White House Comes Clean: No Protest Outside Libya Consulate

It looks like those "official" reports from our government "officials" were more tainted than many people were led to believe.

Tomorrow marks the beginning of a major Congressional hearing on the terror attack In Libya and in a desperately transparent attempt to get ahead of damaging news, at the very last minute tonight, the State Department finally came clean:

"ABC: No Protest Outside Libya Consulate Before Attack"

White House Comes Clean: No Protest Outside Libya Consulate

Shocking !! ??

In other words, absolutely everything we were told by our government -- by President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Ambassador Susan Rice. White House Spokesman Jay Carney, and any number of staffers and surrogates -- was 100% false.

There were no protests, no benign crowds exploited by local militias, and nothing had anything to do with a video. Our Ambassador, another diplomat, and two Navy SEALs were murdered in a brutally efficient and coordinated terrorist attack.

Period.

End of story.

Related Articles

The House Committee On Oversight and Government Reform will have a hearing on the Benghazi attack and possible cover-up tomorrow.

The hearing will focus on "The Security Failures of Benghazi." It will include a review of attacks that took place before September 11, 2012 -- attacks which should have provided the Obama administration with credible reasons for increasing security in Benghazi rather than cutting it.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood, whose 16-man security detail was pulled from Benghazi in August, will be a witness at the hearing. Wood arrived in Libya in February 2012, and he will tell the Oversight Committee there were 13 "attacks or threats" against U.S. officials between that time and his departure in August......

House Oversight Committee Opens Hearing On Benghazi-Gate Tomorrow

The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.....

State Dept: We Didn't Link Libya Attack to Video

Some U.S. intelligence personnel claim the Obama administration tried to cover up details of the Benghazi attack as part of a broader attempt to cover up Egyptian and Iranian support for jihadists throughout North Africa and the Middle East.

To this end, these intelligence community members claim the Obama admin is withholding critical information from senior officials and the public.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, one intelligence official pointed out that Iran has been promising to hit soft U.S. targets for some time, and a number of such targets were hit at varying degrees on Sept. 11, 2012. This intelligence official also points out that none of the Obama administration's explanations for what happened have contained pertinent information about "the cooperation of Iran and Egypt in supporting jihadists in Libya."...........

Intel Personnel: Obama Admin Covering Up Iran, Egypt Involvement in 9/11 Attacks

The Administration is in deep trouble with all this.....

They need to come clean and admit what they are hiding...

It's been one story change after another.

Many voters no longer trust the Administration

And how 'bout those TV ads ???? US Spends $70k On Ads Denouncing Anti-Islam Film

Thats great news. I just hope they are held accountable. Look at Holder and Fast & Furious. Strangely, or not so strange , we haven't gotten anything out of that.

The cynic in me sees a new executive order popping up soon claiming "National Security".

I can only hope they trip up at some point and the dominoes truly begin to fall with no hope of saving face.

here's another part of the saga.....

State Department superiors for more security agents for the American mission in Benghazi months before an attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, but he got no response.

The officer, Eric Nordstrom, who was based in Tripoli until about two months before the September attack, said a State Department official, Charlene Lamb, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi "artificially low," according to a memo summarizing his comments to a congressional committee that was obtained by Reuters.

Nordstrom also argued for more U.S. security in Libya by citing a chronology of over 200 security incidents there from militia gunfights to bomb attacks between June 2011 and July 2012. Forty-eight of the incidents were in Benghazi....

U.S. officer got no reply to requests for more security in Benghazi

[color=cyan]
Nordstrom also argued for more U.S. security in Libya by citing a chronology of over 200 security incidents there from militia gunfights to bomb attacks between June 2011 and July 2012. Forty-eight of the incidents were in Benghazi....

What more "Warning Signs" would have it taken ??

reply to post by xuenchen


How many times can this administration claim...*we never said that*. When there are multiple video clips of them saying that, from multiple sources. It gives me a headache just trying to figure out if they think, we the people don't have memories, nor access to video clips from every single television news station of them saying, what they now claim they never said.......

