indeed, at the time he briefed Clinton, the pressing concern was that Ambassador Stevens might then be being held at a hospital that was under the control of terrorists. An hour later, at 9 p.m., Hicks learned from the Libyan prime minister that Stevens had been killed.
At 12:11 a.m., about two hours after the issuance of Secretary Clinton’s statement suggesting that the video had prompted the violence, Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief-of-staff, e-mailed State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to ask, “Can we stop answering emails for the night Toria b/c now the first one is hanging out there.” This appears to be a suggestion that the State Department allow Secretary Clinton’s statement stand alone as the department’s narrative for the media. At the time, the attack was still ongoing and there were still press inquiries about Ambassador Stevens’s whereabouts and well-being.
The revelations in the newly released e-mails were unveiled by Judicial Watch this afternoon at a press conference in Washington. In a press statement, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton asserted that the e-mails left “no doubt that Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened.” Mr. Fitton further opined that “it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about ‘inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.’ The contempt for the public’s right to know is evidenced not only in these documents but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them.
Benghazi - The Hillary Timeline
8:00 PM - Hillary Clinton calls Gregory Hicks. (Hicks testified that he told her exactly what was happening.)
10:00 PM - WH: Obama Called Hillary at 10PM on Night of Benghazi Attack. February 20, 2013
10:38 PM - Hillary Tweets apology for "anti-Mohammed video" from Cairo Twitter account. (That was about 20 - 22 hours after the first apology was tweeted from the Cairo embassy.)
The question still remains.. how much of an effect will it have on her running anyway regardless of whatever is EXPOSED.
Obama couldn’t be bothered to break away from his coke snorting and butt humping to deal with a minor issue like this.
They have absolutely no shame.
One day we will have a woman president. It just won’t be this sorry excuse of a woman. The Dems can go on about the “war on women” but Hillary looked the other way when Billy Boy was committing his own personal “war” on women, and then afterwards she intimidated and threatened these women as the head of the Bimbo Eruption Unit.
Hillary: “What difference at this point does it make?!!!”
It’s easy, liberals have no shame.
Why? It was a surprise attack, wasn’t it? Why couldn’t they just say the terrorists hit us in Benghazi?
Funny.
I thought that Hillaries staffers were more competent than she was.
What we find is that she is much more corrupt than they are.
“Why? It was a surprise attack, wasn’t it? Why couldn’t they just say the terrorists hit us in Benghazi?”
Simple. They were afraid that it might cost them a point or two in the election.
In Hillary’s case, she knew that she had denied beefing up security in Benghazi, so she could blow the funds on favors to friends on the continent.
She was concerned that it would make her look bad as well.
Guess what. It does, it did, and she looks far, far, worse than if she had done the right thing.
The Democrats use of the video can only be put forth as an excuse as to WHY the attack occurred. It can not be used as an excuse for why Hillary didn’t provide the proper security in Benghazi. She didn’t use the video as an excuse to release her from her negligence in not securing things in Benghazi. So what was it that she was trying to excuse?
She was trying to excuse and cover up the REAL reason for the attack in Benghazi. Big, big difference.
further proof the bitch is a LIAR.
Bttt!
Bumping that post!
So doesn’t this mean the White House (President Obama) and Secretary of State Clinton framed that guy with the youtube video and then had him jailed?
The Clinton’s paid nearly a million or slandering Paula Jones long ago. Here the President and Clinton framed a videographer for inspiring terrorism and then wrongly jailed him. Seems a major abuse of power and their offices now looking back on it regarding a legal resident or citizen.
What gets done about that?
Has anyone realized how stupid the You Tube video excuse was in the first place? ...Like how many people in Libya actually HAVE computers, and sit around getting upset at You Tube videos?!
...because Hitlery was afraid the real purpose of the gunrunning (in this case, Missle Running), in Benghazi would come out, and incriminate her. Her first gut instinct was to push it off onto a video maker...that, and I believe she’s categorically UNABLE to tell the truth about anything, even when the truth wouldn’t incriminate her.
All he would do is holler at her some and then go get another funny haircut.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.