October 29th, 2013
05:40 PM ET

First on CNN: US commandos were poised for raid to capture Benghazi suspect

By Barbara Starr

When U.S. commandos grabbed a former al Qaeda operative in Tripoli this month, American forces were just hours away from potentially launching a more dangerous covert raid to capture a militia figure facing charges in the deadly Benghazi terror attack, U.S. officials tell CNN.

U.S. special operations forces were ready, if ordered, to enter Benghazi and capture Ahmed Abu Khattalah, a leading figure in the Ansar Al-Sharia militia. But the mission never materialized.

The United States believes Ansar Al-Sharia was behind the September 2012 armed assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

President Barack Obama has openly said it is a "priority" to bring the Benghazi suspects "to justice." The FBI continues to investigate the attack and Khattalah is under federal indictment, CNN's Evan Perez has reported.

The FBI has also published photographs of people seen at the compound on the night of the raid that it wants to talk to.

U.S. intelligence agencies and military special operations forces have moved in and out of Libya for several months with the permission of the Libyan government. They are looking for opportunities to capture alleged suspects in the Benghazi attack, developing a list of nearly a dozen individuals.

But earlier this month may have been one of the closest times they have come to being able to conduct a mission, officials say.

Khattalah had openly operated in Benghazi for months and even has been interviewed by CNN's Arwa Damon.

But it was this month that U.S. intelligence finally had enough information about his specific whereabouts that a raid seemed feasible to military planners, several U.S. officials tell CNN.

All of the officials declined to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the information.

The Benghazi attack has become a political flashpoint between Republicans in Congress and the Obama administration over its handling of security at the compound and the slow-to-evolve explanation of what occurred.

A top critic, Sen. Lindsey Graham, applied new pressure this week when the South Carolina Republican said he would would block all Obama administration nominees before the Senate until survivors of the assault testify before Congress.

Top level meeting

Abu Anas al-Libi, accused of playing a role in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, was grabbed on October 5 in a daylight raid outside his home. The Khattalah mission might have been ready to go as soon as the next day, according to some officials.

A top level White House meeting was scheduled to get the final signoff from Obama, around October 7, officials told CNN.

But the mission never materialized, partly because there was so much publicity inside Libya and in the western press about the al-Libi capture.

With the Libyan government dealing with public outcry about the U.S. incursion into Libya, the White House became worried any raid in Benghazi could destabilize, and potentially bring down the fragile Libyan government.

The Libyan government publicly denounced the operation following the al-Libi raid, but key Libyan government officials had given the United States permission to enter Libya and go after both al-Libi and Khattalah, according to a senior U.S. official.

The brief kidnapping of Prime Minister Ali Zeidan after al-Libi was seized underscored to U.S. officials the fragility of the Libyan government and that it likely could not withstand the political and security fallout from a second U.S. commando raid.

American officials will not discuss timing of any future operations to capture Benghazi suspects, but note Obama's policy that they will be pursued.

Concern about Libyan gov't

One reason for the U.S. effort is the Libyan government is seen as too weak to go after suspects on its own.

But the inability to get Khattalah is leading to sensitive questions inside the administration about the tradeoff between getting al-Libi and going after the perpetrators of the politically charged Benghazi attack.

Two officials have told CNN that to some extent, getting al-Libi was proof to the White House that commandos could reliably get into Libya, get to their target, and get out. Al-Libi, though wanted by the United States, was not seen as a highly risky target. He was not hiding his presence in Tripoli.

The difference is Benghazi is a virtual "no-go" zone for westerners because of the control of various militia movements there.

One official said "not enough thought" may have been put into the impact of getting al-Libi and not moving quickly to get Khattalah before a backlash emerged.

But he also noted it was always going to be "complex" to attempt two covert raids nearly simultaneously. He and other officials said it wasn't a matter of incorrectly prioritizing one target over the other, but simply going after the most readily available target first.

soundoff (338 Responses)
  1. Dennis in Los Angeles

    So, what was Obama and Hillary doing the night their ambassador and 3 other Americans were being killed? Simple question that the administration refuses to answer. Why?

