Embassy Attacks

Benghazi Hearing Take Away: YouTube Video Had Nothing To Do With It

But it was all about the video according to the Obama administration's apologists

|

commended pre-benghazi, effectively demoted since
C-SPAN

Three whistleblowers are testifying to the House Committee on Government Oversight today about last September's attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, during which the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans were killed. One of the witnesses is Gregory Hicks, who was the number two American in Libya last September and among the last to talk to Stevens. He's testified that the ambassador made no mention of a demonstration at the mission in Benghazi, only an attack, and that "[t]he YouTube video was a non-event in Libya," despite the Obama Administration's attempts to pin the violence in Libya to protests over a trailer for an anti-Muslim film that had been on YouTube for months.

It was all about the video Obama apologists cried in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack (and the run-up to November's presidential election). That position does not appear to be connected to reality at all.

Here's a brief exchange over the YouTube video and how "stunned" and "embarrassed" Gregory Hicks was by Susan Rice attempting to link the violence in Benghazi to the video:

You can watch the ongoing hearing here (to resume in a few minutes) and read about questions that ought to be answered there here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Austin Police Officer Shoots First At Unarmed Man in Traffic Stop, Asks Questions Later

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So YouTube free speech lives to blaspheme another day.

  2. The democrats are trying to blow smoke and discredit the witnesses with debunked NY Times talking points. It’s really disgraceful that protecting Hillary and Obama are deemed more important than getting to the truth of what happened concerning the death of a US ambassador and three other Americans.

    1. It’s more disgraceful that they’ll probably get away with it.

    2. TEAM is all, dude. Nothing else matters any more. Nothing.

      1. I knew today’s response would be bad, but holy fuck was it even worse than I imagined. If the WaPo reports tomorrow that water is wet, I’m going to my sink to check.

    3. I agree. We should fear people in power, regardless of their party affinity. And we should do everything we can to uncover the truth when they abuse their power, even if that has political consequences we don’t like today.

      1. Nah, He said we need to not listen to the cynics.

        1. Yes, so he did. The guy in power.

          It’s insane to trust people with power over you. They should have to operate under a constant state of skeptical oversight. And if you catch them doing anything wrong, even if relatively minor, you should pounce on them like a cat pouncing on a laser beam.

          1. When cats pounce on laser beams, they catch nothing and achieve nothing. So your analogy is apt, since what you’re talking about is a pipe dream and nothing more.

            1. [Points laser at Episiarch’s head; nods at lion.]

              1. You can get the lion in a position to pounce only if you pull it there with a rope.

          2. you should pounce on them like a cat pouncing on a laser beam.

            I don’t like this analogy. Because the laser beam always gets away.

            1. Or… what Episiarch said.

            2. It’s the pouncing part that matters.

    4. Rep. Steven Horsford (D-NV) tried to use the claim about budget cuts causing the lapse in security, which was debunked by Charlene Lamb under oath at the last hearing.

      Pathetic.

  3. PROTECT THE QUEEN!

    1. Ah, so you have the ability to read the limited mind of Obama’s Buttplug?!

  4. “if the president does it, it can’t be illegal.”

  5. Someone asked me to explain this nontroversey at lunch today.

    “Administration spokespeople mischaracterized the motive for the embassy attack – mostly at the request of the CIA”.

    “That’s it?”

    “Yes.”

    1. “…Oh, and the administration failed to prevent an attack by Al-Qaeda on a foreign embassy.”

      1. And had a guy thrown into prison for a video (in violation of his parole).

      2. And also left a couple of very valiant men out to dry, for no good reason but to save themselves some political embarrassment.

      3. The Bush admin. failed to prevent an attack by Al-Qaeda once. My question is how you’re able to even measure your outrage over the Benghazi attack as you proportion it to 9/11.

        1. And the Bush administration was aware of it was in the offing and did nothing about it? Oh, right. NO.

          1. Oh they did something about it all right.

        2. Because BUSH!! DERP

          Did Bush then claim 9/11 was a reaction to Rambo III being offensive to someone?

