Hillary Clinton Flees Protest Led by Mother of Man Murdered in Benghazi

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.


Hillary Clinton will go anywhere to receive an award and deliver the same speech that she delivers everywhere “leadership for girls”, “Climate change challenges our policy”, “we need to legislate smarter”.

Or almost anywhere. There is one thing that will make Hillary pass up a venue. The mother of one of her victims.

Former Secretary of State and potential Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, recently cancelled her plans to appear as the keynote speaker for the 17th Annual Western Healthcare Leadership Academy on April 11 in San Diego, amidst planned fervent protests from local San Diego residents.

Protesters have organized under the banner of “The Difference Matters” coalition, a group that primarily consist of local San Diego women who refuse to allow Clinton into their community because of her role in the Benghazi cover up scandal.

Pat Smith, one of the protest’s original organizers and the mother of Sean Smith, an American soldier who was killed in the Benghazi attacks, will lead the protest beginning April 11th.

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 23, 2013, in questions related to the facts surrounding the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton angrily retorted “What difference…does it make ?” On April 11, 2014, concerned citizens will let everyone know The Difference  Matters.

You can find out more information at The Difference Matters website.

  • Josh Randall

    Typical Leftist Coward.

  • DogmaelJones1

    Double thumbs up for these women. No, Hillary doesn’t belong anywhere on American soil, never mind San Diego. So, Hillary has “20 years experience in health care reform”? Where is that white-coated guy’s mind? Oh. That’s right. There’s your picture of a PC manque who’ll believe anything Hillary says.

    • gerry

      She belongs to the American soil,a fine product of the party.Anyway,she got no place to got to,no contry wants her.Sorry,you are suck with her.

  • SoCalMike

    Where did they dig up that leftist dinosaur dressed up as a doctor praising Hillary?? Are you kidding me?

    • Steve Bryant

      He’s a lead man at the Infomercial network……

      • A Z

        Link please.

    • gerry

      No,they are kidding you!

  • Steve Bryant

    Gee, too bad our national media doesn’t give Pat Smith the same level of coverage and support they gave Cindy Sheehan every time she farted during George Bush’s second term. But, that’s different,eh.

    • gerry

      What do youexpect from low lives.

  • A Z

    San Diego is a military town. Any place where there are a lot of military family members is a town where we could have protests. It could make her campaign stops problematic

    If Hillary runs from protesters, can she stand up to Putin?

    • darnellecheri

      “If Hillary runs from protesters, can she stand up to Putin?”

      That is good. ;0

      • olivia

        There is something wrong with all of us who sit on our butts and let our government do what they are doing to America. Harry Reid, who was just found guilty of defrauding his campaign funds of about $17,000.00, merely said “he will pay it back.” and he gets away. Pelosi, who participates in insider, back door, secretive and illegal purchasing of IPOs gets away with it. – what about Martha Stewart?

        We keep sitting here, the government keeps taking away our country.

    • DogmaelJones1

      Of course she could stand up to Putin. She’s about the same height —
      diminutive — in moral stature. She could give him a brand new reset
      button this time a pink one. They could dance together, but they’d get
      into a fight about who would lead. She’d give away Alaska to keep the
      “peace.” Putin could coach her on how to arm-wrestle Bill. Hillary and
      Vladimir, the new Odd Couple. Let’s hope it never happens. Obama and
      Putin are dangerous enough.

      • posse 101

        funny stuff.

      • gerry

        Ho,Putin s more moral stature and more respected around the orld that Hillary.

  • gerry

    Thbis is the way to deal withthe likes of Hillary.Make life difficult to them,give them a taste of ther own medcine.

  • gerry

    Drop her in Benghazi.

  • nobamunism

    Murdering coward.

  • http://batman-news.com Tenth Avenue Glove-Out

    Good choice, libs.
    Bring back the corrupt, lying Screech Owl in a pants suit and her grifting predator of a husband.

  • ConcernedCitizen999

    “Hillary Clinton Flees…” from the truth, like the Wicked Witch from water, she can only flee screaming “I’m melting ! melting !”.

  • BW

    What an irresponsible thing to write– “the mother of one of her victims.” As if Hillary Clinton killed the man rather than a terrorist. I’m really sorry for the family’s losses, but we have to remember that these people knew they were working in a dangerous job. I’m really sorry this tragedy happened, but it was not Hillary Clinton’s fault. The way the tea party uses the real grief of these families is sickening.

    • 11bravo

      BW, she refused the pleadings of those in Benghazi who asked for more security – on two (2) different occasions. There is a reason why she did that (CIA operations in the area), but I won’t go into it.
      Also do not forget, they were watching the attack in “real time video”), and CHOSE not to act.
      Pretty damning stuff. She will never be president.

      • bw

        Most people acknowledge that this was a tragedy, and place the blame where it belongs, on the people who actually perpetrated the attacks. This is being blown out of proportion for political reasons, and it’s disgusting. I’ve read everything I can (from the first hand documents that have been made available) and I have to say, there just doesn’t seem to be much there other than a few errors in judgment that were made along the way, (and not by Clinton herself.) It seems most reasonable people who don’t have an axe to grind because they dislike Hillary, see it that way. But you’re all entitled to your opinions, obviously. Have a good afternoon, and god bless.

