[h=1]State Dept. Reaffirms That Anti-Islamic Video Did Not Motivate Benghazi Attack[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Aaron Kliegman
June 28, 2016 4:14 pm
State Department spokesman Mark Toner reaffirmed Tuesday that the 2012 terrorist attacks on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, were planned and coordinated by extremists rather than motivated by an anti-Islamic YouTube video.
Toner answered questions about the Benghazi attacks at the State Department press briefing on the day that House Republicans released an 800-page report on the incident in which they blamed bureaucratic delays and political considerations by U.S. officials for not stopping the assault.
Four Americans, including Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, were killed on September 11, 2012, when terrorists stormed the diplomatic outpost, which Toner said on Tuesday was not sufficiently protected. Then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Obama administration initially blamed the attack on a YouTube video that slandered the Prophet Mohammad, which they said inspired a spontaneous protest that grew violently out of hand. Then-United Nations ambassador Susan Rice appeared on several Sunday news shows following the Benghazi attack to say that the video motivated the assault.
The administration later changed its narrative and called the incident a pre-planned terrorist attack.
Associated Press reporter Bradley Klapper asked Toner on Tuesday to clarify the administration’s official position on the role that the video played in the attack.
Toner said the government’s initial assessment took the video into account because of events that were occurring at the time throughout the Middle East and North Africa, including protests at embassies in Cairo and Khartoum that were motivated in part by a video “that was seen as blasphemy against Prophet Mohammad.”
“But I think with respect to Benghazi,” Toner continued, “after several days or a week or so, we quickly changed that analysis to better represent the facts as we knew them, which was that it was a coordinated attack on our facilities by an armed force of extremists.”
Toner said that administration officials “did the best we could to convey the facts as we knew them at the time to the American people” in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack.
“Just to clarify, you no longer believe the video played any role in motivating these extremists?” Klapper asked.
“To be honest, I don’t think we’ve ever been able to categorically say that the video played no role, but what I think we have been able to say is that this wasn’t a demonstration gone awry; this was a coordinated attack,” Toner responded.
“So you don’t believe the video was the motivating factor for this attack? Klapper asked again.
“Yes, yes, yes,” Toner said. “What I can say is that this was not some demonstration motivated by this video that suddenly spun up into an attack on our facilities. This was a coordinated attack.”
Hillary Clinton had told her daughter and the Egyptian prime minister shortly after the attack that the Benghazi assault was a “planned attack” by an “al Qaeda-like group” before the administration publicly blamed the YouTube video.
TWEET
BY: Aaron Kliegman
June 28, 2016 4:14 pm
State Department spokesman Mark Toner reaffirmed Tuesday that the 2012 terrorist attacks on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, were planned and coordinated by extremists rather than motivated by an anti-Islamic YouTube video.
Toner answered questions about the Benghazi attacks at the State Department press briefing on the day that House Republicans released an 800-page report on the incident in which they blamed bureaucratic delays and political considerations by U.S. officials for not stopping the assault.
Four Americans, including Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, were killed on September 11, 2012, when terrorists stormed the diplomatic outpost, which Toner said on Tuesday was not sufficiently protected. Then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Obama administration initially blamed the attack on a YouTube video that slandered the Prophet Mohammad, which they said inspired a spontaneous protest that grew violently out of hand. Then-United Nations ambassador Susan Rice appeared on several Sunday news shows following the Benghazi attack to say that the video motivated the assault.
The administration later changed its narrative and called the incident a pre-planned terrorist attack.
Associated Press reporter Bradley Klapper asked Toner on Tuesday to clarify the administration’s official position on the role that the video played in the attack.
Toner said the government’s initial assessment took the video into account because of events that were occurring at the time throughout the Middle East and North Africa, including protests at embassies in Cairo and Khartoum that were motivated in part by a video “that was seen as blasphemy against Prophet Mohammad.”
“But I think with respect to Benghazi,” Toner continued, “after several days or a week or so, we quickly changed that analysis to better represent the facts as we knew them, which was that it was a coordinated attack on our facilities by an armed force of extremists.”
Toner said that administration officials “did the best we could to convey the facts as we knew them at the time to the American people” in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack.
“Just to clarify, you no longer believe the video played any role in motivating these extremists?” Klapper asked.
“To be honest, I don’t think we’ve ever been able to categorically say that the video played no role, but what I think we have been able to say is that this wasn’t a demonstration gone awry; this was a coordinated attack,” Toner responded.
“So you don’t believe the video was the motivating factor for this attack? Klapper asked again.
