Brutal ad hits White House on Libya timeline contradictions [VIDEO]

It has been a month since an attack in Libya took the lives of Ambassador  Chris Stevens and three other Americans, and the Obama administration is still  revising its story.

A video from the Heritage Foundation documents the evolution of the  federal government’s explanation of the tragic event and the multiple  contradictions among members of the current administration.


“It appears to me that the situation has been grossly mishandled, and the  American people deserve better,” said Peter Brookes, senior fellow at the  Heritage Foundation. “It’s been my sense that the last thing the administration  wanted was to admit that al-Qaida had attacked.”

The State Department acknowledged that it denied requests for more security  in Benghazi at a heated congressional hearing yesterday. Republicans  accused the Obama administration of using the anti-Islamic video as a scapegoat  to cover up a terrorist attack so that it could avoid political vulnerability,  while Democrats at the hearing accused Republicans of operating a biased  investigation.

The recent unrest in Benghazi can be traced as far back as April 6, when an  IED was tossed over the fence of the U.S. Consulate. Gun battles, kidnappings,  carjackings and attacks on other NATO embassies in late April and early May  elicited a request for a safer means of transportation to and from the U.S.  Embassy in Libya. The State Department denied that request.

Two attacks on the International Committee of the Red Cross building forced  it to close down, leaving the U.S. Consulate as the lone international presence  in Benghazi, the only remaining target for attackers.

On June 6, an IED blew a sizable hole in the security perimeter of the U.S.  Consulate that was reportedly “large enough for 40 men to go through.”

On Oct. 8 a security officer warned American officials about deteriorating  security in the area. And three days later — the attack, for which White House  Press Secretary Jay Carney said the administration had no “actionable  intelligence,” struck the consulate.

A report published on Sept. 26 showed that the intelligence community and the  Obama administration knew within 24 hours that the attack was an act of terror  carried out by an al-Qaida affiliated group. This was affirmed by Carney in an  Oct. 10 press briefing when he also said that the administration had kept its  word to disclose new information as it became available.

However, President Barack Obama and other members of his administration have  since refused to call the attack an act of terror, despite twice receiving word  from Libyan President Mohamed Magarief that the attack was indeed a “pre-planned  act of terrorism directed against American citizens.”

On Sept. 16, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said on a talk show that the attacks  were provoked exclusively by the “Innocence of Muslims” video.

On Sept. 17, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refused to call the  attack on Benghazi an act of terror.

On Sept. 20, President Obama cited insufficient information when refusing to  declare the attack a terrorist act, only to be contradicted by Secretary of  State Hillary Clinton the following day.

“We’re obviously very, very concerned about the apparent insecurity in a very  threatening environment,” Said Brookes. “(Sept. 11) wasn’t the first time they  were threatened.”

Follow Zachary on Twitter

Read more:

Categories: Benghazi, Propaganda - Misinformation, Security, Societal

Tags: , , , , , , ,

%d bloggers like this: