• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Contradictory Evidence Swallows Administration Libya Cover-Up

    The e-mails sent around the federal government on the night of the September 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, have finally been obtained by the U.S. media. Since the tragic events well over a month ago, Members of Congress have been asking for a clear answer from the executive branch about what really happened on that Tuesday night and what the Administration knew about it.

    The evidence is clear: Despite having confirmed knowledge from day one that the attacks were pre-planned terrorism, the Administration chose to cover up that information and hide severe security inefficiencies and grotesque unpreparedness behind an immature YouTube video.

    All three e-mails that are now public were sent within two hours, updating in real time the events happening in Benghazi. According to an anonymous source, the cables were sent by the State Department Operations Center to e-mail accounts for the top national security officials at the State Department, Pentagon, FBI, White House Situation Room, and office of the Director of National Intelligence.

    The first e-mail was sent at 4:05 p.m. with the subject title “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU).” The message was short and to the point, stating, “The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack.” The e-mail also confirmed reports from Tripoli that the attack was carried out by “20 armed people,” explosions and gunfire had been heard, and Ambassador Christopher Stevens along with four Chief of Mission (COM) personnel were in the compound safe haven.

    Exactly 50 minutes later, another e-mail was sent reporting that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared.” The update ended with the confirmation of a response team on site attempting to locate COM personnel.

    The last e-mail was sent two hours later, at 6:07 p.m. It was titled “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU).” The group had reportedly claimed responsibility for the attacks on Facebook and Twitter and was calling for an attack on the embassy in Tripoli.

    This concrete evidence, along with confirmations from the intelligence community within 24 hours of the attacks, left no doubt that al-Qaeda-affiliated operatives were behind the attack. And yet White House officials were vehemently denying that the Administration had “actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.” It took the Administration more than two weeks to even begin using the phrase “terrorist attack.”

    In light of the evidence that continues to pile up, Americans deserve explanations of why an attack was so easily executed on the Benghazi mission and why the true nature of the attacks was hidden from the nation.

    Caitlin Duvall is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    16 Responses to Contradictory Evidence Swallows Administration Libya Cover-Up

    1. Ken says:

      Lying to the American people is a serious matter. Ask Nixon and Clinton know this first-hand. Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden will soon find out. There is not enough time and space to list all the breaches of the public trust placed in these men by the American people.

      Lacking that space, there is also not enough time or space to list all the illegal actions of this administration. It runs from Fast and Furious, Green Energy "investments" for his cronies, allowing his agencies to exercise unfettered powers of regulation to try to run around, and usurp, the duty of the legislative representatives of the people. Soliciting the companies who are required to notify employees of a shutdown under the WARN Act to violate that law and pledging our tax money to hold them harmless is ther solicitation of a conspiracy by Mr. Obama. The latest are the lies about the events of Benghazi. The only way this ends with the defeat and replacement of this disaster call the Obama administration.

    2. Bill says:

      NOW!!! Lets see how the MSM will walk this around??

    3. Warren Isbell says:

      The emperor has no clothes!

    4. Bobbie says:

      Absolutely horrific! NO EXCUSE! Every bit of this horror story leads to criminality! Every bit of this administration is every bit corrupt. Housing in America to foreign affairs. Every bit of government involvement and intrusion has been absolute sacrifice in the name of the President's imposing view to "fundamentally change" America in his image!

      Obama: don't teach the down trodden responsibility like everyone else lives up to, change the rules that appease their weakness by giving em money from those whose trodden down exists because of government corruption!!!!

      Americans don't want obama's fundamental change of America into his transparently frail leadership with no truth to tell changing rules for his preferential select while he keeps innocent Americans defenseless.

      Fundamental change to America but common in third world leaderships… hmm…

    5. Jim Nemeth says:

      Action taken? No. Why did we abandon our personnel? Who started the misinformation about a video, during an on going gathering of intelligence that is the excuse for not talking now? I like the theory that nothing was done because of the fear of a "Blackhawk Down" type incident, then when the smoke cleared and the bodies appeared the the scramble for a narrative ensued. Obama culpable or ignorant, either way has failed to do his job. That and continuing to shun addressing the issue means I don't trust him. Time for another duplicitous politician then this one.

    6. FedUp says:

      Read, as I did early on, the articles posted on the Internet by "The Jerusalem Post," beginning soon after the Benghazi attack. The Post reported statements by Libya's president as well as by sources "on the ground" that the attacks were not a spontaneous mob reaction. Instead, they were pre-planned & well executed by a heavily-armed group of jihadists. Several witnesses recognized the man who appeared to be the leader during the attack–a major figure in an Al-Queda affiliate that was headquartered in North Africa.