        • 11bravo

          If you are not troubled by the (arguably) most powerful people in the world lying directly to the American people, then I do not know if there is anything one could say to change your (allegedly non-axe to grind) mind.
          Obama, Clapper, Donlin, Panetta, Petraus, Rice, The current head of the CIA, and the former deputy director + Hillary; have all lied to closed sessions of congressional committees, and on video.
          Hillary and our president stood in front of the bodies of the fallen (and their loved ones) and flat out lied about the video! Obama did the same thing a week later in front of the UN – IOW’s the whole world!
          All the while they knew of the real time drone video, and video from the compound cameras themselves. You just do not get better intelligence than highly trained CIA operatives on the ground, in real time.
          The video was nothing but deception.
          There is no escaping these facts – yet the lack of curiosity by the press, the military, and civilian professionals is depressing.
          Forget the incompetence of it being 9/11 DUH!! Forget Osama is dead, and Al Qeada is on the run mantras. The facts of the attack are what they are – inescapable for Hillary.

      • teresaInPa

        no such thing ever happened. She will be president and one day you will have the sense to be grateful. When that happens I hope you are person enough to say so.

    • D.Michael

      She certainly didn’t pull the trigger, but she was, and continues to be, involved in the lies and cover-up. One of this administration’s greatest wishes is that the Benghazi issue would just go away. Blaming the “video” as she met the grieving families is one of the most cold-hearted things I’ve ever seen. Absolutely everything she does is politically calculated to advance her agenda or cover her ample behind.

      • SophieCT

        There is no cover-up. Do you have any idea how pathetic you sound? You believe you have a heart-felt position but what you have is partisan ignorance. I will pray for you.

    • teresaInPa

      Yes, they knew and they chose to stay doing the work they loved. It is a disgrace what republicans are doing to their memories.

    • Truth Crusader

      It was Hillary, not the GOP, who declared “What difference does it now make” about “4 dead Americans”. That remark says it all, cowardly liberals.

  • ACMECorporations

    Hillary begins to find out the answer to the question: “What difference at this point does it make?”

  • helen sabin

    This serial liar should be banned from ever appearing in public! She is a disgrace, liar, killer of the 4 wonderful men in Benghazi, and wouldn’t divorce Bill even when he had affairs out the kazoo – She stood by her man – HAH!!

  • jillyW

    Better to have someone who has 20 years experience dealing with healthcare????? REALLY???? She was a flat out failure and zero’s plan is a monster shoved down our throat. And this guy gives her credit????

  • Massgopguy

    “Huma! The peons are questioning me! Get the big bottle of Maker’s Mark!”

  • SophieCT

    What a shame that Pat Smith is being exploited for political reasons. And if she really came to the decision to blame Hillary on her own, she is sadly misinformed. If feel sorry for her on many fronts.

    P.S. Hillary Clinton “flees” from no one. Ever.

    • teresaInPa

      yes, it is sad to see this woman victimized again by republicans….once when they denied the state department more money for security and again now as a way to hit Hillary in the next election since they have no one who can beat her on substance. Republicans are starting to disgust me again.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Hillary’s State Department had hundreds of millions to spend on art, but couldn’t manage to pay for security?

        It could renovate the mansion of a top donor with a penchant for molesting young boys, but couldn’t find the cash to provide security in Benghazi?

  • teresaInPa

    LOL, yeah right. Hillary Clinton runs from a hand full of ignorant tea party conspiracy nuts? I doubt it. I am very sorry for the loss of those workers in Benghazi, but their families better realize now the republican party is using them to try to stop Clinton from getting elected. It is all they care about. Hillary has been cleared of any wrong doing and anyone still fixated on this event is wearing a too tight tin foil hat. If you want to assign blame, look no further than the republican congress which decided there would be no money in the budget for extra security.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Hillary was cleared by her own committee. Meanwhile she was spending a fortune on art while not providing funding for security.

      • Truth Crusader

        Hillary hand picked 4 of the 5 members of her Committee. One in particular, Thomas Pickering, was a member of her husband Bill’s Administration for all 8 years.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          exactly

  • Jim Ward

    And if you want to talk about the family members, you might actually want to listen to what Ambassador Stevens’ family and other family members had to say about this…

    His sister, Anne Stevens said, “Chris was not focused on revenge. He wanted the Libyan people to have a free and democratic society.” She wrote that she told Secretary Clinton, “I hope this will not prevent us from continuing to support the Libyan people, from moving ahead.”

    Try listening to Ambassador Stevens’ father who declared that it would be “abhorrent” to politicise his son’s death. Or Barbara Doherty, whose son, Glen was one of the responding soldiers killed in Benghazi, who said. “It’s wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama.”

    Ambassador Stevens’ mother, Mary Commanday said, “I don’t think it’s productive to lay blame on people.”

    “Chris was not willing to be the kind of diplomat who would strut around in fortified compounds. He amazed and impressed the Libyans by walking the streets with the lightest of escorts, sitting in sidewalk cafes, chatting with passers-by. There was a risk to being accessible. He knew it, and he accepted it.”