          1. No he claimed Sadaam Hussein did it, then proceeded to start a gigantic destructive war based on that lie.

            Your outrage over this is clearly proportional to facts and has nothing to do with a constant partisan drumbeat on partisan media, for sure.

            1. No he claimed Sadaam Hussein did it

              Cite? To an original source, not so HuffPo editorial.

        3. Ah, the Yabbut Bush again. The hardiest perennial in the loony left herbarium.

    2. And administration perp walked an innocent man, blaming him for the deaths and then revoked his probation leaving him in prison to this day, all for the crime of making a film.

      But hey, imprisoning and eventually murdering people is what being a liberal is all about isn’t it?

      1. And depriving them of the right of free speech. Can’t leave that out.

        Progressives are all about rights.

    3. Did you need help with your own comprehension re: this as well?

      The response to 9/11 was characterized by Bush’s famous dumbfounded continue reading to the children reaction. It echoed the incompetence that lead to that attack: poorly managed intelligence agencies, valuable ‘chatter’ getting lost in the bureaucracy, etc…

      Fast forward a decade+, and trillions of $ poured down a f’n black hole.

      An administration is in charge who faces their first cogent terrorist attack, where US citizens on US soil are targeted and killed by a foreign force.

      Now obviously since hope-and-change are in charge, Bush-and-gang were all shown how its done, right? All that money, all that preparation, all the right people in charge?

      We got a nice dose of racism instead, it was all that unwashed crowd of muslims protesting because of those insensitive American exercising their rights.

    4. Obama’s Douche -” Nothing to see here, everyone move along.”

      *falls to his knees and furiously slurps at obama’s cock*

    5. No you fucking idiot. Go read the different versions of the talking points that were put out. The CIA warned the State Department about possible attacks on 9/10, THE DAY BEFORE THE ATTACK. The original report the CIA put out mentions ansar al sharia and islamic terrorism. Then to save face for an obvious epic screw up, the State department asked for certain parts of the talking points to be changed. Then after the WH got involved they got changed again to the line of complete and utter BULLSHIT we were given by ambASS Rice.

      If I shit in your mouth and tell you its chocolate you would swallow it right?

    6. Hey, what did I tell you about taking my cock out of you mouth? I don’t care if you’re trying to type, keep sucking bitch!

    7. “Administration spokespeople mischaracterized the motive for the embassy attack – mostly at the request of the CIA

      Really??

      Gee, where exactly is this CIA request documented?

      And if “That’s it?”… strange that you have no curiosity whatsoever in what in theory the CIA was asking to be covered up?

      and your characterization seems happy to elide any awareness of the fact that there was an election forthcoming. convenient loss of perspective and context!

  6. The question is, what was the stupid lie covering up?!?

    My guess is that Patreus’ mistress was right that there was a black prison in the annex, and it was a prison break. And given the recent promotion of the guy overseeing the CIA torture program, I would be very unsurprised if the CIA wasn’t torturing prisoners with cabinet level knowledge.

    I doubt the arms deal story; the Turkish intelligence services have pretty thoroughly penetrated DC, according to testimony in the Sibel Edwards case, and they wouldn’t have to do the deal in Benghazi (unless the raid was a smash and grab for the weapons during the actual physical changing of hands)

    1. CIA prison seems to fit a lot of it (especially the pictures of the CIA site with the metal bar “saferoom”, and that it wasn’t even a diplomatic mission until after the attack.)

      I figured it was either:

      1) running a CIA prison after He ordered them closed

      or

      2) CIA just running the prison in blatant violation is the executive order

      1. The buck stops. . .over there, somewhere else.

        In a sane world, we’d can the whole lot of them when stuff like this is uncovered.

      2. and what prevents a prison from being run anyway with the administration’s knowledge? A piece of paper provides political cover, sure, but it doesn’t mean that DC was in the dark.