    October 31, 2013 at 11:13 pm | Reply
    • John832

      He was busy not being informed of another important event during his Presidency. But fear not citizen, you can rest assured the President didn't know anything about anything occurring within his administration.

      November 1, 2013 at 2:00 am | Reply
    • ShiverMeTimbers

      What you should be asking is: "Why was a US ambassador involved in gun running for certain Libyan groups?

      November 1, 2013 at 5:34 am | Reply
  2. California

    Isn't it still the video's fault????????????????????

    October 31, 2013 at 3:17 pm | Reply
  3. eric

    Whats the Problem?..........Bonzi is NOTHING Compaired to Reagan (Iran Contra) & Bush W (WMD), Republicans the HYPOCRITE PARTY LOL all over SKIN COLOR & Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    October 31, 2013 at 12:38 pm | Reply
    • ray

      Oh what a load of crap.Play the race card nutjob and I am not even republican.Grow up.

      November 1, 2013 at 12:39 am | Reply
  4. Reality

    When you say that Obama is an alien that anally probed you and your Mom, I stopped listening.

    You literally can not add 2 plus 2. Good for you and your anal probes. Best of luck to you and yours.

    The people laughing at your pathetic ignorance are fake and not at all real.

    Just keep on being awesome as you aspire to someday be anally probed.

    October 31, 2013 at 2:20 am | Reply
  5. Reality

    Truth is truth, let’s hide nothing. Please don’t retort with religious hate. Stop it, we know you are delusional, we know you are literally and legally qualify as a hate group for Jebus. I know Jebus tells you to preach so please let it out no matter how pathetically we all understand you. Lies for jebus makes panda bears smile.

    October 31, 2013 at 1:55 am | Reply
  6. edwardjs007

    So, what makes the Benghazi incident different from all the other US Embassy attacks. Reagan made the Marines empty their weapons in Lebanon and I don't recall a big Impeachment scream. How many embassies were attacked under Bush's Administration. What exactly makes this one so different from all the other attacks.

    October 30, 2013 at 7:02 pm | Reply
    • GaryH

      Reagan didn't pretend that it didn't happen. He admitted his mistake and he eventually pulled everyone out of Lebanon.

      October 30, 2013 at 8:54 pm | Reply
      • Reality

        You’re old school. Welcome to the lied to source.

        October 31, 2013 at 1:15 am |
      • eric

        Reagan IRAN CONTRA said Impeachment Talks About BONZI is a JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        October 31, 2013 at 12:37 pm |
    • unc dig

      So Obama has no excuse according to your logic. He had history to realize he was screwing up before losing brave Americans to his Administration's incompetence.

      October 31, 2013 at 1:54 pm | Reply
  7. Free Man in the republic of Texas

    AMERICANS ARE NOT DEAD

    THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DID NOT FAIL

    THERE IS NO COVERUP

    THIS IS OLD NEWS

    TRUST "ME"

    ANYWAY....
    AT THIS POINT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE

    October 30, 2013 at 6:14 pm | Reply
    • Reality

      I like that angle, please enlighten all of us that may bring the soul that doesn’t trust you.

      October 31, 2013 at 1:00 am | Reply
  8. GaryH

    This President is either (a) craven, (b) inept, (c) clueless or (d) indifferent. Then there is all of the above. His failure or outright refusal to act decisively when it really matters is beyond belief. Who is advising this guy? Is he listening to anyone?

    October 30, 2013 at 3:52 pm | Reply
  9. Guest

    Never forget. Obama left Ty Woods on top of that building ALONE, waiting for help and NOBODY even pretended to come.

    October 30, 2013 at 2:24 pm | Reply
  10. unc dig

    Does anyone really think Obama has any intention of authorizing a mission on someone whose going to blow the lid off his depicting the "protesters gone wild" position? If you do – I have a website to sell you! Dirt Cheap – and in Obama's own words – "It's a really good deal"!

