ADVERTISEMENT

Internal emails show Clinton got detailed intel on 'planned' Benghazi hit

Arbitr8

HB Legend
May 13, 2009
13,360
167
63
Lewis Township
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/22/1st-batch-clinton-emails-to-be-released-around-1230-pm/

Internal State Department emails in the aftermath of the Benghazi terror attack show then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received detailed information indicating the strike was planned by well-trained fighters, yet her office continued to push the narrative days later that it began "spontaneously."

The messages were among 296 emails released Friday by the State Department, in the first batch of emails to be made public from Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. Totaling 896 pages, the emails show a series of Libya dispatches Clinton received from a confidant, as well as the barrage of messages among her and her aides after Sept. 11, 2012.

Those messages depict the rapidly changing understanding of what happened at the U.S. compound that night, and the administration's internal struggle to settle on a public narrative.

As previously reported, confidant Sidney Blumenthal fired off two memos in the two days after the attack. But the full email release shows he gave a highly detailed picture of what "sources" said had happened that night. Initially, on Sept. 12, he sent Clinton an email linking the attacks to anger over an anti-Islam Internet video which had triggered protests across the region.

But the next day, he sent Clinton an email with very different information, saying officials believed the attackers were with the Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia. He wrote that officials thought the attackers "prepared" for the strike and "took advantage of the cover" from demonstrations over the video. Further, he cited sources saying roughly 21 fighters left from a base in East Benghazi and "infiltrated the crowd" and began opening fire on the U.S. consulate. Libyan officers, he wrote, said the attacks were "planned" for roughly one month.

Fighters with the brigade were described as "well-trained, hardened killers, many of whom have spent time in Afghanistan and Yemen."

Despite the guidance, then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice went on several television programs Sept. 16 to claim the attacks were "spontaneous," and not premeditated, and link them to protests over the anti-Islam video.

The department appeared to back her. In an email sent that day from top department official Jake Sullivan to Clinton, he said Rice had made clear "our view" that "this started spontaneously and then evolved."

Yet on Sept. 24, after a fierce political debate had broken out over the nature of the attacks, the same official sent Clinton a compilation of her own statements on Benghazi, assuring her "you never said spontaneous or characterized the motives" and only said "some sought to justify" the attack by citing the video.

The exchanges are sure to fuel the long-running debate over why some in the administration initially pushed the video explanation and played down the idea that the attack was planned. Fox News reported earlier this week that a Defense Intelligence Agency report from Sept. 12 also said there were indicators the attack was planned and meant as retaliation for a drone strike that killed an Al Qaeda strategist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClarindaA's
The newly released emails are basically duds for the Conservatives. The State Department had this to say about the matter:

"“The emails we release today do not change the essential facts or our understanding of the events before, during, or after the attacks, which have been known since the independent Accountability Review Board report on the Benghazi attacks was released almost two and a half years ago,”
 
Last edited:
These emails are going to kill her next fall commercial after commercial showing incompetence, cover ups and lies.
She is a dead duck I am betting O'Malley shocks the world and wins the Democratic Nomination the young people are going to love him!
 
These emails are going to kill her next fall commercial after commercial showing incompetence, cover ups and lies.
She is a dead duck I am betting O'Malley shocks the world and wins the Democratic Nomination the young people are going to love him!
The GOP has two problems with depending on the email story.

1) It has no legs. There is no proof of any of the Conservative accusations against her. All the emails have proven is that once again, the Republicans are wasting time and money on a Benghazi issue that has been thoroughly debunked. Even the GOP accusations that she used two emails while SoS have been debunked. Unless the GOP can find a smoking gun, all this story will do is to make them appear desperate.

2) Emails ain't sexy. Getting bjs from interns? That's an attention grabber. But procedural rules on email use? Not so much. The American public won't care. They've already tuned it out.
 
The GOP has two problems with depending on the email story.

1) It has no legs. There is no proof of any of the Conservative accusations against her. All the emails have proven is that once again, the Republicans are wasting time and money on a Benghazi issue that has been thoroughly debunked. Even the GOP accusations that she used two emails while SoS have been debunked. Unless the GOP can find a smoking gun, all this story will do is to make them appear desperate.

2) Emails ain't sexy. Getting bjs from interns? That's an attention grabber. But procedural rules on email use? Not so much. The American public won't care. They've already tuned it out.

Well, no and yes, Huey.

Actually, I think ALL of the accusations made against Hillary by conservatives have been proven to be true. Of course, in Clinton World, something that has been proven true is said to have been debunked and/or is "old news."

I say "I think" because I don't doubt there were some wild accusations made by some individuals. If somebody said she planned the attacks, then that has been debunked.

But the primary criticism of her was that she continued to misstate the cause of the attacks after she knew better, which has been confirmed.

That's the "no" part of my response to your post. The "yes" part is that none of this matters to people who support her, and nothing else that's likely to be revealed about her will matter, either. The same people who tell pollsters they do not trust or believe her are telling pollsters they support her for president.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT