The Only Reliable Source Of Information On The Assassination Of Chris Stevens

It’s not President Obama; it’s certainly not his press secretary Jay Carey; it’s not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; and it’s not the buffoonish Susan Rice. If you want the real story about what happened in Benghazi, Libya you need to keep tabs on the statements of Libyan President Mohamed Magarief. Here is what he told NBC yesterday:

In an exclusive interview with NBC News’ Ann Curry, President Mohamed Magarief discounted claims that the attack was in response to a movie produced in California and available on YouTube. He noted that the assault happened on Sept. 11 and that the video had been available for months before that.

“Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September,” he said. “They chose this date, 11th of September to carry a certain message.”

Magarief said there were no protesters at the site before the attack, which he noted came in two assaults, first with rocket-propelled grenades on the consulate, then with mortars at a safe house.

The attack took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, as well as information management officer Sean Smith and security personnel Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

Magarief told Curry that based on the accuracy of the assault, he believes the attackers must have had training and experience using the weapons.

“It’s a pre-planned act of terrorism,” he said, adding that the anti-Islam film had “nothing to do with this attack.

You know who else knew this right away? U.S. intelligence agencies investigating the incident. The had it pegged as terrorism and identified suspects within 24 hours.

The Obama administration has been covering this up from day one.

H/T: Hot Air

Shortlink:

Posted by on September 26, 2012.
Filed under Barack Obama, War On Terror.
Doug Johnson is a news junkie and long time blog reader, turned author.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • ackwired

    The misinformation put out by the administration has been so obvious that it is hard to see the political advantage in putting it out. If there were no riots before the attack, it is hard to argue that they could have prevented the attack by bringing in more Marines. It makes me think that they must be hiding something very big.

    • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

      The big thing is the lack of a secure perimeter around the Benghazi consulate to start.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      As Chico said – no perimeter to speak of. If this was known beforehand by the enemy – then putting in Marines would have been an effective and reasonable deterrent.

      That the potential attack was, apparently, communicated to the US days beforehand – and plans weren’t changed to find an alternate safe location for the Ambassador (much less beefing up his security) … I’m hating to buy stock in Alcoa here, but who benefits from an assassinated ambassador? As Ackwired says – the misinformation’s been obvious. Why such blatant insistence on that crappy video being the cause, when other sources said this was planned well in advance?

      I think you’re right, Ack – something’s being hidden.

  • Hank_M

    No doubt the Obama administration has been covering it up.
    Why not? They won’t be held accountable for it by the MSM.

    Romney’s taxes.
    Ryans comments to the AARP.
    Romney’s gaffes.
    The Video producers name and address.
    And of course, Polls, polls, polls.

    Those are the stories the MSM will cover.
    Anything that might be harmful to Obama’s reelection chances, not so much.

  • GarandFan

    Cover up? Nah, Barry ALWAYS owns up to the failure of OTHERS.

  • Pingback: Story Tellers | Daily Pundit

  • Aristotle120

    see also The Diplomad 2.0 at thediplomad.blogspot.com

    He has been reporting on the Libya cover up from the start.