# data[].attributes.headline
Obamacare, and how is horribly effects Americans 

# data[].attributes.subject
Obamacare, and how is horribly effects Americans 

# data[].attributes.body
Obamacare is something that only helps very little Americans, and majority are younger people. This healthcare is not good for the older society, or families who receive insurance from companies. Thanks to Obama.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Republicans renewed their fight against ObamaCare on Monday in response to a new report in which the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services concludes that 11 million small business employees may see their premiums rise under the law.

The report, released Friday, says the higher rates are partly due to the health law's requirement that premiums can no longer be based on a person's age. That has sent premiums higher for younger workers, and lower for older ones.

The report found that 65 percent of small businesses would see a spike in insurance premiums and about 35 percent of small businesses would see lower rates for plans covering six million people, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The estimate is far from certain, partly because many small businesses renewed their policies in 2013. Renewing before the end of the year allowed them to avoid higher premiums that went into effect Jan. 1, when coverage was required to conform to the law.

Also limiting the certainty of the estimate is the fact that the report looks at three specific provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Employers' decisions will be based on more factors, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Still, Republicans were quick to pounce on the report, which was requested by House Speaker John Boehner and was due before the end of 2011.

"This is another punch in the gut for Americans already struggling in the president's economy," Boehner said in a statement. "It's clear why the administration sought to delay and deemphasize the release of this report. It undermines the central promise of the president's health care law: affordable coverage."

"These 11 million people who will see their premiums spike are 11 million more reasons to repeal this law and start over with common sense reform that will make care more affordable, not more costly."

House Small Business Committee Chairman Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., said the report is the latest piece of bad news for the law, which hit a snag earlier this month after the Obama administration announced another delay in requiring businesses to provide health coverage.

"The fact that two-thirds of Americans who work at small businesses will see premium increases because of the health law is devastating news. This is one more in a long line of broken promises from President Obama and Washington Democrats," Graves said in a statement.

The report did not estimate by how much premiums are expected to increase or decrease, and did not consider other parts of the law that can impact the cost of plans, such as tax credits designed to encourage employers to offer health insurance coverage, the Journal reported.

"Since the Affordable Care Act became law, health-care costs have been slowing and premium growth has slowed to the lowest rate in years," Joanne Peters, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, told the newspaper. "The law is making it easier for businesses to offer coverage."
The Associated Press contributed to this report. Click here for more from The Wall Street Journal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ObamaCare may increase premiums for 11 million workers, report says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Republicans renewed their fight against ObamaCare on Monday in response to a new report in which the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services concludes that 11 million small business employees may see their premiums rise under the law.

# data[].attributes.body
Take some time and become informed. Find the facts, seek justice, become apart, voice an opinion.

VOTE.

# data[].attributes.body
"Liberals and lefties Who like Guns, but Not NRA"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I thought it was a joke, and a bad one, when a strident vegan musician friend from upscale Marin County, just north of San Francisco, said he was thinking of getting a rifle because his neighbor had a nasty pit bull that kept threatening his smaller dog.

Turns out the joke's on me-my friend is not alone. According to Carla Marinucci, the top political writer at the San Francisco Chronicle, there's a new faction in America's gun culture: liberal lefties who love their guns but hate the National Rifle Association. And they have members in the Bay Area, a region with a long history of gun control efforts.

"We're the NPR of gun clubs-without the tote bags," Walter Stockwell of San Jose told the paper, saying he joined the Liberal Gun Club to improve his shot and spend time with people who share his views. This allegedly more genteel, intellectual and liberal gun club has about 1,000 members nationally, compared to the NRA's 5 million.

"Marlene Hoeber is feisty, tattooed, transgender, a self-described feminist, a queer activist-and a crack shot with her favorite 'toys,' guns of just about every kind," the piece began, profiling the club's California state president. The stereotype-shattering story was promptly reposted on GOPUSA.com, teasing "a peek into leftwing gun culture."

The liberal shooters say their only similarity to the NRA is a wide interpretation of the Second Amendment-opposing new gun control laws. They called several new laws passed in 2013 by the California Legislature but vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown "overprescribed political placebos that fail to cure... the root causes of violence." That is best addressed by government support "for violence prevention: stronger mental healthcare, addressing poverty, homelessness and unemployment," their press release said.

The liberal shooters took a few swipes at the NRA. They say they're really put off by the NRA's hatred of President Obama, its sloganeering and its right-wing homophobia. The Chronicle reported that Hoeber likes to garden, bake and make bullets. Eric Wooten, a longtime California Democratic Party activist and a member, called Obama "too conservative."

Other liberals who have emerged from the gun-toting closet include Larry, "a retired Episcopal priest" who said that he found the club when he Googled "liberals" and "guns." "A lot of us here have been kicked out of other gun forums because of our liberal views."

The Club's website has a forum where members volunteer to talk to the press. It has their contact information and defiant quotes that are not very different from what you would find on Tea Party blogs, such as this Dorothy Parker tidbit, "I know the things I know, and I do the things I do; and if you do not like me so, to hell, my love, with you!"

"If anyone ever wants to talk to someone who was, up to very recently, a complete anti-gun wacko and has since converted you can send them my way," wrote Don1960lp. This post, from CDfingers, said, "I'd love to talk with the Brady Campaign-I'd invite them shooting with my Ruger MKII. They would have fun, and that would be that."

This is all politically entertaining, to be sure. But there are serious reasons why liberals abhor America's obsession with guns and violence. The website had a few entries and links that began to address the key question of when to use deadly force in response to real violence. That is the crux of the dilemma facing liberals who do not believe that being armed, trained and ready to shoot is the best, or only answer, to violence-as the NRA clearly believes and touts.

"The world is not respectable; it is mortal, tormented, confused, deluded forever," Dang, a veteran, wrote, suggesting that force is occasionally needed to protect what matters in life. "But it is shot through with beauty, with love, with glints of courage and laughter; and in these, the spirit blooms timidly, and struggles to the light amid the thorns."

Most intriguing was this blog and link to a 2013 article in Good magazine by Sarah Stankorb, a Virginian who crossed the divide from peacenik to shooter.

After the Sandy Hook grade school massacre in December 2012, Stankorb went to NRA protests with the sign, "Teach kindness, not killing." But soon after she became drawn to guns from a desire to protect her young kids. "There but for the grace of God go I," she thought, summarizing her dilemma-and the question facing anti-gun liberals.

Her editor told her to delve into the hidden world of liberal gun clubs. She found herself driven by fear. She obsessed about bullet-proof child backpacks. She spoke with victims who couldn't defend themselves or their friends who died. She decided to learn to shoot. Her instructor told her to control her breath, comparing it to taking a yoga class.

"Liberal gun owners represented a unique entry point into a world I didn't think I would be able to understand," she wrote. "Rather than the boogeyman, these were people who in most respects were like me."

Stankorb found she that enjoyed shooting, even if it clearly left her conflicted. Here's how she ended her lenghthy piece, trumpeted on LiberalGunClub.com as "a decent article by a reporter who started out as an anti."

"I see in my own hands the blast, the thump of fear and adrenaline in my veins, and my finger depressing the trigger again. I know that however much it still scares the hell out of me to extend my body into the thrust and trajectory of a bullet, were the threat of harm to come to me or my children, I'd want to stand on this side of the gun-not aiming to kill, never to kill-but to have some force behind which to salvage what I love."

It's political fun for the San Francisco Chronicle and GOPUSA's Midday Report to trumpet liberal Californian gun lovers. But the bottom line is far more difficult. Far too many Americans love the power of firing weapons, turn to weapons to resolve disputes, and fantasize about their ability to pull the trigger and stop threats.

As for Liberal Gun Clubbers who parrot the NRA's anti-gun control lines, perhaps they ought to be the good NPR liberals and read an especially good book. UCLU law professor Adam Winkler's Gunfight: The Battle Over Gun Control in America could teach them a critical and unappreciated lesson about American gun history and culture.