“Yes, yes, yes,” Toner said. “What I can say is that this was not some demonstration motivated by this video that suddenly spun up into an attack on our facilities. This was a coordinated attack.”
Hillary Clinton had told her daughter and the Egyptian prime minister shortly after the attack that the Benghazi assault was a “planned attack” by an “al Qaeda-like group” before the administration publicly blamed the YouTube video.
[h=1]Benghazi Security Team Member: We Were Told to ‘Stand Down’[/h]
AFP
by AARON KLEIN28 Jun 2016121
[h=2]TEL AVIV – A member of the security team stationed at the CIA Annex in Benghazi testified that his chief of base directed him to “stand down” while the nearby U.S. Special Mission came under attack the night of September 11, 2012.[/h]A second security team member said he did not directly hear the words “stand down” from the chief of base, but that those words were relayed to him by another security team member.
Other members said they were told to wait and did not hear anything about a “stand down” order.
The chief of base at the CIA Annex in Benghazi for his part testified that he did not use the term “stand down,” but confirmed that he told his security team to wait and not to deploy yet while he tried to obtain reinforcements from local Libyan security forces. The alleged orders to wait were also described by other witnesses.
The conflicting testimony was provided to the House Select Committee on Benghazi and contained in a 339-page House Democrat report on Benghazi released on Monday and reviewed in full by Breitbart Jerusalem. The report was issued prior to the release on Tuesday of the Benghazi Committee’s final report.
The House Democrat report documented that the committee investigated reports that the CIA security team in Benghazi was told by the CIA Chief of Base to “stand down” instead of immediately responding to the attack at the U.S. Special Mission about a mile away.
The report found that one security team member said he heard the order to “stand down.”
Asked why he omitted the claim in previous testimony, the individual stated:
Continued the report:
70
3
by AARON KLEIN28 Jun 2016121
[h=2]SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER[/h]
[h=2]TEL AVIV – A member of the security team stationed at the CIA Annex in Benghazi testified that his chief of base directed him to “stand down” while the nearby U.S. Special Mission came under attack the night of September 11, 2012.[/h]A second security team member said he did not directly hear the words “stand down” from the chief of base, but that those words were relayed to him by another security team member.
Other members said they were told to wait and did not hear anything about a “stand down” order.
The chief of base at the CIA Annex in Benghazi for his part testified that he did not use the term “stand down,” but confirmed that he told his security team to wait and not to deploy yet while he tried to obtain reinforcements from local Libyan security forces. The alleged orders to wait were also described by other witnesses.
The conflicting testimony was provided to the House Select Committee on Benghazi and contained in a 339-page House Democrat report on Benghazi released on Monday and reviewed in full by Breitbart Jerusalem. The report was issued prior to the release on Tuesday of the Benghazi Committee’s final report.
The House Democrat report documented that the committee investigated reports that the CIA security team in Benghazi was told by the CIA Chief of Base to “stand down” instead of immediately responding to the attack at the U.S. Special Mission about a mile away.
The report found that one security team member said he heard the order to “stand down.”
The Select Committee interviewed all of the members of the security team, and only one reported that the Chief of Base directed him to “stand down,” using those exact words. The Chief of Base denied using the term “stand down,” but explained that he told the security team to wait while he tried to obtain additional help from local security forces. …
When this individual was interviewed previously by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), he did not make this statement.
Although witnesses disagreed about whether the specific words “stand down” were uttered, they agreed that the team was told to wait while the senior CIA officials requested additional security assistance from local Libyan forces. The witnesses generally agreed that it was appropriate to try to obtain additional security assistance, but they disagreed about how quickly they should depart.
The one security team member who said that he had been told to “stand down” described what he said was an exchange with superiors in testimony to the Select Committee:When this individual was interviewed previously by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), he did not make this statement.
Although witnesses disagreed about whether the specific words “stand down” were uttered, they agreed that the team was told to wait while the senior CIA officials requested additional security assistance from local Libyan forces. The witnesses generally agreed that it was appropriate to try to obtain additional security assistance, but they disagreed about how quickly they should depart.
We’re probably sitting there a good 15 minutes, and I get out of the car. I have the Chief of Base, the Deputy Chief of Base, and [the Security Team Leader] on the front porch. They’re all three on the phone doing something. And I just say: Hey, you know, we’ve got to get over there. We’re losing the initiative. [The Chief of Base] looks at me, he says: Stand down, you need to wait. You need to come up with a plan.
That same individual did not mention any “stand down” order in previous testimony to the Committee.