    October 30, 2013 at 2:05 pm | Reply
  11. Steve

    The incompetence of this administration is absolutely stunning, equal only to their preoccupation with election politics. Could they not have kept the al-Libi capture under wraps, at least as to the fact the U.S. did it, until completing the other one too? Then there would have been no more impact on Libyan stability than there is now.

    October 30, 2013 at 12:37 pm | Reply
  12. Jack 2

    This is still snowballing and I blive Obam will one day pay for this. I feel he should be impeached for outright deceiving the country for political gain.

    October 30, 2013 at 12:33 pm | Reply
    • ShiverMeTimbers

      He should at least give back the Nobel peace prize. He should also send a few tomohawk missiles up Netanyahoooooo's buttocks. :-)

      November 1, 2013 at 5:36 am | Reply
  13. Jack 2

    This was the lie that made me a die hard Obama hater. I lost all repect for this guy and Hillary too. A brainless person can see they lied. For ten day s tye went around balming that movie and i believed them. When i heard Obam at the debates say he knew from day one it was Al qaeda I became very mad about his lie. When i heard Hillary cover for him I lost all respect for her. I will never believe anything either of them say.

    October 30, 2013 at 12:32 pm | Reply
  14. You Got It

    Obama is a liar – Benghazi, ACA, NSA, etc. You can say what you want, but he's been the President for over 5yrs now, you can't blame Bush for any of this crap – he's had time to come up to speed & place it under his control, if he thought adjustments should be made.
    To say "Bush started it" is the same as you taking a job at a company, screwing it up for 5yrs, and blaming your predecessor for the mess. Yeah, like that works in the real world.

    Obama is the problem, if you don't believe it, then open your mind and read multiple news outlets – BBC, Politico, RT, Pollster, Real Clear Politics, The Economist, etc. Not just MSNBC or CNN..........

    October 30, 2013 at 12:04 pm | Reply
  15. FidyCents

    Down right funny listening to these progressive hillbillies talk tough on terrorism. Just look at how Clinton whiffed on Libya but wanted to make sure the photo-op in the Osama raid had her front and center. Shameful to the very end these Democrats are.

    October 30, 2013 at 12:02 pm | Reply
  16. California

    MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, an unapologetic supporter of President Barack
    Obama, went on a surprising rant about the Benghazi terror attack on
    Monday, demanding to know why the U.S. government failed to send in “the
    Cavalry” to save American lives.

    Is there a rift in the marriage?

    October 30, 2013 at 11:12 am | Reply
  17. Big_D

    Obama is actively hunting down terrorists. Something the GOP always boasted. I guess the difference is that Obama walks the walk he doesn't just talk.

    October 30, 2013 at 11:08 am | Reply
    • ObjectiveGuy

      If Obama wants to see the guilty brought to justice for the Benghazi massacre, he will arrest himself and Hillary Clinton as a starting point, and then all of the hacks in his administration who helped to cover up the facts. American citizens deserve better than this, especially from the president.

      October 30, 2013 at 11:13 am | Reply
    • bob

      You're in a dream world, if that were true the mission were have gone.

      October 30, 2013 at 11:13 am | Reply
    • B.O.B.

      So you really believe that Obama's FBI is having a hard time pinpointing the whereabouts of this guy but CNN can walk up and get an interview? The reason they are now looking for these guys is because CNN showed just how unbelievably easy it is to locate the major players. It is quite hard to locate suspects when you are not looking for them.

      October 30, 2013 at 2:30 pm | Reply
  18. jrt1098

    What is clear from the 60 minutes report is this ... 60 days before the Presidential election, an election that would DEFINITELY been influenced by the TRUTH of what happened in Benghazi ... this administration engaged in a COVER UP
    1 YEAR later ... we still don't have answers
    I appreciated the 60 minutes expose ... but unfortunately it is too late !
    THE DEATH of a ... "free and independent press" may in fact be the most significant event of the last 10 years !!!

    October 30, 2013 at 10:51 am | Reply
    • MMeans

      If the debacle in Iraq didn't change the election for Bush, then Benghazi wouldn't have changed anything for Obama. Not to mention, Benghazi happened on 9/11/12, the election was 11/6/12, cover up or no cover up NO investigation (not even a car accident investigation) would be complete by that time, so your logic is pretty flawed.