        1. the prison angle is bullshit on the face of it. why keep valued-suspects located in the heart of a jihadist populated city? there may have been some ‘detainees’ (in particular, Iranian Red Crescent workers who ‘disappeared’ in the city… suspected of being spies), but from all evidence, the annex was primarily an entrepot for weapons recovery and redistribution to ‘our’ muslim rebels.

          http://www.examiner.com/articl…..g-benghazi

          “”After last week’s Congressional closed-door intelligence briefing, many lawmakers emerged wondering why Ambassador Stevens was not more concerned with the growing boisterous rebel crowd outside the mission’s gates shortly before the attack that would kill him?

          Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Defense Intelligence Agency operative Anthony Shaffer says he knows the answer. “The Ambassador was expecting a weapon buyback deal shortly before the attack. That knowledge played a role in the slow response and created the initial confusion in Benghazi.”

          1. From the POV of the attackers, why send a company-sized force to go try and rob a weapons deal? Aren’t there enough small arms and other similar ordnance floating around Libya that don’t have a large enough guard group that you need to get 200 guys to help you rob them?

            However, did we ever figure out where Khadafy kept his WMDs? In particular his chemical weapons? Did he really destroy all of them after the 2003 Iraq invasion? And did the teams of CIA operating our of Benghazi find some?

            If they did, would we do such a crazy thing as funnel a few ex-Warsaw Pact export GB canisters, etc, to Syrian rebels? In the hopes that they’d use them on a dissident branch of the rebellion, and thereby provide a ready made excuse for US intervention in Syria? Can chemical weapons be traced to a particular factory?

            Unlike a pile of machine guns, a cache of chemical weapons might be worth gathering 200 guys to try and rob it. (Although, I guess a cache of something like MANPADS or man-portable ATGMs would be of use to a terrorist group) And an operation to illegally funnel chemical weapons—or anything else that can be later used to, e.g., snuff an airliner—to Syrian rebels would be something that would be kept secret at all costs.

            Meh, it’ll make an interesting plot for some thriller author some day.

            1. “”From the POV of the attackers, why send a company-sized force to go try and rob a weapons deal? “”

              Rob?

              Who suggested that?

              The case made by Egyptian intelligence was that a number of people in the region were not happy with US monies funding insurgents out to depose them or their allies (see: Syria, Iran… and Russia) They knew about the weapons buybacks/smuggling, and warned the US to cut it out. This (a few have suggested) prompted the meeting between the Turkish dude and Stephens. Turkey was getting cold feet, heat from Russia. The attack that happened that night was not immediately against the ‘annex’. It was against stephens, who coordinated all the relations. If there was an objective, it was to show the CIA/americans that Syria/Iran/Russia can play the ‘rent a jihadist’ game too.

              It isn’t like the most complicated story in the world.

              I also note that Hilary was directly asked about the weapons deals in testimony to congress. Her reply = “ask the CIA” Hot potato.

              1. Aren’t two of the three on your list also funneling weapons into Syria? But then again all three of them have reasons for keeping Assad around (ally, prevents Syria from being used as a base for Chechen/other Muslim mischief, etc…) Murky, and I don’t claim to understand what’s going on at all.

                If the objective was just Stevens, and they grabbed him damned near right off the bat, why continue the assault against the Annex several hours later? Especially since it was allegedly quite expensive for them to do so?

                It is interesting that the assault was something like an hour or less after the Turkish envoy left. If that excel timeline floating around is correct.

                1. Gray Ghost| 5.8.13 @ 6:08PM |#

                  Aren’t two of the three on your list also funneling weapons into Syria?

                  Unless Syria is funneling… derp.

                  Murky? How so? Its fucking straightforward. We armed Libyans taking out Gaddafi. Now the story is being repeated in Syria. Iran, Russia, no-likey. Not happy. So? Fuck up the oppositions operation. Easy peasy. You’d be surprised how easy it is to get arabs with guns to shoot Americans.

                  If the objective was just Stevens, and they grabbed him damned near right off the bat, why continue the assault against the Annex several hours later?

