Our Intel Community Immediately Went to War vs. Rice's (and Obama's) Coverup of 9-11
October 6, 2012 • 2:38PM

Within 24 hours, U.S. intelligence had concluded that the new 9-11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, had been an act of terrorism, and had established many collateral facts which still hold up today, as we have documented. Yet that Sunday, Sept. 16, Obama's London-controlled UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, told talk-show audiences that the attack and killings were the outgrowth of a spontaneous demonstration provoked by a months-old YouTube video!

An Oct 5 Fox News report by James Rosen reports that the very next day, Sept. 17, high-level intelligence officials deployed outside contractors to review video footage taken after the attack on the "annex," also called the "safe-house," to establish that the mortar rounds fired at it, had been fired by at least two mortar teams, skilled in the use of mortar arms. The contractors showed that the shots were direct hits, and there was no evidence of "bracketing fire" (readjusting tractories based on misses). This indicates that the attack teams used GPS devices and "dialed in" on the targets: sure evidence of a preplanned and professional attack.

It's obvious that this particular analysis was only one of a number of such detailed investigations designed to decisively crush Rice's lies.

The patriotic intelligence community won the debate on Wednesday, Sept. 19, when Matthew Olsen, head of the National Counterterrorism Center, testified to the Senate that he considered the Benghazi murders acts of terrorism.

See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/04/ obama-aides-internally-disputed-terrorism- finding-for-several-days-sources-say/

Bill Gertz, of the Washington Times and freebeacon.com, reported Oct. 5 that "weeks before the presidential election, President Barack Obama's administration faces mounting opposition from within the ranks of U.S. intelligence agencies over what career officers say is a 'cover up' of intelligence information about terrorism in North Africa." They say that the false story about a spontaneous attack "was either knowingly disseminated or was directed to be put out by senior policy officials for political reasons, since the statement was contradicted by numerous intelligence reports at the time of the attack indicating it was al Qaeda-related terrorism."