"The two ideas-the right to bear arms and gun control-are not mutually exclusive propositions," Winkler begins. "In fact, America has always had both."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Liberals and Lefties Who like Guns -- But Not the NRA -- Emerge in San Francisco

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Transsexuals, ex-priests and Democrats love guns, too. I thought it was a joke, and a bad one, when a strident vegan musician friend from upscale Marin County, just north of San Francisco, said he was thinking of getting a rifle because his neighbor had a nasty pit bull that kept threatening his smaller dog.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Republican Party is fighting for a freer and stronger America where everyone has the opportunity to achieve the American Dream.

# data[].attributes.body
Well first of all it is a duty and a responsibility for citizens of America to vote. Politics is not everyone's thing, but voting in a country run by the same person should be. These past five years America has had to suffer with a president who is very selfish. Creating a healthcare bill that doesn't benefit majority of Americans. There is also the fact that our president believes he can rule the country without the PEOPLE'S say, which isn't right. No matter how magical his pen is, WE the PEOPLE need to go out and get out problems out in the open. Citizens need to VOTE! Have a say as to what happens, because no matter how much you try to stay away whatever happens, happens to all.

# data[].attributes.headline
Refusing business to Gay couples because it goes against their personal Religion. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Refusing business to Gay couples because it goes against their personal Religion. 

# data[].attributes.body
In Arizona a wedding cake baker refused to make a cake for a gay couple because he didn't support their life style due to his person beliefs. The wedding cake designer was sued, and now isn't in business, and the same happened to a wedding photographer. The question is, why would it bother you so much, wouldn't you want someone doing something for your wedding to actually want to do it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fox News dedicated its first segment on Gov. Brewer's veto of Arizona's anti-gay bill to an interview with one of America's most notorious anti-gay hate group leaders.

On February 26, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced that she had vetoed Senate Bill 1062, which would have allowed businesses and individuals to engage in legal discrimination by denying services to gay people on religious grounds. Brewer said that the bill "does not address a specific or pressing concern," and that it "is broadly worded, and could result in unintended and negative consequences."

Fox's Megyn Kelly opened the February 26 edition of her show with a segment on Brewer's veto that featured Tony Perkins, president of the anti-gay Family Research Council. Kelly gave Perkins a platform to lambast the veto as an example of "how fundamental freedoms are trampled," while citing a New Mexico couple who were prosecuted for refusing service to a same-sex couple as proof that the law differs from discrimination against mixed-race couples in that it "address[es] some very significant problems":

The fact that Perkins was the subject of Fox's first interview on the veto is problematic, to say the least. Perkins isn't just an opponent of same-sex marriage-- his organization, the FRC, is a designated hate group, and he's made a career of peddling false and degrading smears about LGBT people, including:

Perkins has repeatedly used discussions about LGBT suicide to score cheap political points, claiming that LGBT teens kill themselves because they know being gay is " abnormal" and that they are " in rebellion to God's design." In a letter to supporters, Perkins called the anti-suicide "It Gets Better" project an attempt to "recruit" kids into a "lifestyle" of "perversion." He's even blamed high suicide rates in the military on the repeal of " Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Kelly has repeatedly relied on Perkins for commentary on issues affecting the gay community, even after assuring a GLAAD official that she would challenge the anti-gay hate group leader on his history of extreme rhetoric.

Kelly's decision to host Perkins to discuss the veto without questioning his rhetoric or providing another guest to counter his views marks an unfortunate reversal from her comments the day before, wherein she acknowledged that Arizona's anti-gay bill was "potentially dangerous." Unfortunately, Perkins' regular status as a Fox guest is in keeping with the network's ongoing attempt to suppress gay rights by suggesting that the religious views of business owners should allow them to discriminate against gay customers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fox Responds To Veto Of AZ Anti-Gay Bill By Hosting Anti-Gay Hate Group Leader

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fox News dedicated its first segment on Gov. Brewer's veto of Arizona's anti-gay bill to an interview with one of America's most notorious anti-gay hate group leaders. On February 26, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced that she had vetoed Senate Bill 1062, which would have allowed businesses and individuals to engage in legal discrimination by denying services to gay people on religious grounds.

