Message from Benghazi Mission to US Embassy: “Under Fire, Terrorist Attack”

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


what difference does it make

Apparently this was a really ambiguous message that could have been read to mean that an angry mob was protesting a YouTube trailer.

Just minutes after 35 jihadists crashed through the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, nearly one year ago, the facility got word to the State Department, FBI and Pentagon that terrorists were attacking, according to a forthcoming book that provides the fullest review of the assault to date.

In “Under Fire, the Untold Story of the Attack in Benghazi,” it is revealed that an unidentified security official in the Benghazi compound protecting Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens messaged the U.S. embassy in Tripoli: “Benghazi under fire, terrorist attack.” Stevens and three others died that night.

Twenty-five minutes after it began, the operation center at State received an electronic cable announcing the attack, according to authors Fred Burton, a former State Diplomatic Security agent and Samuel Katz, an author and expert on international special operations and counterterrorism.

So the CIA was pressured into discounting the immediate reports from the ground because they were politically inconvenient to the cause of Hillary 2016. The talking points were censored and a filmmaker was locked up and CNN’s finest lied about it during a political debate in what was an unambiguously prearranged moment by the political palace guard of the current government.

Furthermore, despite an immediate message warning that an armed terrorist attack was under way, no help was sent and the few men who intended to go were held back. The two Navy SEALS who disobeyed orders and rushed to their aid did so by disobeying orders, thereby affirming the Nuremberg protocols against the will of Obama Inc.

Had they survived, they could have no doubt told quite a story. Meanwhile the remaining survivors are being threatened and intimidated.

  • glpage

    To answer Hillary’s question, at this point we know she lied and people died. If she runs in 2016 that message needs to be hammered into the minds of voters any time she opens her mouth.

    • MarilynA

      The public’s memory is about two weeks long according to the late great political guru, Lee Atwater. All Hillary has to do is promise to keep the gravy train rolling and US Voters will line up to get their handouts.

  • DogmaelJones1

    What difference does it make, Hillary? Benghazi makes the difference, and that’s only the icing on the cake. There’s your whole political career.

    • myrna652

      like Adam answered I am shocked that some people able to make $9361 in four weeks on the computer. view publisher site w­w­w.J­A­M­20.c­o­m

  • truebearing

    Given the extreme measures taken to silence the survivors, and the shady gun running that we know Obama has been involved with, from Mexico to Honduras to Libya, and now Syria, there is no reason to assume that help wasn’t refused because they wanted Stevens dead. Had Obama sent in massive amounts of assets and destroyed the Islamists, he would have helped his election cause immensely…. unless something went wrong, which naturally would have triggered a Congressional investigation. Obama is a pure coward when it comes to risking his political fortunes, and since Congress would likely have wanted Stevens to testify about a botched rescue, Obama and Hillary needed to make sure Stevens stayed quiet about their scheming with the Islamists. It is easy to see why they not only refused to help Stevens, but didn’t retaliate against Al Queda or the Muslim Brotherhood for killing him..