They should follow my advice. When you find yourself in a hole...stop digging.

Des

See, this is why I keep saying the folks who don't want Obama re-elected need to quit posting stupid BS half-baked weakly supported conspiracy theories like the birth certificate, Muslim claims, and blatantly spun interpretations of his words.

YOU HAVE PLENTY OF *CREDIBLE* EXAMPLES OF WHY HE SUCKS! When you come at people with facts like this and leave out the high-fives and chest-thumping, people who support Obama will actually listen to you and maybe change their minds. They are never, ever going to change their minds when it feels like you're picking on Obama unfairly. People like myself, who used to be head-over-heels for him in 2008, are only going to wake up when they are shown respect and are given a sincere and genuine argument free from unnecessary snark and partisanship. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Xuenchen, don't forget their other famous line. " That was taken out of context". But with your earlier post, yeah, I see obama coming out with another Executive privilge order to cover his butt yet again, and the media sweeping this under the rug quickly.

reply to post by xuenchen


Why the lies? Why the lies from the State Department, Susan Rice, the White House?

Did they think that they could cover for the terrorists?

I don't understand.

What I do know is that this is huge. A cover-up attempt by our government to avoid contreversy about an attack where 4 died.

Insane.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Why the lies? Why the lies from the State Department, Susan Rice, the White House?
Did they think that they could cover for the terrorists?
I don't understand.
What I do know is that this is huge. A cover-up attempt by our government to avoid contreversy about an attack where 4 died.
Insane.

A cover up for sure. But covering for who? The muslium brotherhood? If so, why? They've visited the white house a few times, through obamas help they got control of Egypt. Is there something larger coming down the pike?

Originally posted by Chance321

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Why the lies? Why the lies from the State Department, Susan Rice, the White House?
Did they think that they could cover for the terrorists?
I don't understand.
What I do know is that this is huge. A cover-up attempt by our government to avoid contreversy about an attack where 4 died.
Insane.

A cover up for sure. But covering for who? The muslium brotherhood? If so, why? They've visited the white house a few times, through obamas help they got control of Egypt. Is there something larger coming down the pike?

That's what puzzles me. Why, for whom, and they thought they could get away with it????

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Chance321

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Why the lies? Why the lies from the State Department, Susan Rice, the White House?
Did they think that they could cover for the terrorists?
I don't understand.
What I do know is that this is huge. A cover-up attempt by our government to avoid contreversy about an attack where 4 died.
Insane.

A cover up for sure. But covering for who? The muslium brotherhood? If so, why? They've visited the white house a few times, through obamas help they got control of Egypt. Is there something larger coming down the pike?

That's what puzzles me. Why, for whom, and they thought they could get away with it????

It's a cover up to hide the fact that Obama not only knew it was likely, but also helped it happen by reducing the amount of security there. Nothing more insidious than that, because that's already unseemly enough.

reply to post by beezzer

That's what puzzles me. Why, for whom, and they thought they could get away with it????

Maybe this is why obama threw the debate? He knew they couldn't keep this quiet. (Just shooting from the hip here.) Maybe the Ambassidor came across something and had to be silenced? What? Know idea. Could explaine why the extra security was denied. The rest, I don't know, like I say, the muslium brotherhoods the only thing that comes to mind.

The real odd part is why did they blame the video ?

The official reports from the officials have now officially been re-official-ated.

They blamed the non existing protests on unofficial reports

jesh.

Add:

It's goes something like this:

abbott and costello who's on first movie
A Word-for-Word Transcript can be found here
www.baseball-almanac.com...

"Abbott And Costello Who's On First"
"Hillary & Barack explaining the Middle East situations"

reply to post by xuenchen


Why blame the video? I think they were hoping and gambling that people would buy it. Up till now most people bought anything the media told them, why not this?

Speculate then;

The ambassador knew something (had to be silenced)
Obama administration covering for Muslim Brotherhood
Al Quieda claimed responsibility, but didn't Obama say they were beaten?