# data[].attributes.headline
There are major issue differences between Democrats and Republicans currently 

# data[].attributes.subject
There are major issue differences between Democrats and Republicans currently 

# data[].attributes.body
Issues today regarding the difference between these two parties are: Abortion, Gay Marriage, Gun Control, Healthcare, and the Immigration.

# data[].attributes.headline
Soldiers killed, requested back up but were denied? How can anyone justify the murder of their son when there was a chance to save him? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Soldiers killed, requested back up but were denied? How can anyone justify the murder of their son when there was a chance to save him? 

# data[].attributes.body
Benghazi was a big deal and still currently is, American officials new about this attack before it was even going to occur. Our soldiers lost their lives due to the ignorance of our current leader, and Hilary Clinton. Hilary is now famous for her excuse of the issue, "What difference does it make now?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The question won't go away: Did President Obama and administration officials mislead the public when they initially claimed that the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began "spontaneously" in response to an anti-Muslim video?

The question surfaced again on Oct. 25 - more than six weeks after the incident - when government emails showed the White House and the State Department were told even as the attack was going on that Ansar al-Sharia, a little-known militant group, had claimed credit for it.

We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come - both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.

But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.

What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:

There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 - nearly a month after the attack.

Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 - five days after the attack - that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.

Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a "spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous." This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms - including during the president's Sept. 18 appearance on the "Late Show With David Letterman."

Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it "a terrorist attack" during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of "The View" on Sept. 24.

Here is our timeline:

2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time. ("Everything is calm at 8:30," a State Department official would later say at an Oct. 9 background briefing for reporters. "There's nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.")

3 p.m.: Ambassador Stevens retires to his bedroom for the evening. (See Oct. 9 briefing.)

Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears "loud noises" coming from the front gate and "gunfire and an explosion." A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing says that "the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people - a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound."

About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack that was given to reporters at a Sept. 12 State Department background briefing. An administration official identified only as "senior administration official one" provides an official timeline of events at the consulate, but only from the time of the attack - not prior to the attack. The official says, "The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists." (Six of the next seven entries in this timeline - through 8:30 p.m. EDT - all come from the Sept. 12 briefing. The exception being the 6:07 p.m. entry, which comes from Reuters.)

About 4:15 p.m.: "The attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith."

Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead.

About 4:45 p.m.: "U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex."

About 5:20 p.m.: "U.S. and Libyan security personnel ... regain the main building and they were able to secure it."

Around 6 p.m.: "The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o'clock in the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours. It was during that time that two additional U.S. personnel were killed and two more were wounded during that ongoing attack."

6:07 p.m.: The State Department's Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)

About 8:30 p.m.: "Libyan security forces were able to assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all of this - and frankly, we do not know when - we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a hospital in Benghazi. We do not have any information what his condition was at that time. His body was later returned to U.S. personnel at the Benghazi airport."

Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

11:12 p.m.: Clinton sends an email to her daughter, Chelsea, that reads: "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow." (The email was discovered in 2015 by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. It is written to "Diane Reynolds," which was Chelsea Clinton's alias.)

Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack 'Act of Terror,' Not 'Terrorism'

Sept. 12: Clinton issues a statement confirming that four U.S. officials, not one, had been killed. She calls it a "violent attack."

Clinton: All the Americans we lost in yesterday's attacks made the ultimate sacrifice. We condemn this vicious and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the Libyan people reach for a better future.

Sept. 12: CIA's Middle East and North Africa Situation Report says, "[T]he presence of armed assailants from the outset suggests this was an intentional assault and not the escalation of a peaceful protest." The report was transmitted at 7 a.m. EDT.