    “What Chris never would have accepted was the idea that his death would be used for political purposes.”

    Regarding Hillary Clinton, Stevens’ stepfather Bob Commanday said, “We’re very aware of her sympathy because of our contact with her and the way she has connected with us.”

    “We don’t think it should be politicized,” he said.

    Stevens’ father, Jan Stevens told CNN that “the ambassador never said anything critical of the State Department and felt Hillary Clinton was ‘an extremely able person.’ Stevens said the State Department is giving him updates on the progress of the investigation.”

    Jan Stevens also wrote:

    “So rather than engage in endless recriminations, his family is working to continue building the bridges he so successfully began.”

    “Chris would not have wanted to be remembered as a victim. Chris knew, and accepted, that he was working under dangerous circumstances. He did so — just as so many of our diplomatic and development professionals do every day — because he believed the work was vitally important. He would have wanted the critical work he was doing to build bridges of mutual understanding and respect — the kind of work that made him literally thousands of friends and admirers across the broader Middle East — to continue.”

    So, if you are really concerned about both the victims and their families, here is how you can contribute:

    “The Stevens family has established the J. Christopher Stevens Fund, with an aim to promote intercultural understanding between Americans and the people of the Middle East. The fund will support educational programs, including student exchanges, libraries and the Peace Corps.”

    As Glen Doherty’s sister, Kate said, “My favorite quote came from my brother, Greg Doherty, who said ‘why don’t we blame the terrorists?’ That’s who’s at fault here.”

    • BW

      May I share this on my FB page?

      • Jim Ward

        Yes, of course!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I would rather listen to the family members of those who were put in harm’s way by Stevens’ decisions.

      Stevens was part of the chain of authority. I’m not terribly interested in excuses from his family members.

      I would like to hear from the family members of those who died because he lacked the guts to challenge his superiors and fight for the security of the people in Benghazi.

      • Jim Ward

        What a despicable way to talk about one of the brave Americans we lost in Benghazi.

        The comments above, of course, include those from the family members of two of the four who died in Benghazi. The message is clear: Don’t exploit their deaths to score political points.

        You can tell us that Steven’s “lacked guts” when you do anything even remotely as brave as his service to our country. Not yet an ambassador, he arrived in Benghazi with the CIA and other personnel aboard a Greek cargo ship. He was the “Special Envoy” to the rebels — essentially the “General” in the “secret” U.S. ground war to topple the Qaddafi dictatorship. President Reagan, of course, called the terror-supporting Qaddafi the “Mad Dog of the Mideast.”

        The mission in post-war Libya was to disarm the rebels, create a national security force, and secure the many MANPADS that had been looted from Qaddafi’s arsenals and which posed grave danger to civilian airliners. Stevens knew that this delicate task would not have been any easier in the presence of a Western invasion force. As the AFRICOM Commanding General and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified, Stevens himself turned down multiple offers off and increased overt military presence at the Benghazi outpost, opting instead for the security agreement with the nearby CIA Global Response Staff (GRS) soldiers. This was in addition to the many physical security upgrades at the outpost, as outlined in the ARB and other reports.

        The first of three U.S. reaction forces — comprised of CIA GRS and Pentagon Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) commandos — responded within 25 minutes. These forces were further reinforced by fighters from Libyan Shield, Feb 17 Brigade and Libyan Military Intelligence soldiers who arrived in more than 50 vehicles. Together, U.S. and Libyan soldiers killed dozens of the attackers in battle, secured the bodies of our four dead, and safely evacuated nearly 40 Americans within hours.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          The vast majority of your comment quotes Stevens, including, for some reason, his stepfather.

          The family members of those who died because Stevens failed to challenge the State Department and secure the Benghazi mission properly deserve to be heard from.

          • Jim Ward

            I am not aware of any family members who have been stopped from speaking there minds.

            And I still think it is pretty despicable to blame Ambassador Stevens for his own death.

            As his father said, “Chris would not have wanted to be remembered as a victim. Chris knew, and accepted, that he was working under dangerous circumstances. He did so — just as so many of our diplomatic and development professionals do every day — because he believed the work was vitally important. He would have wanted the critical work he was doing to build bridges of mutual understanding and respect — the kind of work that made him literally thousands of friends and admirers across the broader Middle East — to continue.”

          • Truth Crusader

            Jim coWard-now inform us of what the rest of the families feel about Benghazi, Hillary and Obama you cherry picking Coward

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Stevens was in a position of command there. The men who died weren’t.

            He made his choices and dragged in good men after him.

          • Truth Crusader

            BENGHAZI TIMELINE CONTINUED

            Sept. 16: Magariaf says in an interview with NPR: “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.”

            Sept. 17: State Defends Rice and ‘Initial Assessment’

            Sept. 17: Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman, is asked about Rice’s comments on “Face the Nation” and four other Sunday talk shows. Nuland says, “The comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our government’s initial assessment.” Nuland uses the phrase “initial assessment” three times when discussing Rice’s comments.

            Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’

            Sept. 18: Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on “The Late Show with David Letterman.” The president said, “Here’s what happened,” and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said, “Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.” He also said, “As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we’ve denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it. That’s never an excuse for violence.”

            Sept. 18: Asked about Magariaf’s assessment that the video had nothing to do with the terrorist attack in Benghazi, the White House spokesman says Obama “would rather wait” for the investigation to be completed. “But at this time, as Ambassador Rice said and as I said, our understanding and our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped — that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere,” Carney says. “What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation.”

            Sept. 18: After meeting with Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Patricia Espinosa, Clinton speaks with reporters and is asked if the Libyan president is “wrong” that “this attack was planned for months.” Clinton says, “The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has said we had no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent.” She does not say if Magariaf is right or wrong.

            Sept. 19: Olsen Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’

            Sept. 19: Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, tells a Senate subcommittee (at 1:06:49 in the video) that the four State Department officials in Benghazi “were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.” It is the first time an administration official labeled it a “terrorist attack.” But he also tells the senators that he has no “specific evidence of significant advanced planning.”

            [TET ]

            Olsen: Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. … The best information we have now, the facts that we have now, indicate that this was an opportunist attack on our embassy. The attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours. … [I]t appears that individuals who were certainly well armed seized on the opportunity presented as the events unfolded. … What we don’t have, at this point, is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.

            [/TET]

            Sept. 19: At a State Department briefing, the department spokeswoman is asked if she now believes that the attack was a “terrorist attack”? She says, “Well, I didn’t get a chance to see the whole testimony that was given by Matt Olsen of the NCTC, but obviously we stand by comments made by our intelligence community who has first responsibility for evaluating the intelligence and what they believe that we are seeing.”

            Sept. 19: The White House spokesman does not call it a “terrorist attack” in his press briefing. Carney says, “Based on the information we had at the time — we have now, we do not yet have indication that it was preplanned or premeditated. There’s an active investigation. If that active investigation produces facts that lead to a different conclusion, we will make clear that that’s where the investigation has led.”

            Sept. 20: W.H. Spokesman Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’ — Not Obama

            Sept. 20: Carney calls it a “terrorist attack” after being asked how the White House now classifies the attack. But he says the White House has no evidence that it was “a significantly preplanned attack” and blames the video for igniting the incident in Benghazi.

            [TET ]

            Carney: It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that’s self-evident. I would point you to a couple of things that Mr. Olsen said, which is that at this point it appears that a number of different elements were involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in Eastern Libya.

            He also made clear that at this point, based on the information he has — and he is briefing the Hill on the most up-to-date intelligence — we have no information at this point that suggests that this was a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive.

            [/TET]

            Sept. 20: Obama, at a town hall meeting, says “extremists” took advantage of the “natural protests” to the anti-Muslim video to attack the consulate in Benghazi. He does not call it a “terrorist attack.”

            Question: We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?

            Obama: Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.

            Sept. 21: Clinton Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’

            Sept. 21: Clinton, speaking to reporters before a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, calls it a “terrorist attack” for the first time. She says, “Yesterday afternoon when I briefed the Congress, I made it clear that keeping our people everywhere in the world safe is our top priority. What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”

            Sept. 24-25: Obama Refuses to Call It a Terrorist Attack

            Sept. 24: Clinton meets with the Libyan president and calls the Benghazi attack a “terrorist assault.” She says, “As we all know, the United States lost a great ambassador and the Libyan people lost a true friend when Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the terrorist assault on our consulate in Benghazi.”

            Sept. 24: Obama tapes an appearance on “The View,” and he’s asked by co-host Joy Behar whether the Libya attack was an act of terrorism or caused by the anti-Muslim video. He does not call it a terrorist attack and says, “We’re still doing an investigation.”

            [TET ]

            Joy Behar: It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie, or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?

            Obama: Well, we’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it. But what’s clear is that around the world, there’s still a lot of threats out there. That’s why we have to maintain the strongest military in the world, that’s why we can’t let down our guard when it comes to the intelligence work that we do and staying on top of — not just al Qaeda, the traditional al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan. …

            [/TET]

            Sept. 25: Obama speaks at the United Nations. He praises Chris Stevens as “the best of America” and condemns the anti-Muslim video as “crude and disgusting.” He does not describe the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack.

            Sept. 26: ‘Let’s Be Clear, It Was a Terrorist Attack’

            Sept. 26: Carney is asked at a press briefing aboard Air Force One en route to Ohio why the president has not called the Benghazi incident a “terrorist attack.” He said, “The president — our position is, as reflected by the NCTC director, that it was a terrorist attack. It is, I think by definition, a terrorist attack when there is a prolonged assault on an embassy with weapons. … So, let’s be clear, it was a terrorist attack and it was an inexcusable attack.”

            Sept. 26: Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, in an interview with Al Jazeera, is asked whether he agrees with the president of Libya that the Benghazi attack was premeditated and had nothing to do with the anti-Muslim video. He said: “It’s clear that the attack which took the lives of Chris Stevens and three other colleagues was clearly choreographed and directed and involved a fair amount of firepower, but exactly what kind of planning went into that and how it emerged on that awful night, we just don’t know right now. But I’m confident we’ll get to the bottom of it.”