      October 30, 2013 at 11:09 am | Reply
      • ObjectiveGuy

        Not at all true. If the "news" media had wanted to shed light on what really happened, it would have made big headlines before the election. That is the supposed role of the independent news media, to keep our government transparent and honest by calling them out, when needed. Unfortunately, for the most part the media has become just another public relations arm of the Obama administration. Such is the beginning of the end of democracy, if we allow it.

        October 30, 2013 at 11:16 am |
      • Edward Mouse

        Well the investigation was done in one day. It was the video. Remember? Even a week after, Obama kept talking about the video. Why? Answer that one. Because he lies first and then claims ignorance.

        October 30, 2013 at 11:25 am |
  19. Widowmaker

    prioritization of targets is routine; the problem here is why was leadership not willing to help the people on the ground – why would ANYONE NOT send help when help was requested multiple times or serious concern was registered with the SECSTATE ? "Benghazi Clinton" is directly responsible for the deaths and obamaz is responsible for playing cards and going to bed early when Americans were engaged in the fight of their lives...

    October 30, 2013 at 10:31 am | Reply
    • OldSchool

      Ahh yes, the fictional narrative that wingnuts have constructed where assistance was "denied" and people were intentionally "left to die". Of course, none of this is actually true, and people who _actually_ know what they are talking about (i.e. Generals and other high ranking military officers) confirm that the capability to launch some "Hollywood style" rescue simply was not plausible.

      October 30, 2013 at 10:49 am | Reply
      • Ben

        Can you explain why the people involved, survivors and such, had to sign NDAs and are under threat from the government if they talk?

        I'm sure there's nothing to hide, right? They just don't want people involved to talk because then everyone would know how wonderful Obama is, right?

        October 30, 2013 at 11:12 am |
      • Alpha Propellerhead

        "the fictional narrative"

        That's your first lie. Green Beret officers were warning them to get out, and they had been asking for reinforcements. The rest of your stuff is dishonest partisan nonsense and not worth reading.

        October 30, 2013 at 11:12 am |
      • ObjectiveGuy

        The first recourse of the Obama apologists is always to try to discredit anyone who has a viewpoint that differs from what the Obama administration says is reality. However, how do you reconcile the fact that Obama is a PROVEN liar on multiple occasions, who always manages to create a spin to make himself look like a hero. Are you really so gullible that you do not even think to question a situation where the administration's version of the facts seems to differ greatly from the facts of many involved credible parties? If nothing else, it certainly sounds like it warrants more investigation, rather than blindly regurgitating the Obama party line. Learn to think a little more independently, and perhaps we will have a better track record in the future of not electing political candidates who clearly have no business running for office.

        October 30, 2013 at 11:22 am |
    • Joesnopy

      OMG people we have worst S to happen during the Iraq war so get over it. This was a CIA station and they did not want a big American present at the site. Now we did not run to get the suspect because of OIL people it is as simple at that yes black gold OIL. Do not want to mess up that S. I am sure when Obama was asked by the state department to stand down on the raid he was first shock and then I am sure they reminded him this will mess up the CORPs oil money. You see Obama has to obey the rich just like Bush.

      October 30, 2013 at 11:13 am | Reply
      • B.O.B.

        I guess that is also why Obama's Syrian Red Line was more of a suggestion than an actual line. Thank goodness for Kerry's quip and Putin for taking advantage of the situation to save our President's skin. BTW, how are the UN advisors doing with that whole chemical weapon stockpile?

        October 30, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
  20. Matt

    It is really insulting that CNN failed to even mention the fact that Al Qaeda conducted the assault on 9/11. Even 60 Minutes stated the truth. Americans that fail to identify the murderers and attempt to cover it up are disgusting and should be ashamed. Obama and his puppets continue to throw Americans under the buss as they fail to fight or even mention Al Qaeda. There are Al Qaeda training camps in Libya you cowards! Watch the 60 Minutes piece from 10/27/13.