Asked why he omitted the claim in previous testimony, the individual stated:
At the time, because a lot of it was that no—I mean, I didn’t know why the stand down order was given. I mean, I guess [Redacted] got told to wait, you know, that’s what he says. I just know when we got told to stand down and when [the Security Team Leader] kind of gave the brief of kind of like why we’re told to stand down, it was kind of understandable, you know. But, yes, it shouldn’t take you 23 minutes or 50 minutes to link up with the QRF, because even after we left there was still no link up. There was no communication between us and the 17 Feb. that I knew of. Because when we rolled in, we didn’t know who we were going to be meeting.
Q: Right. You said when [the Security Team Leader] gave the brief, it was understandable. What are you talking about?
A: When he was saying, well, they were trying to get on the phone, they were trying to get local militias. And he’s like, if there was a stand down or a wait, you know, it was just because we were trying to get it to where we would link up. We wouldn’t have—
Q: When did [the Security Team Leader] say that to you?
A: That was during the hearing.
Meanwhile, the House report documented a second security team member who “told the Select Committee that he did not hear the words ‘stand down’ directly, but was told about them by the other security team member on the night of the attacks while they were waiting.”Q: Right. You said when [the Security Team Leader] gave the brief, it was understandable. What are you talking about?
A: When he was saying, well, they were trying to get on the phone, they were trying to get local militias. And he’s like, if there was a stand down or a wait, you know, it was just because we were trying to get it to where we would link up. We wouldn’t have—
Q: When did [the Security Team Leader] say that to you?
A: That was during the hearing.
Continued the report:
This second team member also did not share this conversation with HPSCI when he was previously interviewed, explaining that he was not asked about it. That individual described to both HPSCI and the Select Committee that he personally had been told to “wait.”
A third security team member stated: “I don’t recall hearing ‘stand down.’ I do recall hearing ‘wait.’”
The fourth security team member did not recall having any communications with the Chief of Base, Deputy Chief of Base or Team Leader.
The CIA Chief of Base in Benghazi for his part stated:A third security team member stated: “I don’t recall hearing ‘stand down.’ I do recall hearing ‘wait.’”
The fourth security team member did not recall having any communications with the Chief of Base, Deputy Chief of Base or Team Leader.
I never said “stand down.” “Stand down” to me means that you’re not going to go, and I was working—and I didn’t say “stand down.” And I was working very closely with [the Security Team Leader] to try to get them out the door.
The chief made the same point several times:
[T]here was never any stand down order. I guess I’m repeating myself. There was never any stand down order, nor any effort other than to provide the team what they needed to accomplish the mission to go down and save our colleagues at the State Department compound.
Then Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell explained that he worked with top Pentagon officials to investigate the claim that the CIA Benghazi base chief gave a “stand down” order, and no evidence could be found that it happened.
I personally spoke to our Director of Security who had spoken to all of her security officers, and she told us, she told Director Petraeus and I that there was no stand down order. I personally asked our Director of Support to talk to the Chief of Security, and I asked one of the senior members of the operational side of the agency to talk to the Chief of Base, and they reported back to me essentially the same story, no stand down order. Director Petraeus, in the aftermath of Benghazi, took a trip to Libya, to Tripoli, where he met with the folks who were still there and had a conversation about this and came back and said, as far as my conversations went, no stand down order. So I just wanted to add that to all the evidence that’s out there suggesting that there was not.
Nothing to explain away. The day of the attacks, and shortly thereafter, when no one knew what the hell was going on, and there were riots in Egypt that claimed the Video as the cause, that was one of the possibilities explored.
But let's face it. If Jesus himself came down and said Vote for Hillary, you wouldn't, and I wouldn't either.
Like 1 hr. and 4 min. later.
Lyin Crooked Hillary !
Hillary Clinton’s statements
10:08 p.m., Sept. 11, press statement:
“I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group. . . . Very hard day and I fear more of the same.”
[h=1]Feds Spent More on Soap Operas, Obesity Rap Songs, Hotel Shower Monitoring Than Benghazi Committee[/h][h=2]Democrats angered that investigation has cost $7 million[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Elizabeth Harrington
June 28, 2016 2:30 pm
The federal government spent more on anti-obesity rap songs, a soap opera series about HIV, and a device to monitor how long hotel guests spend in the shower than Congress spent investigating the attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Democrats are very concerned that taxpayer funding went towards the investigation of the 2012 attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. They say the investigation has cost about $7 million.
“We are issuing our own report today because, after spending more than two years and $7 million in taxpayer funds in one of the longest and most partisan congressional investigations in history, it is long past time for the Select Committee to conclude its work,” Democratic House members said.
A spending tracker of the investigation created by Democratic members of the committee showed a total $7,161,432 spent as of Tuesday afternoon.