Sept. 12: Clinton delivers a speech at the State Department to condemn the attack in Benghazi and to praise the victims as "heroes." She again makes reference to the anti-Muslim video in similar language.

Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear - there is no justification for this, none.

Sept. 12: Jake Sullivan, Clinton's deputy chief of staff, sends an email prior to Obama's Rose Garden address to Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security advisor for strategic communications at the White House, and others that says, "There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted 'over inflammatory videos.'"

Sept. 12: After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for "60 Minutes." Obama says he didn't use the word "terrorism" in his Rose Garden speech because "it's too early to know exactly how this came about." Steve Kroft, the show's host, wonders how the attack could be described as a "mob action" since the attackers were "very heavily armed." Obama says "we're still investigating," but he suspects "folks involved in this . . . were looking to target Americans from the start."

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 terrorist attack?

Obama: Well, it's too early to know 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.

Kroft: It's been described as a mob action. But there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades. That doesn't sound like your normal demonstration.

Obama: As I said, we're still investigating exactly what happened. I don't want to jump the gun on this. But you're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this, who were looking to target Americans from the start.

Sept. 12: Senior administration officials, who did not permit use of their names, hold a briefing with reporters to answer questions about the attack. Twice officials characterize those involved in the attack as "extremists." In one case, an official identified only as "senior administration official one" is asked by Fox News reporter Justin Fishel if the administration had ruled out the possibly that the attack was in response to the anti-Muslim video. The official says, "We just don't know."

Senior administration official one: With regard to whether there is any connection between this Internet activity and this extremist attack in Benghazi, frankly, we just don't know. We're not going to know until we have a chance to investigate. And I'm sorry that it is frustrating for you that so many of our answers are "We don't know," but they are truthful in that.

NBC's Andrea Mitchell asks officials to address news reports that the attack has been "linked to a terror attack, an organized terror attack," possibly al Qaeda. The official refers to it as a "complex attack," but says it is "too early to say who they were" and their affiliation.

Senior administration official one: Frankly, we are not in a position to speak any further to the perpetrators of this attack. It was clearly a complex attack. We're going to have to do a full investigation. We are committed to working with the Libyans both on the investigation and to ensure that we bring the perpetrators to justice. The FBI is already committed to assisting in that, but I just - we're - it's just too early to speak to who they were and if they might have been otherwise affiliated beyond Libya.

Sept. 12, 4:09 p.m.: At a press briefing en route to Las Vegas, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is asked, "Does the White House believe that the attack in Benghazi was planned and premeditated?" He responds, "It's too early for us to make that judgment. I think - I know that this is being investigated, and we're working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time."

Sept. 12, 6:06 p.m.: Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East, sends an email to top State Department officials that reads in part: "[T]he group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists." (An excerpt of Jones' email was read by Rep. Trey Gowdy at the May 8, 2013, House oversight hearing.)

Sept. 12: Citing unnamed "U.S. government officials," Reuters reports that "the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance" and that members of Ansar al-Sharia "may have been involved." Reuters quotes one of the U.S. officials as saying: "It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack."

Sept. 13: 'Clearly Planned' or 'Spontaneous' Attack?

Sept. 13: Clinton meets with Ali Suleiman Aujali - the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. - at a State Department event to mark the end of Ramadan. Ambassador Aujali apologizes to Clinton for what he called "this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya." Clinton, in her remarks, does not refer to it as a terrorist attack. She condemns the anti-Muslim video, but adds that there is "never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

Clinton: Religious freedom and religious tolerance are essential to the stability of any nation, any people. Hatred and violence in the name of religion only poison the well. All people of faith and good will know that the actions of a small and savage group in Benghazi do not honor religion or God in any way. Nor do they speak for the more than 1 billion Muslims around the world, many of whom have shown an outpouring of support during this time.