    October 30, 2013 at 9:54 am | Reply
    • StanCalif

      Don't forget, most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis!!! What has Saudi Arabia paid for this? Bin Laden was also a Saudi!

      October 30, 2013 at 10:31 am | Reply
      • Matt

        Al Qaeda tried to assassinate the Saudi Prince for the same reason they used Saudis on 9/11/01... genius. AQ also targets Sunnis and Shiites because they want them to fight each other in places like Iraq... maybe you should learn about AQ before taking their bait!!! Saudi Arabia has ZERO to do with AQ training camps Libya. Stop being a tool for Al Qaeda!

        October 30, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
  21. Robert Klein Engler

    WHAT WAS THE MOTIVE FOR MURDER AT BENGHAZI?

    –Robert Klein Engler

    A year has passed since the Incident at Benghazi took the life of ambassador Chris Stevens and other Americans. Some shapes have emerged from the fog that still hangs over Benghazi, yet many unanswered questions remain about what happened there.

    Was an order to stand down given to stop aide from reaching Benghazi? If so, who gave the order? What was ambassador Stevens doing at Benghazi? How did the ambassador die? Was he murdered?

    Beyond these questions, one of the most important questions not being asked is what was the motive, in the first place, for the al-Queda attack against our CIA outpost in Benghazi and the resulting deaths?

    Investigators will tell you that discovering the motive for a crime goes a long way to understanding who committed it. Furthermore, any theory about a crime also searches for a motive so that scattered pieces of evidence can be assembled to form a complete picture of events.

    So far, very few are asking about the motive for the attack at Benghazi. If ambassador Stevens was murdered, how did that murder take place and what was the motive for that crime?

    The official explanation for the Incident at Benghazi is that it was a spontaneous demonstration protesting a video that was seen by the attackers as insulting to the Prophet and Islam.

    We know now that official explanation for a motive is a lie perpetuated by members of the Obama administration and the US State Department.

    What other motives for Stevens' murder are there, if the official one is a lie? Why aren't others asking about these motives if they know the official explanation is not true?

    Two other motives for Steven's death have been circulating on the Internet. These motives for Stevens' death use the evidence for gunrunning and the anti-Muslim video in a much broader explanation.

    Let's look at these motives and see how they fit into a theory of the crime.

    It is generally agreed that some kind of gun running was taking place at Benghazi and that ambassador Stevens was a party to it. Weapons were probably collected by the CIA from the old Libyan regime and assembled at Benghazi for transport via Turkey to the rebels fighting Assad in Syria.

    If this were the case, then something must have gone wrong in the weapons exchange that caused the attack to take place and Stevens to die. What could have that been?

    It's highly unlikely that forces loyal to the Kadhafi regime could have attacked the CIA compound at Benghazi, without Stevens and the more that 30 Americans stationed there not knowing about the attack before hand.

    If all parties in the weapons exchange were making money by it, what would be their motive for attacking and killing Stevens? It would be like biting the hand that feeds them

    This being the case, there seems to be no motive in this explanation for killing Stevens and stopping the flow of money and weapons.

    Is there another motive that builds on the weapons exchange and the video protests that leads to Stevens alleged torture, mutilation and murder?

    It has been suggested that Stevens' death and the destruction at Benghazi were the result of a foiled plot to kidnap the ambassador and exchange him for the Blind Sheik who is held in a US prison.

    This suggestion may be far fetched. But it does offer us the best motive for our theory of the crime.

    Let us assume the kidnapping plot was hatched by the US and the Muslim Brotherhood. A video was on the shelf and ready to be offered as a motive to cover the plot.

    Then, after negotiations, both Stevens and the Blind Sheik would be exchanged, the arms shipments could continue, and Obama would be reelected. A good plan with a good outcome for many.

    But something went wrong. The kidnappers and Stevens did not count on resistance offered by other brave Americans who were not in the loop.

    When the "attack" at Benghazi took place, members of the administration knew before hand it was not a terrorist attack, but a staged kidnapping they would later explain by a preselected video. That's why a stand down order was given.

    However, not everyone was ready to stand down. Woods, and later Doherty, thought the attack was real and they responded like the brave Americans they were. They came out shooting.