                  I didn’t suggest the objective was ‘just’ stephens. It was obviously the primary objective. As you note = they ignored the CIA until hours later. I was simply busting the ‘jailbreak’ scenario.

                  Why wait? Not clear. Perhaps because the CIA annex was better armed, secured. Some analysts said it was clear from radio traffic/sigint that the attackers were waiting for the ‘help’ to arrive in order to ambush them and create a ‘Blackhawk down’ scenario. Which likely fed into the pussying out by Obama on rescue/support. But it may be argued they sincerely wanted to shut the whole operation down for good.

                  re: the timing of the meet with the Turk. Yes, it smells really bad. One source said the guy had actually passed through a cordon of the Ansar al Sharia both going in and out of the ‘consulate’. Seems like the deal was very clearly orchestrated.

    2. Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack ? including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah ? were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11…..anted=all&

      Occam’s Buttplug

      1. “Okay, we can’t say it was Al Qaeda or one of their groups, we can’t say who it is.”

        “I know! Search youtube, and find a video on there. We’ll pin it on whoever uploaded it”

      2. Yeah, Petreus would never go along with the party line to avoid a story that would implicate him in a highly illegal activity.

        Jesus Christ Shreek you are fucking stupid. Yeah, the former head of the CIA denied running a secret prison system during his tenure. What a fucking shock.

        Lets see which is more believable, that his mistress just made that up or that his mistress accidentally told the truth and everyone who has a reason to lie is lying?

        Can you just do all of humanity a favor and die and stop polluting the world with your stupidity?

        1. why do you keep running with the prison thing when there’s already plenty of evidence that was *not* the deal at all?

          the thing stinks plenty as it is. no need to add a layer of bullshit to it.

      3. Except Ansar al-Shariah had already admitted that some of their members were involved in the attack. Man, we can’t tip off the people who attacked us even though they say they attacked us, we might lose valuable intel!

    3. quit the ‘prison’ line. there’s nothing there.

      It was a gun-buyback and smuggle-to-Syria scheme

      http://www.examiner.com/articl…..g-benghazi

      “”…It wasn’t a secret that Ambassador Christopher Stevens played a key role in Libya’s “Arab Spring.” During the course of the revolution that ultimately toppled Muammar Qaddafi, Stevens’ built a relationship with the Libyan rebels and it’s this experience that made him the frontrunner for the Libyan ambassadorship. Stevens’ history of working with Libyan radicals provided the perfect opportunity for the Obama administration to covertly move newly purchased weapons from Libya’s freedom fighters to Syrian insurgents via ships through Turkey.””

    4. I doubt the arms deal story; … they wouldn’t have to do the deal in Benghazi (unless the raid was a smash and grab for the weapons during the actual physical changing of hands)

      Then what was stephens doing near the center of the “buyback” operation, meeting with a Turkish diplomat in the heart of jihad-ville?

      http://www.businessinsider.com…..z2EaWG5C1z

      oh, also stephens had known standing connections with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group…who was later directly connected to a shipment of weapons… 3 days after the attacks?

      See the story by Sheera Frenkel in the Times of London linked in the above article

  7. The part I didn’t know about was this-

    Hicks-“Higher-ups at State told me not to talk to GOP congressman about Benghazi”.

    Check out the video testimony between Rep Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Hicks-

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..-benghazi/

    1. I just assumed that from the start. I know, assumptions are dangerous….unless you are assuming the worst about this bunch, then you are pretty safe.

  8. In a sane world this would be the end of a number of high profile careers, including Hillary’s. Possibly with charges filed for the cover up. The Dems on this commission would be ashamed for their filibustering and the MSM would mock them, after committing hara-kiri themselves for being so lax on reporting on this.

    What I expect to happen is that they all get off scot free.

    And fuck Obama for getting away with pushing this past the election.

    1. The administration could save it itself by crucifying Hillary…I mean literally, of course.

      1. “Under the terms of the Roman occupancy, we’re entitled to be crucified in a purely Jewish area.”