Unfortunately, however, over the last 24 hours, we have also seen violence spread elsewhere. Some seek to justify this behavior as a response to inflammatory, despicable material posted on the Internet. As I said earlier today, the United States rejects both the content and the message of that video. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. At our meeting earlier today, my colleague, the foreign minister of Morocco, said that all prophets should be respected because they are all symbols of our humanity, for all humanity.

But both of us were crystal clear in this paramount message: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind. And we look to leaders around the world to stand up and speak out against violence, and to take steps to protect diplomatic missions from attack.

Sept. 13: At a daily press briefing, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland is asked if the Benghazi attack was "purely spontaneous or was premeditated by militants." She declines to say, reiterating that the administration did not want to "jump to conclusions."

Nuland: Well, as we said yesterday when we were on background, we are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated, whether they had any external contacts, whether there was any link, until we have a chance to investigate along with the Libyans. So I know that's going to be frustrating for you, but we really want to make sure that we do this right and we don't jump to conclusions.

That said, obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating. As the Secretary said this morning, while we as Americans, of course, respect free speech, respect free expression, there's never an excuse for it to become violent.

Sept. 13: Clinton meets with Moroccan Foreign Minister Saad-Eddine Al-Othmani. She condemns what she calls the "disgusting and reprehensible" anti-Muslim video and the violence that it triggered. She says, "Islam, like other religions, respects the fundamental dignity of human beings, and it is a violation of that fundamental dignity to wage attacks on innocents. As long as there are those who are willing to shed blood and take innocent life in the name of religion, the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace."

Sept. 13: At a campaign event in Colorado, Obama again uses the phrase "act of terror." He says: "I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished."

Sept. 13: CNN reports that unnamed "State Department officials" say the incident in Benghazi was a "clearly planned military-type attack" unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie.

CNN: "It was not an innocent mob," one senior official said. "The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack."

Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack

Sept. 14: At a State Department press briefing, spokeswoman Nuland says the department will no longer answer any questions about the Benghazi attack. "It is now something that you need to talk to the FBI about, not to us about, because it's their investigation."

Sept. 14: At a White House press briefing, Press Secretary Carney denies reports that it was a preplanned attack. "I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false." Later in that same briefing, Carney is told that Pentagon officials informed members of Congress at a closed-door meeting that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack. Carney said the matter is being investigated but White House officials "don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film."

Question: Jay, one last question - while we were sitting here - [Defense] Secretary [Leon] Panetta and the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee. And the senators came out and said their indication was that this, or the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack organized and carried out by terrorists, that it was premeditated, a calculated act of terror. Levin said - Senator Levin - I think it was a planned, premeditated attack. The kind of equipment that they had used was evidence it was a planned, premeditated attack. Is there anything more you can - now that the administration is briefing senators on this, is there anything more you can tell us?

Carney: Well, I think we wait to hear from administration officials. Again, it's actively under investigation, both the Benghazi attack and incidents elsewhere. And my point was that we don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film. But we're obviously investigating the matter, and I'll certainly - I'm sure both the Department of Defense and the White House and other places will have more to say about that as more information becomes available.

Sept. 14: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta meets with the Senate Armed Services Committee. Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, reports that Republicans and Democrats came away with the conclusion that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack.

The Hill: Senators spoke with Panetta about the response to the situation in Libya. Four Americans were killed in an attack Tuesday on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Senators said it has become clearer the attack was coordinated, although they would not say anything specific about any connection to the broader protests that came after an anti-Muslim video was released.

"I think it was a planned, premeditated attack," Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said. He added he did not know the specific group responsible for the assault on the complex.

[Sen. John] McCain expressed a similar view.

"People don't go to demonstrate and carry RPGs and automatic weapons," he said, adding that the facts suggest "this was not a 'mob' action [or] a group of protesters."

Sept. 15-16: Susan Rice Contradicts Libyan President

Sept. 15: Obama discusses the Benghazi attack in his weekly address. He makes no mention of terror, terrorists or extremists. He does talk about the anti-Muslim film and "every angry mob" that it inspired in pockets of the Middle East.

