On September 17, Reuters ran a story headlined: "Intel agencies warned U.S. Embassy in Egypt of possible violence."

That's nice. So why didn't "intel agencies" warn the US Embassy in Libya of possible violence, too? Presumably because the "intel agences" -- Petraeus' CIA, no doubt -- were focused on a "video threat" in Egypt, not in Libya, and on September 10 they cabled the embassy in Egypt accordingly. Egypt was indeed jump-starting another Islamic rage cycle from a Youtube video clip, "Innocence of Muslims," whose producer, incredibly, remains in jail on "parole violations." But, conveniently forgotten amid the many administration statements that there was no forwarning of an attack in Libya, AQ leader Ayman al-Zawaheri uploaded a video of his own on September 9 and 10 calling for Libyans to attack the US to avenge the US killing of a senior AQ leader from Libya, Yahya al-Libi. This video apparently went ignored by these same "intel agencies."

Why did a clip from a Mohammed movie focus the attention of US intelligence agencies while a genuine terror kingpin's direct incitement to jihad against Americans went ignored?

Gosh, I missed the answer to that question in the "CIA timeline."

Could this blinkered concentration of US intel agencies on the Youtube Mohammed movie clip have had something to do with an unfolding strategy inside the Obama White House to use the video to advance the so-called Istambul Process as led by Hillary Clinton and the Islamic bloc to implement anti-blasphemy laws designed to prohibit criticism of Islam? Fourteen days after Benghazi, President Obama would lend support to this same movement against the First Amendment in his UN address in which cited the Mohammed video six times, declaring: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." For that statement alone, Obama should not be re-elected because it proves he is unwilling to defend the US Constitution.

Meanwhile, speaking of the CIA timeline, Fox News Bret Baier today seizes on a clash of timelines underscored by the CBS release -- unconsionably only two days before the election -- of a statement by Obama to "60 Minutes" showing the president was disavowing Benghazi as terrorist attack on September 12, despite Obama's claiming during the second debate that he had called Benghazi an "acts of terror" on September 12 in the Rose Garden (prior to the "60 Minutes" interview). The words passed his lips in the Rose Garden but not to characterize Benghazi; more to the point, Obama spent the next two weeks blaming "Innocence of Muslims" for a non-existent, but what the President insisted was a "natural" protest that became violent.

Baier writes:

Of all the details of the specific times the CIA contractors respond to the fight, I found this one most interesting:

"1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they've hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel who are on loan to the agency. They don't leave Benghazi airport until 4:30. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport, obtaining vehicles, and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they correctly suspect is already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Shariah militia that mounted the consulate attack."

Baier:

So the U.S. Ambassador to Libya is at the Benghazi hospital and suspected dead. The CIA contractors know that, but they can't get there because the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked group Ansar al Shariah, the "militia that mounted the consulate attack."  

This goes up the chain communication at 1:15 a.m. on Sept. 12.  The White House, the Situation Room, and all of those paying attention to intel channels know that the guys on the ground have determined the group that's behind this. It's the Al Qaeda-linked militia that are still fighting and have the hospital surrounded.

About 12 hours later -- before heading to Las Vegas for a campaign event -- Obama sits down for that "60 Minutes" interview with Steve Kroft.

And Sunday night, 54 days after the attack and almost two weeks after putting out the first additional clip that appeared to back up the president after the second debate, CBS without fanfare posted the rest of the Benghazi question online -- the question before the question.

Remember this is from a president who has been saying he was calling Benghazi a terrorist attack from the very first moment in the Rose Garden. Also, remember what he said in the debate and notice the new part -- underlined in bold.

Click here to see the "60 Minutes" interview. 

 KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.  And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.  

Update: I just watched this clip, rather than merely reading the above transcript. More accurately, the transcript should read:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack.

OBAMA: Right.

KROFT: Do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.  And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other. 

No, it was not too early to tell -- unless the President of the United States wanted to tell the American people something other than the truth. Obama and Hillary and Petraeus and Rice and the rest would lie and continue to lie to us on this count, with Obama stretching it out for two weeks to that UN address on September 25. Even now, they all continue to stonewall. Are such duplicitous and scheming public servants to be empowered for four more years? For many reasons, I hope for every Americans' sake the answer is a resounding landslide of a "NO." But I'll take a squeaker.

---

Follow me @diana_west_