Hillary’s aides knew within the first few minutes that it had nothing to do with the video:
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.”
Nope, no stonewalling in this administration.
Yawn, nothing new here. Days after the attack the CIA wrote up its talking points concluding that the video was involved, and a year later sources on the ground in Libya were still claiming that the attack was in part a response to the video. Maybe it was a factor, maybe it wasn’t, either way it’s ridiculous to fault Clinton for not ruling it out when the CIA hadn’t.
the false story about ‘inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.’
It’s undisputed that there was ‘inflammatory material being posted on the Internet’ that was the inspiration for violent attacks on multiple U.S. diplomatic facilities in Muslim countries that week. It’s crazy that mentioning that fact is considered a scandal.
“Days after the attack the CIA ”
Obama’s CIA? Or are you going to pretend that the CIA operates independently of their boss?
“Maybe it was a factor, maybe it wasn’t,’
Lol, it wasn’t and Clinton and Obama both knew it wasn’t. You know it wasn’t.
The Democrats intentionall scapegoated an innocent man for this and then threw him in jail. And here you are victimizing him all over again.
Obama’s CIA?
Way to change the subject. Your proof that Clinton lied is that maybe the CIA was lying? Now you have to prove that the CIA was lying. Not just wrong, or premature, but intentionally twisting its findings for political purposes.
You know it wasn’t.
No, I don’t. The reporting I’ve seen from Libya has participants in the attack claiming to be motivated by the video. It’s not a ridiculous notion — if that video was enough to get people storming U.S. facilities in Cairo and Tunisia, why couldn’t it have had some impact in Benghazi?
The Democrats intentionall scapegoated an innocent man
He deserves blame for making a hateful video, and he deserved to go back to jail for violating the conditions of his parole.
here you are victimizing him all over again
You defend him on free speech grounds (never mind that as a criminal on parole he didn’t have full civil rights), but think my writing about the well-documented impact of his video makes him a victim? That’s a whopper of a double-standard.
He deserves blame for making a hateful video
Gone is any doubt I had that Jim stood against blasphemy laws. Admittedly, ever since he started using the term layman in Global Warming discussions, I got the impression he was all for laws against blasphemy, but this confirms he is good with it for other religions as well.
I am 100% against blasphemy laws. There’s a difference between behavior that is blame-worthy and behavior that is criminal.
Sounds like another lie from you, Jim. You are trying to make a distinction not backed up with action. The video wasn’t hateful, unless you find it blasphemous. No one cared about the parole violation until people like you blamed the video on the attack and the video being hateful. You’re the same person claiming the videos of ISIS burning people alive and cutting off their heads should not cause us to hate them.
The video wasn’t hateful, unless you find it blasphemous.
Of course it was — even the title paints Muslims as evil.
No one cared about the parole violation
That doesn’t turn parole restrictions into blasphemy laws.
You’re the same person claiming the videos of ISIS burning people alive and cutting off their heads should not cause us to hate them.
I’m the person saying we shouldn’t react to those videos the way that their creators hope and intend.
Has anyone from the terrorist side ever said that the attack was in response to The Innocence of Muslims? I’ve never found a single reference to the video by a Muslim. Unless you can, Jim, you can’t even consider it a possibility that the video had anything to do with the attack. So come on, produce it. Until then, the video had nothing to do with the attack, even as a possible motivation. How Hillary and Obama came up with it is beyond me, but they are the only people, to my knowledge, who have ever asserted the connection.
the video had nothing to do with the attack, even as a possible motivation.
Why do you assume that a mob has to document their motivation prior to (or even after) launching an attack?
I was in Germany on business when the video was initially producing its uproar, and on two occasions a muslim cab driver would ask me (since it was obvious I was an American) with rather intense interest about the video. I would have to explain that our society allows free speech, even distasteful free speech, etc. But if cabbies in Frankfurt were upset, why is it such a stretch to believe that people in a place like Benghazi were incensed?
The stretch is that the supposed incensification of the people with the video in Benghazi would magically provide them with RPGs and tactics to take control of a U.S. consulate. Your question makes you look like a fool.
Or a liar. Like Hillary, Susan Rice, and Barack Obama.
The stretch is that the supposed incensification of the people with the video in Benghazi would magically provide them with RPGs and tactics to take control of a U.S. consulate
You think it’s difficult for people in that part of the world to buy some RPGs, or even to have them at hand for the next action they want to start? Like the big hand of government there has a tight control on the free flow of munitions?