Obama: This tragic attack [in Benghazi] takes place at a time of turmoil and protest in many different countries. I have made it clear that the United States has a profound respect for people of all faiths. We stand for religious freedom. And we reject the denigration of any religion - including Islam.

Yet there is never any justification for violence. There is no religion that condones the targeting of innocent men and women. There is no excuse for attacks on our Embassies and Consulates.

Sept. 15: The CIA chief of station in Tripoli sends an email to senior CIA officers that states, in part, that the Tripoli station "assesses the 11-12 September attacks in Benghazi were not spurred by local protests." The email continues, "We lack any ground-truth information that protest actually occurred, specifically in the vicinity of the consulate and leading up to the attack. We therefore judge events unfolded in a much different manner than in Tunis, Cairo, Khartoum, and Sanaa, which appear to be the result of escalating mob violence." (The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's Nov. 21, 2014, report on Benghazi includes excerpts of the email on page 26. The report says that CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell read the email on the morning of Sept. 15.)
Update, May 16, 2013: The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, "We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack." And they said that "[i]nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia." References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began "spontaneously" in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article "Benghazi Attack, Revisited" for more information on what changes were made to the talking points. Update, May 2, 2014: Two days before Rice's appearance on the Sunday talk show circuit, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes sent an email to other administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, with the subject line "PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET." Rhodes' email outlined four "goals" for Rice's TV appearances. One of the goals: "To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was "an intelligence failure." The answer in the email parroted - nearly word for word - Rice's talking points when it said: "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex." The Rhodes email was released April 29 by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that obtained 41 State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

Schieffer: Was this a long-planned attack, as far as you know? Or what- what do you know about that?

Magariaf: The way these perpetrators acted and moved ... this leaves us with no doubt that this has preplanned, determined- predetermined.

Schieffer: And you believe that this was the work of al Qaeda and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that - is that what you are telling us?

Magariaf: It was planned - definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who - who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their - since their arrival. ...

Schieffer: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, [Magariaf] says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?

Rice: Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the president, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and -

They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of - of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.

But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy - sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

Schieffer: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

Rice: We do not- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

Schieffer: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

Rice: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine.

Sept. 16: Magariaf says in an interview with NPR: "The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate."

Sept. 17: State Defends Rice and 'Initial Assessment'

Sept. 17: Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman, is asked about Rice's comments on "Face the Nation" and four other Sunday talk shows. Nuland says, "The comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our government's initial assessment." Nuland uses the phrase "initial assessment" three times when discussing Rice's comments.

Sept. 18: Obama Says 'Extremists' Used Video As 'Excuse'

Sept. 18: Obama is asked about the Benghazi attack on "The Late Show with David Letterman." The president says, "Here's what happened," and begins discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then says, "Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya." He also says, "As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we've denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it. That's never an excuse for violence."

Sept. 18: Asked about Magariaf's assessment that the video had nothing to do with the terrorist attack in Benghazi, the White House spokesman says Obama "would rather wait" for the investigation to be completed. "But at this time, as Ambassador Rice said and as I said, our understanding and our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped - that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere," Carney says. "What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation."

Sept. 18: After meeting with Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Patricia Espinosa, Clinton speaks with reporters and is asked if the Libyan president is "wrong" that "this attack was planned for months." Clinton says, "The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has said we had no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent." She does not say if Magariaf is right or wrong.

Sept. 19: Olsen Calls It a 'Terrorist Attack'

Sept. 19: Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, tells a Senate subcommittee (at 1:06:49 in the video) that the four State Department officials in Benghazi "were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy." It is the first time an administration official labeled it a "terrorist attack." But he also tells the senators that he has no "specific evidence of significant advanced planning."

Olsen: Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. ... The best information we have now, the facts that we have now, indicate that this was an opportunist attack on our embassy. The attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours. ... [I]t appears that individuals who were certainly well armed seized on the opportunity presented as the events unfolded. ... What we don't have, at this point, is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.