      In addition, a video on the Internet shows the discovery of the body of an unidentified American still inside the mission, which at the time was surrounded by large gathering of excitable, young Benghazi men. After the unconscious man (later discovered to be Ambassador Stevens) is handed out through a window, a chorus of loud, emotional shouts in Arabic are clearly audible.

      Based on the President's statements about dangerous, angry mobs in Benghazi, one would surmise the worst. However, translations into English provided on the Internet showed that these young men were–quite unexpectedly–rejoicing upon seeing that the American was still alive, not dead as they'd initially assumed. Instructions were immediately called out to lift up & carry the still-breathing American. Eventually they would reach a car and transport the Ambassador the remaining distance to the hospital along streets sluggish with crowds and traffic.

      According to the Obama & the White House, Benghazi citizens were so consumed by anti-US anger from an absurb & amateur Mohammed film as to attack the U.S. mission. Certainly any underlying anger or resentment would be reflected by the "herd behavior" of this random, large group of Benghazi men. Yet when the opportunity to vent on a defenseless target was literally placed in their hands, the group reaction was to help him.

      The White House had access to the same information–and much more. Although it was likely wise to exercise caution while awaiting further substantiation, there is no rationale that can justify blatant deceipt. That a President would knowingly make false statements is a grievous betrayal of public trust; that this was done to serve a President's own political ends is an unforgivable breach of ethics.

      How credible are the CIA daily reports? Something smells.

    7. President Nixon in 1972 was faced with imminent impeachment due to the Watergate scandal, so rather than suffer the embarrasment, he resigned. He had lied and attempted to cover up the break in of Democratic HQ to get information. Obama has lied and attempted to cover up the incompetence his administration has shown in Libya where 4 American’s lost their lives and they should be alive today. Will the press and public see that Obama is dealt with properly. Of course not —he’ll get a free pass—-and why is that —-?

      • jini craft says:

        Yes, I remember the Nixon incident. And you are probably right – nothing will happen to see that Pres. Obama is called to task on his lack of response on this horrific attack. I also was under the impression that an attack on one of our embassies was an attack on the United States, and therefore an act of war. Is that no longer true?

        • I'm still trying to figure out what exactly you are claiming that Obama did….So, some emails were sent talking about the attack, and there was some stuff posted on twitter and facebook at the very end of the attack or after the attack is over (emails that have been repeatedly mentioned but of which there is no real evidence of…in reality you haven't seen these emails, have you? didn't think so…)

          But what was Obama supposed to do that military officials who would actually be in a position to know what is going on didn't do? And you are saying that Obama said "No! Don't send them help! Let them die! Bwahahahaha!" Give me a breaki.

        • Mikey says:

          It was NOT an Embassy. It is a CIA Operations Center.

    8. Don Woods says:

      Since the agent in the Benghazi consulate who was watching the CCTV between 8:30 and 9:40 would have been debriefed, and would have reported what the White House now admits is true, that there was never a protest before the consulate wall was blown open, how could our CIA even mention a protest in their reporting to Congress days later? We had a 100% reliable witness to the events, so how could the CIA present a story about a fictional protest? It is obvious that the CIA lied to Congress and that is a crime.

    9. Len says:

      A fair article but it failed to mention that there were live videos of the attack from the ground and drones above being watched by officials of the administration. These showed the SEVEN hours of the attack while Obama did nothing. The insiation of UNPLANNED falls way short of believable. Does Obama really expect us to believe that 20 or so people, walking around with RPGs just met up at an intersection and happened to find the secret safe house where the officials were moved to from the compound? Does he think we are dumb? What else has he hidden, FAST & FURIOUS etc.

      • "being watched by officials of the administration…"

        But the reports have been saying that it was Obama personally that was watching the videos, and that it was Obama that personally chose not to send aide to the embassy. I appreciate you finally coming clean and admitting that Obama, personally had nothing to do with it, and that this is all just a last minute smear campaign….don't worry, it's obvious that the attack is being used for political posturing.

    10. Alhjr says:

      Must be Bush's fault.
      Most presidents, those with character and substance, would offer a public apology and say that the mistakes is with them. Here, Hilary Clinton will be made the scapegoat to help Obama. It is a tremendously sad state of affairs when we live in this kind of a world. No wonder Obama is pushing early voting; get everyone to the polls before they start figuring him out

    11. Lloyd Scallan says:

      Does it really matter that this Obama administration or the main streamed media is lying throught its teeth? They only want to get passed November 6th.

    12. joel says:

      Also all the new EPA laws are not going to be put into effect til after the election. Gas is supposed to jump up to $5 then. What is wrong with the mainstream press? Are they and the major networks getting paid to lie and ignore what is happening. I wish Romney had jumped Obama about the Libyian situation and everything else.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.