AWR Hawkins:
Witnesses to the September 11, 2012, Benghazi attack claim that a recent New York Times‘ (NYT) report downplaying terrorist involvement is “completely false” and assert that there were terror commanders on the ground directing movements.
Witnesses to the attack–still being muzzled by the Obama administration–anonymouslytold Fox News: “It was a coordinated attack. It is completely false to say anything else. … It is completely a lie.”
An unnamed special operator added:
Guys were coming into the compound, moving left, moving right…and using IMT (individual movement techniques). … That’s not a spontaneous attack. One guy was shooting, one guy was running. There are guys watching the gates. … The bosses on the ground were pointing, commanding and coordinating–that is a direct action planned attack.
The “community of operators” in Libya both during the attack “and since includes CIA, FBI, U.S. Military, U.S. State Departments and contractors working for the United States in a number of capacities.” Intelligence personnel then and now recognize Al Qaeda as “a significant threat in Libya.”
And while various reports show militia leader Ahmad Abu Khattallah was “responsible for the actions at the actual consulate and was essentially the ground force commander that night,” sources say his terrorist connections have been ignored or downplayed.
Yet again, FOX News rolls out stories from anonymous “witnesses.” FOX has done this more times now than can be kept track of, but none of their purported witnesses have been proven to exist. These people—supposedly having first-hand knowledge of what took place—don’t even come forward for Congressional investigations, when their sworn testimony could carry enormous weight.
What should any reasonable person conclude from this?
Given the powerful friends they’d be making on the republican side of the aisle by coming forward, the assertion that people having such information could be effectively “muzzled by the Obama administration” is ridiculous.
@Greg:
Where are all those that were on the ground that night? Why has the DoD and the DoJ refused to allow the eye witnesses to testify in front of Congress?
And what happened to those who did testify that were in Libya that night? Ask Gregory Hicks.
This administration has a policy of punishing those that don’t tow its line and back up its lies.
@retire05< #2:
Have we forgotten that there were closed door testimonies presented to Congressional investigative committees by such people earlier this very month?
The most likely reason that we haven’t heard about the bombshell Benghazi revelations it that there weren’t any.
@Greg:
Yeah, just ignore four dead Americans and a bunch of lies from the Administration. After all, you libs think what difference does it make?
No one has argued that the Benghazi tragedy didn’t happen. Everyone admits that things might have turned out differently if government officials had only been more attentive to the warning signs. What I find contemptible is the way the right has exploited the tragedy from the beginning—from before it was even clear what had happened—shedding crocodile tears for the dead while cranking out outright lies to gain political advantage.
The New York Times article has put the event into a factual perspective. Unfortunately the known facts aren’t compatible with the right’s fabrication. There is simply no evidence or credible testimony supporting any of it. You’re down to the claims of imaginary witnesses, who would come forward and confirm the entire delusion if only the Obama administration would allow them to speak. Real witnesses have testified in closed door sessions under oath, but that gets totally ignored, because it isn’t the story the right wants to be told.
@Greg:
The Administration also claimed the Cairo protest held on 9/11/2012 was also due to the unseen video. So how do you explain that during the entire Mohammed al Zawahiri interview with CNN’s Robertson, not once did al Zawahiri mention the video when he was the one that organized the Cairo protest?
How uneducated do you have to be to be so gullible, Greggie?
@retire05, #6:
Maybe you should try getting your information from real news sources rather than the right wing propaganda mill for a change. The following article was published on September 11, 2012: Obscure Film Mocking Muslim Prophet Sparks Anti-U.S. Protests in Egypt and Libya. From the article:
@Greg:
Bullsh!t, Greggie. You want me to accept the word of the liars at the NYSlimes? Well, perhaps they, when they were parroting the Oval Office, didn’t know about this:
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1209/11/ctw.01.html
and this:
Mohammed al Zawahiri was the organizer of the Cairo protest and he said NOT ONE WORD about some vague movie and was QUITE CLEAR about the reason for the Cairo protests.
But wait, what was it that the NYSlimes said back in October, 2011 about Benghazi? Oh, that’s right:
You boot lickers are so in the tank for Obama one almost have to feel sorry for you, but I don’t. You’re just lackeys for
Baghdad BobJay Carney and Barack Obama.@retire05, #8:
From your first link to the CNN transcript September 11, 2012 – 16:00 ET; foreign correspondent Ian Lee is reporting live from Cairo. As yet, there had been no word of the Benghazi incident. Cairo protesters were telling him that the movie was a reason for the protest. Their reaction was the only reason the movie was even in the news at that point. Had there been no reaction, it would have remained nothing more than the obscure work of an unknown crackpot:
Mohammed al Zawahiri wasn’t in control of the demonstration. His brother’s imprisonment wasn’t the only thing—or even the main thing—that motivated Cairo protesters to gather. That wasn’t the reason outrage suddenly flared up in cities all across the Muslim world. That guy has been in custody since 1993. Mohammed al Zawahiri was simply laying claim to the entire event to further his own agenda.
Everyone should have figured out long before now what follows perceived public insults to Islam or the Prophet. We’ve had numerous examples of just how hair-triggered the Islamist fundamentalists can be about things we would consider trivial. They can go totally ballistic over an editorial cartoon. They have done, many times. Why do people suddenly have so much trouble believing that a movie designed to insult them would produce the sort of reactions we saw? Particularly when they were telling reporters that very story?