The amount is less than the federal government’s investments in studies about the “relationship between gender and glaciers,” a soap opera and instructional videos on how to put a condom on a cucumber, and research on male engineering students’ “microagressions” against women.
The National Science Foundation spent $412,930 on a study that published scientific results on the “relationship between gender and glaciers.” The results concluded that “ice is not just ice,” and instructed scientists to take a “feminist postcolonial” approach when studying melting ice caps and climate change.
The soap opera series “Love, Sex, and Choices” has received $3,134,199 from the National Institutes of Health for 12 episodes about HIV. One episode viewed by the Washington Free Beacon begins with a graphic oral sex scene between a woman and her ex, while a child plays in the other room.
The National Endowment for the Arts recently spent $20,000 for a play about “rape culture,” and the Environmental Protection Agency has invested $90,000 in technology to track how long Americans spend in the shower when they stay in hotels.
Another National Science Foundation project has spent $548,459 videotaping male college engineering students while they work in labs to see if they are causing women to experience “microaggressions.”
Finally, a joint project by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of Health has spent $3,541,583 on a series of anti-obesity hip-hop songs, such as the Barry White-inspired “Bake Don’t Fry” that urges kids to lay off the French Fries.
The above mentioned taxpayer-funded projects total $7,747,171, over $500,000 more than what Congress spent investigating the Benghazi terrorist attack.
While Democrats insist that no new information was gleaned from the investigation, the House Select Committee on Benghazi released its findings on Tuesday that included a timeline of public and private statements showing the Obama administration misled the public by portraying the attack as the result of an internet video.
“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film,” then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton said in a private statement to Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil on Sept. 12, 2012. “It was a planned attack—not a protest. . . . Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”
Meanwhile, in public Clinton, now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, blamed the “disgusting and reprehensible” video for the attack.
The committee’s final report also found that the Obama administration never deployed the militaryduring the attack on the American consulate, despite claims by then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
TWEET
Burnt consulate in Benghazi, Libya / AP
BY: Elizabeth Harrington
June 28, 2016 2:30 pm
The federal government spent more on anti-obesity rap songs, a soap opera series about HIV, and a device to monitor how long hotel guests spend in the shower than Congress spent investigating the attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Democrats are very concerned that taxpayer funding went towards the investigation of the 2012 attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. They say the investigation has cost about $7 million.
“We are issuing our own report today because, after spending more than two years and $7 million in taxpayer funds in one of the longest and most partisan congressional investigations in history, it is long past time for the Select Committee to conclude its work,” Democratic House members said.
A spending tracker of the investigation created by Democratic members of the committee showed a total $7,161,432 spent as of Tuesday afternoon.
The amount is less than the federal government’s investments in studies about the “relationship between gender and glaciers,” a soap opera and instructional videos on how to put a condom on a cucumber, and research on male engineering students’ “microagressions” against women.
The National Science Foundation spent $412,930 on a study that published scientific results on the “relationship between gender and glaciers.” The results concluded that “ice is not just ice,” and instructed scientists to take a “feminist postcolonial” approach when studying melting ice caps and climate change.
The soap opera series “Love, Sex, and Choices” has received $3,134,199 from the National Institutes of Health for 12 episodes about HIV. One episode viewed by the Washington Free Beacon begins with a graphic oral sex scene between a woman and her ex, while a child plays in the other room.
The National Endowment for the Arts recently spent $20,000 for a play about “rape culture,” and the Environmental Protection Agency has invested $90,000 in technology to track how long Americans spend in the shower when they stay in hotels.
Another National Science Foundation project has spent $548,459 videotaping male college engineering students while they work in labs to see if they are causing women to experience “microaggressions.”
Finally, a joint project by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of Health has spent $3,541,583 on a series of anti-obesity hip-hop songs, such as the Barry White-inspired “Bake Don’t Fry” that urges kids to lay off the French Fries.
The above mentioned taxpayer-funded projects total $7,747,171, over $500,000 more than what Congress spent investigating the Benghazi terrorist attack.
While Democrats insist that no new information was gleaned from the investigation, the House Select Committee on Benghazi released its findings on Tuesday that included a timeline of public and private statements showing the Obama administration misled the public by portraying the attack as the result of an internet video.
“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film,” then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton said in a private statement to Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil on Sept. 12, 2012. “It was a planned attack—not a protest. . . . Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”
Meanwhile, in public Clinton, now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, blamed the “disgusting and reprehensible” video for the attack.
The committee’s final report also found that the Obama administration never deployed the militaryduring the attack on the American consulate, despite claims by then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