            Sept. 27: When Did Administration Know?

            Sept. 27: At a press briefing, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says that “it was a terrorist attack,” but declines to say when he came to that conclusion. “It took a while to really get some of the feedback from what exactly happened at that location,” he said. “As we determined the details of what took place there, and how that attack took place, that it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack.”

            Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same briefing addresses what the U.S. knew in advance of the Benghazi attack. He says there was “a thread of intelligence reporting that groups in … eastern Libya were seeking to coalesce, but there wasn’t anything specific and certainly not a specific threat to the consulate that I’m aware of.”

            Sept. 27: In a report on “Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees,” Fran Townsend, former Homeland Security adviser to President George W. Bush, says the administration knew early on that it was a terrorist attack. “The law enforcement source who said to me, from day one we had known clearly that this was a terrorist attack,” she says.

            Sept. 27-28: Intelligence ‘Evolved’

            Sept. 27: The White House spokesman is asked yet again why the president has refused to call the incident a terrorist attack. “The president’s position [is] that this was a terrorist attack,” Carney says.

            [TET ]

            Question: If the president does not call it, label it a terrorist attack as you and others have, is there some legal or diplomatic trigger that that brings? Why hasn’t he said that?

            Carney: I think you’re misunderstanding something here. I’m the president’s spokesman. When the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, in open testimony in Congress answered a question by saying yes, by the definitions we go by — this is me paraphrasing — this was a terrorist attack — I echoed that, because this president, this administration, everybody looks to the intelligence community for the assessments on this. And it has been since I said so, the president’s position that this was a terrorist attack.

            [/TET]

            Sept. 28: Shawn Turner, a spokesman for the director of national intelligence, says in a statement that the office’s position on the attack evolved. It was first believed that “the attack began spontaneously,” but it was later determined that “it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack,” he says.

            Turner: In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.

            As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate.

            Oct. 2-3: Clinton Cites ‘Continuing Questions’

            Oct. 2: White House spokesman Carney at a press briefing in Nevada: “At every step of the way, the administration has based its public statements on the best assessments that were provided by the intelligence community. As the intelligence community learned more information they updated Congress and the American people on it.”

            Oct. 3: Clinton tells reporters after a meeting with Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Erlan Idrissov: “There are continuing questions about what exactly happened in Benghazi on that night three weeks ago. And we will not rest until we answer those questions and until we track down the terrorists who killed our people.”

            Oct. 9: ’Everything Calm’ Prior to Benghazi Attack, No Protests

            Oct. 9: At a background briefing, senior state department officials reveal there were no protests prior to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi — contrary to what administration officials have been saying for weeks. A senior department official says “everything is calm at 8:30 p.m.” (Libya time) when Stevens was outside the building to bid a visitor goodbye. The ambassador retired to his bedroom for the evening at 9 p.m. The calm was shattered by 9:40 p.m. when “loud noises” and “gunfire and an explosion” are heard. (The background briefing provided on Sept. 12 also said the attack began at about 10 p.m., or about 4 p.m. EDT, but it did not provide information about what happened prior to the attack.)

            A senior official says it was “not our conclusion” that the Benghazi attack started as a spontaneous protest to the anti-Muslim video. He also said “there was no actionable intelligence of any planned or imminent attack.”

            [TET ]

            Question: What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?

            Senior state department official two: That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened. The Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on the street at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we saw on the cameras the – a large number of armed men assaulting the compound.

            [/TET]

            Oct. 10: Administration Says It Gave Public ‘Best Information’

            Oct. 10: Carney, the White House spokesman, is asked at a press briefing why the president and administration officials described the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause of the attack on Benghazi when the State Department “never concluded that the assault in Benghazi was part of a protest on the anti-Muslim film.” He replied, in part: “Again, from the beginning, we have provided information based on the facts that we knew as they became available, based on assessments by the intelligence community — not opinions — assessments by the IC, by the intelligence community. And we have been clear all along that this was an ongoing investigation, that as more facts became available we would make you aware of them as appropriate, and we’ve done that.”

            Oct. 10: After testifying before a House committee, Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy is asked at a press briefing what the State Department should have done differently in releasing information about the Benghazi attack. He said, “We are giving out the best information we have at the time.”

            [TET ]

            Kennedy: [T]his is obviously an incredibly complicated situation. We’ve always made clear from the very beginning that we are giving out the best information we have at the time we are giving it out. That information has evolved over time. For example, if any Administration official, including any career official, had been on television on Sunday, September 16th, they would have said the same thing that Ambassador Rice would have said. She had information at that point from the intelligence community, and that is the same information I had and this – I would have made exactly the same points. Clearly, we know more today, but we knew what we knew when we knew it.

            [/TET]

            Oct. 10: The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform releases State Department memos requesting additional security in Libya. Charlene Lamb, a State Department official who denied those requests, tells the committee that the State Department had been training local Libyans for nearly a year and additional U.S. security personnel were not needed. As reported by Foreign Policy: “We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi on the night of 9/11,” Lamb testified. Others testified differently. “All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources,” testified Eric Nordstrom, the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Foreign Policy reported.