    This resistance was a surprise to the attackers who were planning on no resistance and an easy kidnapping. When some of the attackers were killed, things got out of control.

    The attackers, many who may have had Muslim Brotherhood ties in Egypt, felt betrayed and angry. They took their anger out on ambassador Stevens.

    It was this anger that led to Stevens' alleged torture and death. The motive for Stevens' murder seems to be revenge.

    Once things fell apart at Benghazi, the administration made a decision to go with the cover story they already had on the shelf–blame it on the video, lie, and hope for the best.

    Hoping for the best may have its limits. Now that deposed President Morsi has been released by the Egyptian military, some new light is being shed on what happened at Benghazi. The recent statement by Egypt's ambassador to Britain, Ashraf ElKholy does just that.

    ElKholy claims, "The Muslim Brotherhood are like a Nazi group that demand that everything changes and people everything to their way." How could the Clintons have been so blind to have missed that foreign policy assessment about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/10252399/Muslim-Brotherhood-must-be-removed-like-Nazis-Egypts-ambassador-to-Britain-says.html

    But beyond this characterization of the Muslim Brotherhood as Nazis, could there possibly be any connection between Hillary Clinton, Egypt's Morsi and the alleged kidnapping of ambassador Stevens at Benghazi?

    There is evidence that Morsi's men were at Benghazi. What were they doing there?
    http://therightscoop.com/new-evidence-connecting-egypts-president-morsi-to-911-attack-on-consulate-in-benghazi/

    If there was a plan to kidnap Stevens and trade him for the release of the Blind Sheik, that plan could have been hatched in the State Department.

    It would be in the interest of the Clintons to have Obama reelected, even if they do not like him. If a Republican were to have defeated Obama, that would have put Hillary's chance to run for election 8 years into the future. By then she may have been too old or too unpopular to become the first US woman president.

    Any scheme that would accomplish the Obama reelection goal and firm up ties with the Muslim Brotherhood could be of interest to the Clintons. We know that Huma Abedin is Hillary Clinton's assistant and sister of Egyptian MB Chief Hassan Abedin. Both the Clintons and Obama have ties with Morsi, so Morsi and the Brotherhood could have been involved in any plot from the beginning.

    If the US State Department wanted to plan a staged kidnapping of a US ambassador, it would not be hard to do. It could easily be done under the cover of a CIA gun running program that was already taking place at Benghazi.

    Cynthia Farahat reported recently on FoxNews.com that "Ahmed Moussa, a prominent Egyptian television personality on the Tahrir TV channel as well as a former officer in Egyptian State Security Intelligence (SSI), went public on July 30 with a remarkable piece of information."

    "...Moussa announced three facts: 1. Ambassador Chris Stevens' assassin in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, is named Mohsen Al-Azazi. 2. Azizi associates with...the general secretary of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party... and Hegazy, a leading MB cleric. 3. The police found Azizi’s passport in the house of leading Muslim Brotherhood strategist Khairat El-Shater..."
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/08/12/is-muslim-brotherhood-working-together-with-amb-chris-stevens-assassin/#ixzz2cPoW7pmG

    Furthermore, Bill Gertz claims in The Counter Jihard Report that, "An al Qaeda terrorist stated in a recent online posting that U. S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens was killed by lethal injection after plans to kidnap him during the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi went bad."
    http://counterjihadreport.com/tag/ambassador-christopher-stevens/

    Could it be that ambassador Stevens' close ties to Islam made him a likely candidate for such a kidnapping plot? Sabri Malek, the spokesman for the Democratic Party in Libya, claims Stevens, "had a very personal private matter, a very romantic relationship with the mystical side of Islam."

    Malek continued, "He always felt that he belonged to the Libyan community and the society...He was one of us. He had a habit of going down the local street …going to a very famous bar, it’s like a fruit bar where he takes his milkshakes…hardly with any security."
    http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/murdered-u-s-ambassador-stevens-a-muslim/

    This is where we are today–a year long lie by the administration, while no other motive for Stevens' death, besides the above speculation, is being investigated either by the media or the Congress.

