Libya consulate timeline: What did the Obama administration do?
Linkedin

Libya consulate timeline: What did the Obama administration do?

Washington : DC : USA | Oct 17, 2012 at 7:25 AM PDT
XX XX
Views: Pending
 

After weeks of characterizing the attack on the Libyan consulate, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and four others, a result of protests that were due to an anti-Islam video, the issue came to the forefront at last night’s second presidential debate.

When the question of the actions of the administration following the debate came up, Mitt Romney claimed that top administration officials trumped up the narrative that the Sept. 11 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi was a “spontaneous” act, and played down accounts that it was a coordinated terror strike and that the president had not called it a terror attack until almost two weeks later. Romney also criticized the president for flying off to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser shortly after the attack.

“The president, the day after that happened, flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser. These actions taken by a president and a leader have symbolic significance." Allvoices

Moderator Candy Crowley intervened with a fact check, which she later walked back during an interview with Anderson Cooper. Crowley falsely and incorrectly claimed that the president had called it a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden, although the president said that acts of terror would not go unpunished.

This was enough to deflect off the actual question of who knew what, where and when.

To set the record straight there are comprehensive timelines on the Libyan situation, which call the administration’s response into questions. Those are contained in a letter by the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee on Government Reform to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and timelines prepared by several media outlets.

So what was the timeline? Christopher Stevens arrived in Libya April 5, 2011 as special envoy. His task was to forge ties with the Libyan rebels who battled with Gadhafi. Stevens was appointed ambassador to Libya May 22.

Libya Timeline 2012:

February - US Embassy requests four months extension for 16-strong Special Ops team until August - Request granted.

March - State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom sends cable to request additional security for Benghazi. No response.

April 6 - Two former security guards who were fired throw an IED over the consulate compound fence.

May 22 - IRC office in Benghazi attacked, followed by a Facebook message: “Now we are preparing a message for the Americans.”

June 6 - A hole is blown into the consulates gate, which is described big enough to let 40 men through. This could have been a trial run to test the effectiveness of the Sept. 11 attack.

August 14 - The end of the extension for the Special Ops Security Team and it leaves Libya. Their commander has testified that the ambassador wanted them to stay.

Prior to the attack, family members of Libyan Security guards warn of an impending attack on the consulate.

Sept. 10 - Al-Qaida leader Ayman al Zawahiri calls on Libyans to avenge the death of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al Libi, killed in a June drone strike in Pakistan.

Sept. 11 - A well-planned armed attack is executed on the Benghazi consulate. According to witness statements the attack was observed live via video by State Department personnel. Video also reveals that there were no protests prior to the attack.

Of note is that the anti-Islam video "Innocence of Muslims" has been on YouTube since July at that time.

At the same time there are also protests at the embassy in Cairo and the embassy issues a statement virtually apologizing for the video. Romney makes a press statement condemning the apology. Hillary Clinton responds by saying, in part, “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

Sept. 12 - President Obama denounces the attack, not characterizing it as a terrorist attack, but including at the end of his statement that acts of terror would not go unpunished.

Media outlets start reporting the killing of Ambassador Stevens murder along with three others, characterizing it as a well armed attack.

Sept. 13 and 14 - White House Press Secretary James Carney repeated the administration's position that this attack was the result of the video. The administration had “no actionable intelligence” about a pending attack, he said.

Sept. 16 - US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, makes the Sunday News Shows rounds and states, “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous, not a premeditated, response to what had transpired in Cairo."

On the same day, interim Libyan president Mohamed Magarief insists “it was planned, definitely.”

Note: It is not likely that Susan Rice went to six news shows on her own accord, without the administration’s approval. Who send her there and why the charade?

Sept. 19 - The video story starts to unravel when National Counterterrorism Center director Matthew Olsen testifies before the Senate Homeland Security Committee and categorizes the assault as a “terrorist attack” but calls it an “opportunistic” attack in which armed militants took advantage of an ongoing protest. Of course the live feed from Benghazi debunks the ongoing protest part.

Sept. 20 - The main stream media now confirms that witnesses said there were no protests prior to the attack, while President Obama tells an audience at a townhall meeting that “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 US interests.”

On the same day Carney declares that "it is self-evident that the attack was a terrorist attack.

Sept. 21 - Hillary Clinton acknowledges that it was a terrorist attack.

Sept. 25 - President Obama addresses the UN General Assembly and mentions the video six times. The president also sees the ladies on "The View" and on a direct question if it was a terrorist attack, skirts around the answer.