No, I don’t think it difficult at all. I also don’t think that people would suddenly, instantly acquire them, along with tactics how to use them, because they were mad about an internet video. This story was always bulls**t. Hint: What was the date on which the attack occurred?
and tactics to take control of a U.S. consulate.
A militant might very well have a coordinated plan in mind (“someday we’re going to go after that consulate…”) and still wait for a moment when public outrage is sufficient to carry through a devastating attack. This isn’t far-fetched, it seems rather basic human psychology.
Your question makes you look like a fool.
It’s your site, and I try to be respectful. Ad hominems don’t strike me as useful though.
Has anyone from the terrorist side ever said that the attack was in response to The Innocence of Muslims?
Yes. From the New York Time’s story the day after the attack:
How Hillary and Obama came up with it is beyond me, but they are the only people, to my knowledge, who have ever asserted the connection.
You might want to diversify your information sources.
The stretch is that the supposed incensification of the people with the video in Benghazi would magically provide them with RPGs and tactics to take control of a U.S. consulate
Nobody ever claimed that the groups came into existence in response to the video. The question is whether the video figured into the motivation for and timing of the attack.
And, FWIW, it was a mission, not a consulate.
Hint: What was the date on which the attack occurred?
The same date that 3,000 Egyptian Salafists attacked the U.S. embassy in Cairo in protest over the video. There’s nothing about the date that rules out the video as a factor in Benghazi as well.
Jim, you sound a bit like a 9/11 truther. You still won’t even admit to yourself that it was a terror attack, despite your claims that Obama himself called it one.
The Obama administration lied. It was coordinated across departments and the lie was the official story told. Not sure why you find that surprising considering how the Obama administration lies about literally everything.
They didn’t even need to lie here. No one would be shocked that an AQ affiliate attacked our embassy on 9/11. People would have been all, “AQ gonna AQ.”
But go ahead and tell us how it was really a protest.
They needed to lie because the truth was spoiling the campaign narrative (and lie) that “Al Qaeda is on the run.”
It was a terror attack, not a protest. That doesn’t mean that the video wasn’t a factor, or that anyone in the administration lied when they said that they believed the video was a factor. It was impossible to know at that point that the video wasn’t a factor — it’s impossible to know that even today.
that anyone in the administration lied when they said that they believed the video was a factor.
That’s not what they said.
That’s not what they said.
You claim, above, that “Hillary’s aides knew within the first few minutes that it had nothing to do with the video”. How could they possibly know that?
How could they possibly know that?
How could the Administration have known the attack was caused by a spontaneous protest regarding the video? There was never a protest and that part was known minutes into the attack, as was recounted by the people who were there and survived.
How could the Administration have known the attack was caused by a spontaneous protest regarding the video?
Almost immediately there were reports that the attackers were motivated by the video. The video was inspiring violence against U.S. facilities in a half-dozen other countries that week. No one from the administration claimed to have the whole story in those first days, but it wasn’t crazy to consider the video a factor.
Almost immediately there were reports that the attackers were motivated by the video.
Evidence? Not one person in Benghazi ever made those reports.
No one from the administration claimed to have the whole story in those first days
Again, you make a dismissive that is neither true or relevant. The administration claimed a story in those first days that was never true nor ever backed by evidence.
Way to change the subject. Your proof that Clinton lied is that maybe the CIA was lying? Now you have to prove that the CIA was lying. Not just wrong, or premature, but intentionally twisting its findings for political purposes.
Here’s the thing, we have both the Department of State and the CIA figuring out quickly who actually did the attacks and why. Yet they spread this interesting narrative which all of the interested parties already knew was false. So what if this narrative in question supposedly originated with the CIA? Why did all the involved parties lie?
I think the answer is obvious. By dragging out this story and deflecting blame from administration officials, they lessened the impact of the scandal on the coming election.
It’s undisputed that there was ‘inflammatory material being posted on the Internet’ that was the inspiration for violent attacks on multiple U.S. diplomatic facilities in Muslim countries that week. It’s crazy that mentioning that fact is considered a scandal.
Given that your baseless “fact” is being disputed, then I guess you’re just blatantly wrong again. Instead, the organization of the attacks indicates that they would have attacked no matter what particular grievance happened to be on the list that day. That takes planning and scheduling. And of course, let us keep in mind the day was September 11. That indicates to me that the actual inspiration for the attacks was the original September 11 attacks.
Yet they spread this interesting narrative which all of the interested parties already knew was false.
There’s no reason to think that they knew it was false. It might not have even been false.
Instead, the organization of the attacks indicates that they would have attacked no matter what particular grievance happened to be on the list that day.