            Oct. 15: Clinton Blames ‘Fog of War’

            Oct. 15: Clinton, in an interview on CNN, blamed the “fog of war” when asked why the administration initially claimed the attack began with the anti-Muslim video, even though the State Department never reached that conclusion. “In the wake of an attack like this in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion, and I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence,” Clinton said. “Everyone who spoke tried to give the information they had. As time has gone on, the information has changed, we’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising. That always happens.”

            Oct. 15: The New York Times reports that the Benghazi attack came “without any warning or protest,” but “Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers” say it was “in retaliation for the video.”

            Oct. 24: White House, State Department Emails on Ansar al-Sharia

            Oct. 24: Reuters reports the White House, Pentagon and other government agencies learned just two hours into the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic militant group, had “claimed credit” for it. The wire service report was based on three emails from the State Department’s Operations Center. One of the emails said, “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripol.” The article also noted, “Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.” (It should be noted that Reuters first reported on Sept. 12 that unnamed U.S. officials believed that Ansar al-Sharia may have been involved.)

            Oct. 24: Clinton warns at a press conference that you cannot draw conclusions from the leaked emails because “cherry-picking one story here or one document there” can be misleading. She said, “The independent Accountability Review Board is already hard at work looking at everything — not cherry-picking one story here or one document there — but looking at everything, which I highly recommend as the appropriate approach to something as complex as an attack like this. Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence, and I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be.”

            Oct. 24: Carney, the White House spokesman, says that “within a few hours” of the attack Ansar al-Sharia “claimed that it had not been responsible.” He added, “Neither should be taken as fact — that’s why there’s an investigation underway.”

            May 8, 2013: At a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, Rep. Trey Gowdy reads excerpts of a Sept. 12, 2011, email written by Acting Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East Beth Jones. According to Gowdy, Jones wrote, “I spoke to the Libyan ambassador and emphasized the importance of Libyan leaders to continue to make strong statements,” and “When he said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attack, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.” Gowdy said the email was sent to several top State Department officials, including Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy. The committee did not release the full contents of the email. House Speaker John Boehner said the State Department did not allow the House to keep a copy of it.)

            May 15, 2013: The White House releases 100 pages of emails regarding the CIA’s original talking points that were developed for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and used by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice during her Sept. 16 Sunday talk show appearances. The emails show there were extensive changes made at the request of the State Department. (See “Sept. 16″ in our timeline for more information.)

            Update, Nov. 6, 2012: This article was updated to add the president’s Sept. 12 interview with “60 Minutes,” which did not release the video and transcript until Nov. 4.

            Update, May 9, 2013: This article was updated to include testimony from the May 8, 2013, hearing of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform.

            – by Eugene Kiely

    • Truth Crusader

      Analysis

      Sept. 11: The Attack

      2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time. (“Everything is calm at 8:30,” a State Department official would later say at an Oct. 9 background briefing for reporters. “There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.”)

      3 p.m.: Ambassador Stevens retires to his bedroom for the evening. (See Oct. 9 briefing.)

      Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”

      About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack that was given to reporters at a Sept. 12 State Department background briefing. An administration official identified only as “senior administration official one” provides an official timeline of events at the consulate, but only from the time of the attack — not prior to the attack. The official says, “The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists.” (Six of the next seven entries in this timeline — through 8:30 p.m. EDT — all come from the Sept. 12 briefing. The exception being the 6:07 p.m. entry, which comes from Reuters.)

      About 4:15 p.m.: “The attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith.”

      Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead.

      About 4:45 p.m.: “U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.”

      About 5:20 p.m.: “U.S. and Libyan security personnel … regain the main building and they were able to secure it.”

      Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours. It was during that time that two additional U.S. personnel were killed and two more were wounded during that ongoing attack.”

      6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)

      About 8:30 p.m.: “Libyan security forces were able to assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all of this – and frankly, we do not know when – we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a hospital in Benghazi. We do not have any information what his condition was at that time. His body was later returned to U.S. personnel at the Benghazi airport.”

      About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.

      Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

      Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’

      Sept. 12: Clinton issues a statement confirming that four U.S. officials, not one, had been killed. She called it a “violent attack.”

      Clinton: All the Americans we lost in yesterday’s attacks made the ultimate sacrifice. We condemn this vicious and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the Libyan people reach for a better future.

      Sept. 12: Clinton delivers a speech at the State Department to condemn the attack in Benghazi and to praise the victims as “heroes.” She again makes reference to the anti-Muslim video in similar language.

      Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear — there is no justification for this, none.

      Sept. 12: Obama delivers a morning speech in the Rose Garden to address the deaths of U.S. diplomats in Libya. He said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” He also makes reference to the anti-Muslim video when he says: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.” He uses the term “act of terror” later that night when talking about the attack at a campaign event in Las Vegas.

      Sept. 12: After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for “60 Minutes.” Obama says he didn’t use the word “terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.” Steve Kroft, the show’s host, wonders how the attack could be described as a “mob action” since the attackers were “very heavily armed.” Obama says “we’re still investigating,” but he suspects “folks involved in this . . . were looking to target Americans from the start.”