The last one, I think is most likely. Obama's foreign policy is at stake re: election. He wants to be seen as a leader and a winner in ME policies. This act flies in the face of that. So they blame a video, and try to brush it away as being minor and of no consequence.

My best guestimate.

reply to post by 00nunya00

It's a cover up to hide the fact that Obama not only knew it was likely, but also helped it happen by reducing the amount of security there. Nothing more insidious than that, because that's already unseemly enough.

Hmmm. Make the producer of the video the bad guy and take the fall for crappy management. 'There was no way we could anticipate the backlash because we didn't know about the video!' Interesting point.

I'll admit to swallowing it hook line and sinker. Still wouldn't surprise me to see certain folks (don't get all persnickety about my overt racism/religious intolerance that's not what I mean) riot over a video making fun of their prophet. I would like some internet high fives for spelling persnickety on my first try.


X



High five the x and I'll reciprocate. And one for reciprocate!


X

Originally posted by beezzer


Why the lies? Why the lies from the State Department, Susan Rice, the White House?

Did they think that they could cover for the terrorists?

I don't understand.

What I do know is that this is huge. A cover-up attempt by our government to avoid contreversy about an attack where 4 died.

Insane.

Shocking, for those who haven't drank the kool-aid, Non Story, for the Media, and those who believe Obama can do NO wrong.

Who should lose their Job over it? All those involved.

Period.

reply to post by sonnny1


FOX News was all over this story like fudge on an ice cream sundae tonight. They had one of the investigative committee members on tonight talking about it. Also said they will be following this story very closely.

It seems as if some breaking of administrative ranks may be in the works according to Greta. She wonders who is going to roll on whom first. Obama or Hillary. Should be interesting to see if an Executive Order is used in this instance, just like Fast and furious. It would be in step with this administrations attempts to keep anything being investigated under wraps until after the elections.

Des

reply to post by Destinyone


I see more pleading the Fifth..........

Regardless, on "when" this takes place.


Scandalous.

reply to post by xuenchen


What about that transparency Obama told us about? We should be told what is going on in other countries and our own homeland. If the U.S.A is really to be strong, it needs to be filled with informed individuals who can judge for themselves of the situations around the world and at home; that way if something trully isn't right somewhere in the world or at home and we need to fight for it, the people will be that much more valiant in it's cause for truth and good. Imagine a nation, all informed and empowered by the truth and acting on it? What a terrifying thought for those who want to do us wrong.

It also sounds like propaganda against Iran, unless of course it's true; in which case we may never know because they just barely admitted to lying to us about the protests. Should we really believe that there is some secret information about Iran supporting those attacks in spite of the lies they just admitted to and all of the Iran war propaganda going on right now?

Originally posted by OKThunder
reply to post by xuenchen

 

What about that transparency Obama told us about? We should be told what is going on in other countries and our own homeland. If the U.S.A is really to be strong, it needs to be filled with informed individuals who can judge for themselves of the situations around the world and at home; that way if something trully isn't right somewhere in the world or at home and we need to fight for it, the people will be that much more valiant in it's cause for truth and good. Imagine a nation, all informed and empowered by the truth and acting on it? What a terrifying thought for those who want to do us wrong.

It also sounds like propaganda against Iran, unless of course it's true; in which case we may never know because they just barely admitted to lying to us about the protests. Should we really believe that there is some secret information about Iran supporting those attacks in spite of the lies they just admitted to and all of the Iran war propaganda going on right now?

edit on 10-10-2012 by OKThunder because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-10-2012 by OKThunder because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-10-2012 by OKThunder because: (no reason given)

What you posted is exactly the opposite of how Obama wants the world to view us. That is the reason security that was begged for by our Embassy was turned down. Not only turned down, but even cut back on the existing security. He thought it would project the wrong image of the U.S. to have the begged for building security put in place. He turned them down on every request for help in protecting themselves at the Embassy, all because he didn't want that as his image to the world. Got 4 innocent helpless people killed keeping that image. Now he's lying to cover up the truth.

Des