        1. Hillary must know where a lot of bodies are buried. The obvious thing to do is pin this on her. She is out of public life. And plenty of Democrats hate her or have reason to profit from her downfall.

          Yet, they are defending her to the last man.

          1. Hillary is their presumptive 2016 candidate, why the fuck would they dump it on her? Just look at the cosy interview CBS did with Hillary and Obama.

            If anyone is going under the bus its Rice.

          2. And plenty of Democrats hate her or have reason to profit from her downfall.

            They’ll support her just fine when she runs in 2016.

    2. the MSM would mock them, after committing hara-kiri themselves for being so lax on reporting on this.

      They’d mock them from the grave? Or are you implying that members of the MSM are zombies? The latter wouldn’t surprise me. They seem to have the same mental acuity as your average corpse.

  9. This of course begs the question, why did a jihiadist paramilitary attack the compound? It is not like they have attacked anything else since. The most reasonable explanation is that there was a secret prison there and it was a jail break and or they had weapons there they were buying in Libya and selling to rebels in Syria.

    I have yet to hear another plausible explanation for why a jihadist paramilitary group would suddenly decide to attack that annex.

    1. The jihadists attacked oil platforms in North Africa about the same time.

      Keep digging. I hope the House impeaches Obama just to show the country how fucking nuts the GOP is.

      1. I am sure it was just a random attack. The fact that they hadn’t before or since attacked an American target in Libya and we were on the same side in the civil war makes that so likely.

        Keep lying dipshit. Keep dreaming that everyone is as stupid as you are.

      2. and I thought it was because of the video? That is what Obama and all of his ass kissers like you were saying. You know the video they sent that guy to prison for making?

        You mean it was just random? So you admit, Obama lied and sent an innocent man to prison to save his ass?

        Good to know.

        1. Dude, I don’t care how fast you type, you are still wasting massive amounts of time arguing with the crazy piss-reeking homeless guy shrieking at the wall.

          Those moments can be spent in far more worthwhile pursuits, like organizing your paper-clips.

        2. John, you are arguing with a guy that said, with a straight face, that obama is an ardent defender of the second amendment.

          Just think about that for a minute. Let it sink in…all the way in.

      3. I hope the House impeaches Obama just to show the country how fucking nuts the GOP is.

        You know, PB, that can be interpreted in more than one way. Careful what you hope for.

      4. The jihadists attacked oil platforms in North Africa about the same time.

        Keep digging. I hope the House impeaches Obama just to show the country how fucking nuts the GOP is.

        I still see no explanation for Hillary Clinton’s demonstrated lie in this comment. I’ll keep digging.

    2. The most reasonable explanation is that there was a secret prison there and it was a jail break

      Derp

      aside from broadwell mentioning ‘detainees’ there (3 to be specific), why would you think it ‘plausible’ for the CIA to be running a “terrorist prison” in a town full of armed jihadis? Some of whom we know we were working *with*? (LIFG) Sure, the gangs we worked with may have snatched a few al q interlopers or Iranian spies and handed them to us… but actually *keeping* them there seems idiotic to the extreme.

      ..and or they had weapons there they were buying in Libya and selling to rebels in Syria.

      Sell? Who needs to sell them? 1) its on the record congress allocated funds to buy back weapons from Libyan fighters…

      “”Shortly after the October 2011 death of Qaddafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in Tripoli that the U.S. was committing $40 million to help Libya “secure and recover its weapons stockpiles.” Department of State Assistant Secretary Andrew Shapiro confirms DOS had a weapons buy-back program in Libya that was also supported by the UK who gave $1.5 million, the Netherlands gave $1.2 million, Germany gave about $1 million and our neighbor to the north, Canada gave $1.6 million to purchase the deadly arsenal that went missing after the fall of Qaddafi””

      The question was, ‘where were they going’?

      introduce Stephens, meeting with Turkish counterpart, the night he’s killed…

      not exactly conspiracy fodder here.

  10. Why did I just know this thread would be 45% Shreek spouting talking points in support of a cover-up?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.