Maybe they would have attacked eventually, maybe not. Maybe the video only affected the timing, and/or the specific motivations of the attackers on that day. But there’s no way anyone in the U.S. could be sure the next day that the video hadn’t played any part at all. We can’t be sure of that even today.
And of course, let us keep in mind the day was September 11. That indicates to me that the actual inspiration for the attacks was the original September 11 attacks.
Then your thinking is leading you astray. 3,000 Salafists attacked the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on that same September 11. That timing would indicate to you that the inspiration was the original 9/11 attacks, but you’d be wrong: the attack was organized as a protest against the video.
It might not have even been false.
Jim has lost the argument forever.
There’s no reason to think that they knew it was false. It might not have even been false.
Have to agree. You lost the argument. We know it wasn’t a spontaneous attack in response to a YouTube video. We know the relevant authorities in the federal government knew that within a little while of the attack itself. And we know that the federal government from Obama on down pushed a narrative that was completely at odds with the facts that they knew.
Maybe they would have attacked eventually, maybe not. Maybe the video only affected the timing, and/or the specific motivations of the attackers on that day. But there’s no way anyone in the U.S. could be sure the next day that the video hadn’t played any part at all. We can’t be sure of that even today.
So they would have attacked on some other September 11 that year?
Then your thinking is leading you astray. 3,000 Salafists attacked the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on that same September 11. That timing would indicate to you that the inspiration was the original 9/11 attacks, but you’d be wrong: the attack was organized as a protest against the video.
I think I’d be that other thing, right. Without the video, they would have come up with some other grievance, but they wouldn’t have rioted some other day.
Jim, I think you ought to take a timeout on this subject until you learn the actual facts of this matter.
We know it wasn’t a spontaneous attack in response to a YouTube video.
Spontaneous, no, but the role of the video is still in question all this time later.
And we know that the federal government from Obama on down pushed a narrative that was completely at odds with the facts that they knew.
No, we know that they presented a narrative that was consistent with the initial reports they got from the CIA. The GOP House Intelligence Committee investigated the CIA’s work at length, and found no attempt to distort or cover up their findings.
the actual facts of this matter.
The actual facts don’t fit your story.
What’s even crazier that it happened on 9/11!!! A day that should have had added security, simply because of the day!!! Gosh, what a coincidence!!! That’s so crazy.
But no, we’ll blame it on a video.
A day that should have had added security, simply because of the day!!!
Yes, we were attacked on 9/11/2011. But there was also deadly violence against a variety of U.S. facilities on September 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, 2011 (all of it triggered by the video). And that’s only looking at September, 2011. We were attacked on September 13, 2013 in Afghanistan. On February 1, 2013 in Turkey. On September 14, 2012 in Yemen. On April 5, 2010 in Pakistan. On September 17, 2008 in Yemen. On July 9, 2008 in Turkey. On March 18, 2008 in Yemen. September 12, 2006 in Syria. March 2, 2006 in Pakistan. December 6, 2006 in Saudi Arabia. June 30, 2004 in Uzbekistan. February 28, 2003 in Pakistan (should we be on high alert today?). October 12, 2002 in Indonesia. June 14, 2002 in Pakistan. January 22, 2002 in India.
When it comes to attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities, there’s nothing special about September 11.
Okay.
And they all had something to do with a video, I’m sure.
Hillary’s aides knew within the first few minutes that it had nothing to do with the video:
This summary demonstrates, in a nutshell, how crazy this scandal narrative is. Nobody but the terrorists themselves could possibly know within a few minutes that the attack had nothing to do with the video. It isn’t as if terrorists are under some obligation to publicly declare their true motivations before opening fire. So the only way this argument can make sense is if these emails prove that Clinton herself ordered the attack. Now that would be a real scandal.
Jim, you’re delusional.
The attacks could’ve been caused by outrage over Kim Kardashian’s shoes, too, but that’s not what the ground was reporting. What they were reporting was that it was a coordinated terrorist attack, soon even saying who was behind it. Yet Hillary didn’t just blame a video, she denied it was a terrorist attack (on 9/11, no less). She lied.
Jim, you’re delusional.
An evergreen observation.
*snicker *
Yet Hillary didn’t just blame a video, she denied it was a terrorist attack (on 9/11, no less).
I think you’re being delusional. Show me the quote where Clinton denied it was a terrorist attack.
In front of the flag-draped coffins on the tarmac, Hilliary clasped the hands of the parents, looked into their eyes, and with careful cadence and solemn words lied through her teeth.
She’s a poster child for depraved indifference.