    AN INTERNET AUTOPSY:
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/article/how-did-ambassador-stevens-die

    TWO THEORIES ABOUT BENGHAZI:
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/57011

    STAND DOWN ORDER:
    http://theatheistconservative.com/tag/robert-klein-engler/

    BENGHAZI MURDER MYSTERY:
    http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/now-we-know-why-obama-did-not-act-in-benghazi/

    HILLARY:
    http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/hillarys-benghazi-investigator-confirms-egypt-link/?cat_orig=us

    STEVENS BODY:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57609479/60-minutes-benghazi/?pageNum=3

    October 30, 2013 at 9:49 am | Reply
  22. Hawk

    Put a community organizer in charge of the military and you get these screw ups! The Obamination in the White House refuses to let survivors testify nor does he choose to offer a ransom. Seems to me he was involved with his Brothers. We have not seen such incompetence in the White House since Carter...the preacher who oversaw a disasterous raid into Iran!

    October 30, 2013 at 9:30 am | Reply
  23. USAPeasant

    Real good article, really just sums up the current Libya mess and its implications with American foreign policy for ya.

    October 30, 2013 at 9:16 am | Reply
  24. glenview0818

    Not that it is over, we are ready to strike and bring the dead justice. Too bad we did nothing in the hours before the assault resulted in 4 dead americans. With all the active military bases so close to Benghazi I refuse to believe that we could not respond in a timely manner. It is so bad, it is almost like it was done intentionally so we could get more involved in that mess.

    October 30, 2013 at 8:57 am | Reply
    • tpbco

      Do you mean like the Gulf of Tonkin...that was a liberal democrat in charge, too.

      October 30, 2013 at 9:23 am | Reply
    • RavTrav

      I could not agree more. It was so poorly handled, it is as if it was on purpose.

      October 30, 2013 at 9:31 am | Reply
  25. Andy

    "Khattalah had openly operated in Benghazi for months and even has been interviewed by CNN's Arwa Damon."

    Look at all the thanks we're getting for helping the Libyans out! Let's repeat the process in Syria, shall we?

    October 30, 2013 at 8:42 am | Reply
  26. honestly...

    Wow, the right wing nutballs come rolling out again..." the military never left anyone behind until Obama"? Benghazi is impeachable? Honestly, you need to really figure this out–it's not particulary complex...Amb. Stevens should never have been in Benghazi–a well know CIA hub– on 9/11... but he liked riding around Libya in Humvees with special forces– by all accounts a decent guy and obviously a brave American–but absolutely in the wrong place...try to actually THINK about it ... do you have any idea of how many screw ups we have had militarily over the last 200 years? Go back and read about the Revolution–then move onto the War of 1812, then the Civil War– one mistake after another...it's pretty hard NOT to have screw ups when human beings are involved– Benghazi is another mess–but unfortunately these things happen... 9/11 happened.. i lost over 30 friends that tragic morning.. do you think i have ever blamed Bush and Cheney for screwing up on their watch ? Give us all a break– try to understand that horrible things happen at extremely rapid rates with terrible communication...try helping the country heal– try working collectively to figure out serious geo political issues– start with yourselves....

    October 30, 2013 at 8:39 am | Reply
    • Well..

      It wasn't a mistake that an ambassador was there doing what he does any more than a police or fireman is in his risky line of work doing what he's good at and what most of us don't have the guts to do. But the fact that there was a militant attack, and we had resources to thwart it and get the guys out? Problem. Then the coverup? Problem. Then the constant stonewalling? Problem. Then the recriminations for political purposes? Problem. Then Hillary finding a political way to evade all questioning? Problem. I don't care who is in charge, this was risky work, and the Ambassador was doing it right, surely with the belief that he had a safety net. But the people who were entrusted to help him hesitated... And the ambassador and several other very exceptional men were brutally murdered. Problem is, THIS COULD BE ANY OF US if we were in that chain of command, and I wouldn't want any of us to go out and work like that.

