Facing a Congressional hearing Wednesday, the State Department on Tuesday sought to distance itself from the White House’s claim that protests over an anti-Muslim video led to the attack which killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others.
#Breaking: State Dept says there were no protest outside the US consulate in #Libya prior to the attack. #ac360
— Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) October 10, 2012
https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/255818564123099136
Wow. the beginning of the Obama-Clinton libya CYA fest? http://t.co/UfPLJ59M
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) October 9, 2012
On the State Dept.'s Libya CYA, is this Team Clinton cutting Team Obama loose?
— jon gabriel (@exjon) October 9, 2012
If Hillary's distancing herself from Barack less than a month before the election, this could be quite entertaining.
— jon gabriel (@exjon) October 10, 2012
State Department officials briefed reporters on their timeline of the Sept. 11 attack via conference call but excluded Fox News.
https://twitter.com/WortheyAC/status/255828166273269761
Greta van Susteren posted “very rough notes” from the conference call to her blog, also noting that the State Department had left Fox News off of the conference call but adding that the department has since apologized.
VERY ROUGH NOTES FROM CONFERENCE CALL WITH SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS: Below are very rough notes of the … http://t.co/0R9WFmo9
— Greta Van Susteren (@greta) October 9, 2012
Recommended
Brit Hume came out swinging, noting a lack of media interest despite the “strong scent of cover-up.”
State Dept. says tonight that there was no protest @ Benghazi consulate before attack. Amb. Rice must have known. Strong scent of cover-up.
— Brit Hume (@brithume) October 9, 2012
Benghazi attack has 2 storylines. 1. security & intelligence failure. Some serious, if late, MSM coverage. 2. Cover-up. Little MSM interest.
— Brit Hume (@brithume) October 9, 2012
@brithume The whole thing is utterly baffling, esp. as a political calculation. Accepting it as terror attack-who would have objected?
— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) October 9, 2012
The Associated Press reports:
But asked about the administration’s initial – and since retracted – explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, “That was not our conclusion.” He called it a question for “others” to answer, without specifying. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far.
U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice made the rounds of Sunday morning news shows Sept. 16 pushing the line that a YouTube video was to blame for the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, even as Libya’s president was insisting it was a premeditated assault.
State Dept says there were no protests before Libya attack. So, where did Rice get such detailed info to the contrary? http://t.co/hq3UDg68
— Kirsten Powers (@KirstenPowers) October 9, 2012
Later that week, the president himself continued to blame the video during appearances on “The Late Show with David Letterman” and “The View.”
GOP chair Reince Priebus is asking the president for some answers on the Benghazi timeline — when he’s not so busy, that is.
.@BarackObama, when you’re done talking about muppets, would you mind answering America’s questions on Libya ?
— Reince Priebus (@Reince) October 9, 2012
Join the conversation as a VIP Member