Sept. 27 - Leon Panetta says that it’s “clear that there were terrorists who planned that attack.”

Sept. 28 – Oct. 1 - State Department officials make various statements regarding why the video blame game continued. Clinton defends Ambassador Rice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence takes responsibility for linking the Benghazi attack to the video.

In view of the live feed there is either total incompetence in the intelligence community or someone is distorting the truth.

Oct. 3 - The FBI finally arrives on the ground in Benghazi.

Oct. 6 - Susan Rice sends a letter to Senate Republicans. Rice says she “relied solely and squarely on the information the intelligence community provided to me and other senior US officials.”

Oct. 9 - Senior State Department officials finally acknowledge that there were no protests prior to the attack, during a media call with reporters, and said the video was “not our conclusion,” suggesting they’re blaming intelligence officials.

Oct. 10 - Lt. Col. Wood and Eric Nordstrom testify that their requests for more security were denied by their superiors in Washington. This was confirmed by cables obtained by the House Oversight Committee.

Oct. 11 - Vice President Biden, during the vice presidential debate, denies that the White House, specifically the president and himself were aware of any security requests.

Oct. 12 - The White House said that such decisions were made by the State Department.

This is where the timeline stood up last night's debate. The president was spared from answering the question because of a gaffe made by Crowley. This however will not be the end of the debate and is sure to be raised during the third and final presidential debate Monday, Oct. 22.

While the economy is still the biggest issue for Americans, the Benghazi story has legs. The Obama campaign will obviously try to skirt this issue, which could hurt the president’s chances for re-election. It will, however, not be unavoidable.

Sources: The Hill

FOX News Video Timeline

1 of 1
FOX's special report goes over the Lybia consulate timeline
Karl Gotthardt is based in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and is an Anchor for Allvoices.
Report Credibility
 
  • Clear
  • Share:
  • Share
  • Clear
  • Clear
  • Clear
  • Clear
 
 
Advertisement
 
Posted By Anyvoice Anyvoice | 8 months ago
Karl,

Great work, good details. I have to say that I was not aware of most of the events prior to 9/11.
Reply By albertacowpoke Karl Gotthardt | 8 months ago
Most of these details came out in Congressman's Issah's letter to Clinton and also during the testimony in Congress by Security pers from Libya, whistleblowers and officials from State. Thanks for commenting.
Posted By TaufanTasch TaufanTasch | 8 months ago
The issue of security for an ambassador. It is standard procedure that the state must be met, if the situation in a country is not able to guarantee the safety of his soul. Large and powerful country like America should respond to reports of desire for the embassy security. It is sad, until the events of finally happen.Thank you Karl. Best regard.
Reply By albertacowpoke Karl Gotthardt | 8 months ago
Taufan thank you for commenting. It would most certainly be prudent to address security needs of an Ambassador and his security detail. Whether it made a difference is not clear, but at least the requests would have been acted on.

My second question is why the ambassador was in Benghazi on 9/11, when there was already a threat.
Posted By ohionightwriter ohionightwriter | 8 months ago
Loud and clear. The response, "we didn't know" is inadequate and criminal. Thanks to our representatives who insist on the truth, and to those with the courage to write it.
Reply By albertacowpoke Karl Gotthardt | 8 months ago
Thanks for your comments ohionightwriter. Much appreciated.
Posted By Sheboarder Sheboarder | 8 months ago
First reason I don't trust this article is they don't have the facts straight. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/17/right-wing-media-falsely-claim-candy-crowley-wa/190691
Reply By Anyvoice Anyvoice | 8 months ago
She,

'/right-wing-media-falsely-claim-candy-crowley-wa/190691'

The headline says it all. Media matters is a biased outlet, because the hope they can manipulate the uninformed - that's why it matters to them.
Reply By albertacowpoke Karl Gotthardt | 8 months ago
Media matters is the last place I`d trust for reliability. Thanks for commenting. I wouldn`t expect anything else from media matters. My article is based on research and not what someone else tells me.
Reply By Sheboarder Sheboarder | 8 months ago
You are saying that she walked backed on the fact check she did on Romney and she did not. She said Obama did call it an act of terror and then at the same time she said, Romney was also right in saying they took two weeks etc. Here is the video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ldiy9gTU1M. You are misleading your readers. Here is the transcript http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-story/full-transcript-of-obama-s-rose-garden-speech-after-sept-11-benghazi-attack

"Having an advanced knowledge of English syntax, having studied it for years, I am completely satisfied with the position that, when President Obama made reference to an "act of terror" in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12, 2012, he was not speaking of events 11 years' removed, but of contemporaneous events. The verb forms used conclusively establish that. I have seen, in various locales, smatterings of rather bumptious disagreement and know that those who would disagree do so not out a sincere though mistaken interpretation of what was said, the clarity and intent of which are just not open to question, but only out an improper motive to smear the President for reasons of bigotry and hatred of the man and all he represents to the fearful and the fatally ignorant. If that describes the reader, you have my deep condolences."
Reply By Anyvoice Anyvoice | 8 months ago
She,

You and those you quoted are reading into what you what it to read, but have no relationship to the intended meaning.
Reply By albertacowpoke Karl Gotthardt | 8 months ago
This is typical BS to cover for a president, who has been misleading the public since September 11th. The president went on for weeks blaming the attack on a video, when he was, or should have been aware of really what happened in Libya.

Ambassador Stevens and security personnel almost begged the Administration for more security. Al Qaida or Al Quaida affiliates threatening the very security in Benghazi.

Your scholarly double talk doesn't take away from the fact that the Administration was negligent in providing the level of security that should have been provided at the consulate.

The International Red Cross was attacked and had to leave, The British consulate was attacked and had to be withdrawsn. Obviously Prime Minister Cameron and his foreign ministers drew the proper conclusion. What part of this didn't the Obama Administration understand?

"who would disagree do so not out a sincere though mistaken interpretation of what was said, the clarity and intent of which are just not open to question, but only out an improper motive to smear the President for reasons of bigotry and hatred." Keep those accusations to yourself. I will not tolerate the left wing smear of being called a bigot or hater. You have the right to your opinion but you don't have the right to name call.
Posted By Sheboarder Sheboarder | 8 months ago
Let's not avoid admitting that Candy Crawley didn't walk back on her fact check. I hope you were this vigilant and outraged at Bush when thousands died on 9/11. Mistakes happen. It's not my philosophy to bludgeon people for their mistakes because if I make one I'd hope for forgiveness. The president took full responsibility.
Reply By Anyvoice Anyvoice | 8 months ago
OK She,

Wasn't you the one who tried to call out Karl? You are now asking for courtesy that you did not extend.

May be you can do a point by point comparison to Karl's timeline.
Reply By albertacowpoke Karl Gotthardt | 8 months ago
Let's not forget either that the debate and comments by Candy Crowley are not completely relevant to this issue what is at stake here is the death of four Americans and the actions of senior bureaucrats at State. In my story today, I question why a decision to refuse a security detail in a country like Libya would be left to a senior bureaucrat. I would have expected to see at least the Secretary of State make the decision to deny.

As far as George Bush goes, he is not relevant to this discussion. There was enough hate directed at him to last him a lifetime.

Libya was President Obama's war and the consulate attack happened under his watch. There are too many unanswered questions to just write it off to Candy Crowley's comments.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13226556-benghazi-the-fog-of-war-has-lead-to-foggy-information
Reply By Sheboarder Sheboarder | 8 months ago
You would have garnered my readership if you had your facts straight on the Candy Crawley part. My point on Bush is relative because it shows that beating someone over the head does not change what happened. It was a tragedy. The president took responsibility and is taking measures to insure it doesn't happen again. I'm not disputing anything else you wrote but when you have one fact wrong it puts your whole article into question.
Reply By albertacowpoke Karl Gotthardt | 8 months ago
What you consider wrong is your opinion. There is more and more coming out of the Benghazi tragedy every day and that is what is relevant here, not an argument over whether or not Candy Crowley interfered. In the whole scheme of thing that is now no longer relevant.
Posted By robertweller Robert Weller | 8 months ago
This report is inaccurate. I remember exactly what happened because I was outraged by Obama calling it a terrorist attack. I tweeted several times on Sept. 12, and they are in my Twitter file, saying Obama was trying to use this to start another war. Not only did he hold a press conference the morning of Sept. 12 on the "attack," he talked about it again in Golden, Colo., the next day. I also defended Romney in tweets on Sept. 12, also on file, saying he had the right to raise questions about the attack.
Posted By Sheboarder Sheboarder | 8 months ago
Here is the fact check on the Benghazi timeline http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
Advertisement
 

More From Allvoices

Related People

Report Your News Got a similar story?
Add it to the network!

Or add related content to this report

 
Tap_logo_330_110_event
 


Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use Agreement and Privacy Policy.

© Allvoices, Inc 2008-2013. All rights reserved.