      October 30, 2013 at 9:25 am | Reply
    • Hawk

      You left wing extremists should never darken the White House ever again! We should have learned with preacher Carter now we have a more incompetent Demo-crap. Hard to believe, ain't it?

      October 30, 2013 at 9:36 am | Reply
    • Freedom

      Give us a president we can trust and then maybe we could heal. We had the resources nearby to save those men, but didnt....why? Our president is more loyal to politics, and terrorists. Cover up, after cover up, and the Clinton woman...really? These are the people that you trust? Hows that hope and change working out for ya?

      October 30, 2013 at 9:51 am | Reply
    • hgfhjdfghdfgh

      Amazing how stupid you are

      October 30, 2013 at 10:09 am | Reply
    • Barbara Ball

      How do you compare what happened in Benghazzi to 9/11? Oh, I know, you are a stupid liberal covering for a horrible president who did nothing to help our Americans that night. You idiots will elect the hag Clinton in a couple of years knowing that she also did nothing on that night. On top of all of this, we were lied to by our president. He should be impeached for the lie not the attack. Get your facts right, honestly, before writing.

      October 30, 2013 at 10:59 am | Reply
  27. maybeitsme

    "But the mission never materialized"........ huh? The government was worried....ahhhh. They should be worried. The Benghazi story is a nightmare and just keeps getting worse. Why weren't they worried about Pakistan when they went for Bin Laden...? CNN: Maybe now you'll put some heat on this administration to answer questions. You've given them far too many passes.....

    October 30, 2013 at 8:18 am | Reply
    • Indepman

      More cover the libs a__ journalism. Practice? Worries? Could have? No OK from WH?

      We took out Bin Laden – and this guy is a tougher catch? Come on CNN you can do better than this.

      October 30, 2013 at 8:37 am | Reply
  28. Free Man in the Republic of Texas

    AT THIS POINT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE ???
    Americans are still DEAD in Benghazi
    The COVER UP continues

    Mrs. Clinton has TOLD us that this is OLD NEWS
    so it MUST be true !!!

    October 30, 2013 at 7:31 am | Reply
    • Eddie B

      typical Repuck answer half a statement tell the whole statement. Hillary 2016

      October 30, 2013 at 7:53 am | Reply
      • Debra d

        Typical idiot, you obviously have never been in the military, we don't leave anyone behind, that is until Obama

        October 30, 2013 at 8:13 am |
      • seanster5977

        At this point to defend Clinton and Obama on this subject shows either apathy for service men and women and their sacrifice, or a complete lack of intelligence. Either way you are a typical liberal democrat. Disgusting.

        October 30, 2013 at 8:44 am |
    • qwerty allstar

      Source?

      October 30, 2013 at 9:20 am | Reply
  29. 94M

    Next time we go after one of these suspects we should wait until we can get all of them instead of going after just one. The operation should come before political grandstanding and high fives in front of the media.

    October 30, 2013 at 7:31 am | Reply
  30. dave

    WOW CNN welcome to reality took you 7 years but still

    October 30, 2013 at 6:56 am | Reply
  31. More Admin BS

    Please quit leaking to the press when it suits your needs Obama admin and then calling for the prosecution when someone does it related to your incompetency.

    October 30, 2013 at 6:53 am | Reply
    • Eddie B

      No that would be Snowden that leaks thing to the communist.

      October 30, 2013 at 7:54 am | Reply
    • Concerned Netizen

      Bravo on the comparison, although i do not believe there is much steam left in this admin, They are going to need alot of scape goats to get away from this... you can't have the press run "cute kitty" stories forever. That and publicly ruining anyone's career that won't tow the (one)party line. I think then you take it all in, these past 12 years have been more than nixonian, and agreeably impeachable.

      October 30, 2013 at 7:57 am | Reply
      • eric

        Iran Contra & WMD's Said PLEASE LOLOLOL Rookie!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        October 31, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
    • DrTom

      Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive. On the other hand, the worst terrorist attack in our history happened on George Bush's watch. Obama is responsible for the death or capture of more global terrorist by far than any other President.

      October 31, 2013 at 9:28 am | Reply
1 2

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.