      [TET ]

      Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.

      Obama: Right.

      Kroft: Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?

      Obama: Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans and we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice one way or the other.

      Kroft: It’s been described as a mob action. But there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades. That doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.

      Obama: As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened. I don’t want to jump the gun on this. But you’re right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this, who were looking to target Americans from the start.

      [/TET]

      Sept. 12: Senior administration officials, who did not permit use of their names, hold a briefing with reporters to answer questions about the attack. Twice officials characterize those involved in the attack as “extremists.” In one case, an official identified only as “senior administration official one” is asked by Fox News reporter Justin Fishel if the administration had ruled out the possibly that the attack was in response to the anti-Muslim video. The official says, “We just don’t know.”

      [TET ]

      Senior administration official one: With regard to whether there is any connection between this Internet activity and this extremist attack in Benghazi, frankly, we just don’t know. We’re not going to know until we have a chance to investigate. And I’m sorry that it is frustrating for you that so many of our answers are “We don’t know,” but they are truthful in that.

      [/TET]

      NBC’s Andrea Mitchell asks officials to address news reports that the attack has been “linked to a terror attack, an organized terror attack,” possibly al Qaeda. The official refers to it as a “complex attack,” but says it is “too early to say who they were” and their affiliation.

      [TET ]

      Senior administration official one: Frankly, we are not in a position to speak any further to the perpetrators of this attack. It was clearly a complex attack. We’re going to have to do a full investigation. We are committed to working with the Libyans both on the investigation and to ensure that we bring the perpetrators to justice. The FBI is already committed to assisting in that, but I just – we’re – it’s just too early to speak to who they were and if they might have been otherwise affiliated beyond Libya.

      [/TET]

      Sept. 12, 4:09 p.m.: At a press briefing en route to Las Vegas, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is asked, “Does the White House believe that the attack in Benghazi was planned and premeditated?” He responds, “It’s too early for us to make that judgment. I think — I know that this is being investigated, and we’re working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time.”

      Sept. 12: Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, tells the BBC that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. The little-known militant group issues a statement that says it “didn’t participate as a sole entity,” neither confirming nor denying the report.

      Sept. 12, 6:06 p.m.: Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East, sends an email to top State Department officials that reads in part: “[T]he group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.” (An excerpt of Jones’ email was read by Rep. Trey Gowdy at the May 8, 2013, House oversight hearing.)

      Sept. 12: Citing unnamed “U.S. government officials,” Reuters reports that “the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance” and that members of Ansar al-Sharia “may have been involved.” Reuters quotes one of the U.S. officials as saying: “It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”

      Sept. 13: ‘Clearly Planned’ or ‘Spontaneous’ Attack?

      Sept. 13: Clinton meets with Ali Suleiman Aujali — the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. — at a State Department event to mark the end of Ramadan. Ambassador Aujali apologizes to Clinton for what he called “this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya.” Clinton, in her remarks, does not refer to it as a terrorist attack. She condemns the anti-Muslim video, but adds that there is “never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

      [TET ]

      Clinton: Religious freedom and religious tolerance are essential to the stability of any nation, any people. Hatred and violence in the name of religion only poison the well. All people of faith and good will know that the actions of a small and savage group in Benghazi do not honor religion or God in any way. Nor do they speak for the more than 1 billion Muslims around the world, many of whom have shown an outpouring of support during this time.

      Unfortunately, however, over the last 24 hours, we have also seen violence spread elsewhere. Some seek to justify this behavior as a response to inflammatory, despicable material posted on the Internet. As I said earlier today, the United States rejects both the content and the message of that video. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. At our meeting earlier today, my colleague, the foreign minister of Morocco, said that all prophets should be respected because they are all symbols of our humanity, for all humanity.

      But both of us were crystal clear in this paramount message: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind. And we look to leaders around the world to stand up and speak out against violence, and to take steps to protect diplomatic missions from attack.

      [/TET]

      Sept. 13: At a daily press briefing, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was asked if the Benghazi attack was “purely spontaneous or was premeditated by militants.” She declined to say, reiterating that the administration did not want to “jump to conclusions.”

      [TET ]

      Nuland: Well, as we said yesterday when we were on background, we are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated, whether they had any external contacts, whether there was any link, until we have a chance to investigate along with the Libyans. So I know that’s going to be frustrating for you, but we really want to make sure that we do this right and we don’t jump to conclusions.

      That said, obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating. As the Secretary said this morning, while we as Americans, of course, respect free speech, respect free expression, there’s never an excuse for it to become violent.

      [/TET]

      Sept. 13: Clinton met with Moroccan Foreign Minister Saad-Eddine Al-Othmani. She condemned what she called the “disgusting and reprehensible” anti-Muslim video and the violence that it triggered. She said, “Islam, like other religions, respects the fundamental dignity of human beings, and it is a violation of that fundamental dignity to wage attacks on innocents. As long as there are those who are willing to shed blood and take innocent life in the name of religion, the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace.”

      Sept. 13: At a campaign event in Colorado, Obama again uses the phrase “act of terror.” He says: “I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.”

      Sept. 13: CNN reports that unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi was a “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie.

      CNN: “It was not an innocent mob,” one senior official said. “The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.”

      Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack

      Sept. 14: Clinton spoke at Andrews Air Force Base at a ceremony to receive the remains of those killed in Benghazi. She remarked that she received a letter from the president of the Palestinian Authority praising Stevens and “deploring — and I quote — ‘an act of ugly terror.’ ” She, however, did not call it an act of terror or a terrorist attack and neither did the president.

      Sept. 14: At a State Department press briefing, spokeswoman Nuland says the department will no longer answer any questions about the Benghazi attack. “It is now something that you need to talk to the FBI about, not to us about, because it’s their investigation.”

      Sept. 14: At a White House press briefing, Press Secretary Carney denies reports that it was a preplanned attack. “I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false.” Later in that same briefing, Carney is told that Pentagon officials informed members of Congress at a closed-door meeting that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack. Carney said the matter is being investigated but White House officials “don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.”

      [TET ]

      Question: Jay, one last question — while we were sitting here — [Defense] Secretary [Leon] Panetta and the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee. And the senators came out and said their indication was that this, or the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack organized and carried out by terrorists, that it was premeditated, a calculated act of terror. Levin said — Senator Levin — I think it was a planned, premeditated attack. The kind of equipment that they had used was evidence it was a planned, premeditated attack. Is there anything more you can — now that the administration is briefing senators on this, is there anything more you can tell us?

      Carney: Well, I think we wait to hear from administration officials. Again, it’s actively under investigation, both the Benghazi attack and incidents elsewhere. And my point was that we don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film. But we’re obviously investigating the matter, and I’ll certainly — I’m sure both the Department of Defense and the White House and other places will have more to say about that as more information becomes available.

      [/TET]

      Sept. 14: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta meets with the Senate Armed Services Committee. Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, reports that Republicans and Democrats came away with the conclusion that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack.

      [TET ]

      The Hill: Senators spoke with Panetta about the response to the situation in Libya. Four Americans were killed in an attack Tuesday on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

      Senators said it has become clearer the attack was coordinated, although they would not say anything specific about any connection to the broader protests that came after an anti-Muslim video was released.

      “I think it was a planned, premeditated attack,” Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said. He added he did not know the specific group responsible for the assault on the complex.

      [Sen. John] McCain expressed a similar view.

      “People don’t go to demonstrate and carry RPGs and automatic weapons,” he said, adding that the facts suggest “this was not a ‘mob’ action [or] a group of protesters.”

      [/TET]

      Sept. 15-16: Susan Rice Contradicts Libyan President

      Sept. 15: Obama discusses the Benghazi attack in his weekly address. He makes no mention of terror, terrorists or extremists. He does talk about the anti-Muslim film and “every angry mob” that it inspired in pockets of the Middle East.

      [TET ]

      Obama: This tragic attack [in Benghazi] takes place at a time of turmoil and protest in many different countries. I have made it clear that the United States has a profound respect for people of all faiths. We stand for religious freedom. And we reject the denigration of any religion — including Islam.

      Yet there is never any justification for violence. There is no religion that condones the targeting of innocent men and women. There is no excuse for attacks on our Embassies and Consulates.

      [/TET]

      Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. But Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest. (It was later learned that Rice received her information from the CIA.)

      Update, May 16, 2013: The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “[i]nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.

      [TET ]

      Schieffer: Was this a long-planned attack, as far as you know? Or what– what do you know about that?

      Magariaf: The way these perpetrators acted and moved … this leaves us with no doubt that this has preplanned, determined– predetermined.

      Schieffer: And you believe that this was the work of al Qaeda and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that — is that what you are telling us?

      Magariaf: It was planned — definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who — who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their — since their arrival. …

      Schieffer: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, [Magariaf] says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?

      Rice: Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the president, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and –

      They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of — of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.

      But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy — sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

      Schieffer: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

      Rice: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

      Schieffer: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

      Rice: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.

      [/TET]

  • Vera Vague

    Carry on pat

  • Soldier

    She is a coward like most Liberals. Hillary Clinton can’t lead a Nation, but expect to see much Voter Fraud to go on to help her get elected like past Democrats Presidents. You see a lot more cases of Democrat Voter fraud where people are getting away with voting up to 8 times or more. Democrats oppose Voter ID’s because they know that without Voter Fraud that they cannot win the Presidential Election.

  • Glenn Taylor

    Boycott Mozilla.

  • John Benner

    FOX news gave this woman a platform…Once.
    Pretty sure they had her land the UFO on the roof before they shuffled her off rather quickly. I saw the interview and was embarrassed for her. Because FOX knew they couldn’t use her as a tool of propaganda…She got the BOOT!!

  • olivia

    I am not hearing too much about this protest on the news? Is Hillary having it censored?

  • beijingyankee

    This guy Nichols confessed to murdering people at the direction of the Clintons. So please tell me, why are the Clintons not being prosecuted?