Explosive Judicial Watch docs reveals Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton lied about Benghazi

Hillary Clinton 14

After a two year fight (that isn’t over), Judicial Watch released documents it obtained through an FOIA request that shows the intelligence community knew the nature of the attack on our consulate in Benghazi as well as the perpetrators, within 24 hours of the death of Ambassador Stevens.

The anti-Mohammed video was never mentioned.

Here’s John Hinderaker’s thorough report:

Despite the redactions, some of the documents are bombshells. This one was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the White House’s National Security Council on September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack. It says, among other things:

The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks on the World Trade Center buildings.

This report also describes the terrorist group that claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack:

The attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was planned and executed by the Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BOAR). [Ed.: Rahman is the Blind Sheikh.] BCOAR is also responsible for past attacks on the Red Cross in Benghazi and the attack on the British ambassador, they have approximately 120 members.

So much for Hillary’s infamous “Was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night who decide to kill some Americans…?” So much, too, for the scapegoat video.

Here’s a link to the document.

While this is certainly a bombshell, it is not a smoking gun. Recall the narrative put out by the administration; that intelligence was confusing in the days following the Benghazi attack. This memo is clearly marked “Information report, not finally evaluated intelligence.” The administration will claim that this was just one of several reports they received, many of them contradictory, about what happened in Benghazi.

But it’s also clear that the administration cherry picked reports to buttress their claims of confusion, and latched on to at least one report that blamed the “spontaneous attack” on the video. They chose to believe the video was at fault.

Also, there has been speculation for years about the reason Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. This document apparently confirms that Stevens was there to track weapons flowing from chaotic Libya to rebels in Syria:

Other just-revealed documents are also significant. A DOD document confirms that in October 2012, the U.S. knew that weapons were being shipped from Benghazi to Syria for use in the civil war there. It has long been rumored that Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi for reasons having to do with the flow of weapons out of that city:

Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.

During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the (Qaddafi) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.

There is also another document that eerily describes how Islamic State would rise.

Why did the administration refuse to accept this report, and others like it, that blamed the attack on Islamist terrorists who deliberately planned the attack days in advance? To this day, they insist the video had something to do with the attack and that it was carried out by local militias with no ties to international terror groups. Obviously, politics is playing a big role in the continuation of this false narrative. But ideology is also at work to undermine the truth. These people actually believe their own propaganda about how great they’re doing against terrorism. So when reports like this are presented, they are ignored in favor of other intelligence that comports with their worldview.