Sept. 19: At a State Department briefing, the department spokeswoman is asked if she now believes that the attack was a "terrorist attack"? She says, "Well, I didn't get a chance to see the whole testimony that was given by Matt Olsen of the NCTC, but obviously we stand by comments made by our intelligence community who has first responsibility for evaluating the intelligence and what they believe that we are seeing."

Sept. 19: The White House spokesman does not call it a "terrorist attack" in his press briefing. Carney says, "Based on the information we had at the time - we have now, we do not yet have indication that it was preplanned or premeditated. There's an active investigation. If that active investigation produces facts that lead to a different conclusion, we will make clear that that's where the investigation has led."

Sept. 20: W.H. Spokesman Calls It a 'Terrorist Attack' - Not Obama

Sept. 20: Carney calls it a "terrorist attack" after being asked how the White House now classifies the attack. But he says the White House has no evidence that it was "a significantly preplanned attack" and blames the video for igniting the incident in Benghazi.

Carney: It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that's self-evident. I would point you to a couple of things that Mr. Olsen said, which is that at this point it appears that a number of different elements were involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in Eastern Libya.

He also made clear that at this point, based on the information he has - and he is briefing the Hill on the most up-to-date intelligence - we have no information at this point that suggests that this was a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive.

Sept. 20: Obama, at a town hall meeting, says "extremists" took advantage of the "natural protests" to the anti-Muslim video to attack the consulate in Benghazi. He does not call it a "terrorist attack."

Question: We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?

Obama: Well, we're still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don't want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.

Sept. 21: Clinton Calls It a 'Terrorist Attack'

Sept. 21: Clinton, speaking to reporters before a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, calls it a "terrorist attack" for the first time. She says, "Yesterday afternoon when I briefed the Congress, I made it clear that keeping our people everywhere in the world safe is our top priority. What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans."

Sept. 24-25: Obama Refuses to Call It a Terrorist Attack

Sept. 24: Clinton meets with the Libyan president and calls the Benghazi attack a "terrorist assault." She says, "As we all know, the United States lost a great ambassador and the Libyan people lost a true friend when Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the terrorist assault on our consulate in Benghazi."

Joy Behar: It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie, or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?

Obama: Well, we're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. Now, we don't have all the information yet, so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world, there's still a lot of threats out there. That's why we have to maintain the strongest military in the world, that's why we can't let down our guard when it comes to the intelligence work that we do and staying on top of - not just al Qaeda, the traditional al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan. ...

Sept. 25: Obama speaks at the United Nations. He praises Chris Stevens as "the best of America" and condemns the anti-Muslim video as "crude and disgusting." He does not describe the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack.

Sept. 26: 'Let's Be Clear, It Was a Terrorist Attack'

Sept. 26: Carney is asked at a press briefing aboard Air Force One en route to Ohio why the president has not called the Benghazi incident a "terrorist attack." He said, "The president - our position is, as reflected by the NCTC director, that it was a terrorist attack. It is, I think by definition, a terrorist attack when there is a prolonged assault on an embassy with weapons. ... So, let's be clear, it was a terrorist attack and it was an inexcusable attack."

Sept. 26: Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, in an interview with Al Jazeera, is asked whether he agrees with the president of Libya that the Benghazi attack was premeditated and had nothing to do with the anti-Muslim video. He said: "It's clear that the attack which took the lives of Chris Stevens and three other colleagues was clearly choreographed and directed and involved a fair amount of firepower, but exactly what kind of planning went into that and how it emerged on that awful night, we just don't know right now. But I'm confident we'll get to the bottom of it."
Sept. 27: When Did Administration Know?

Sept. 27: At a press briefing, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says that "it was a terrorist attack," but declines to say when he came to that conclusion. "It took a while to really get some of the feedback from what exactly happened at that location," he said. "As we determined the details of what took place there, and how that attack took place, that it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack."

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same briefing addresses what the U.S. knew in advance of the Benghazi attack. He says there was "a thread of intelligence reporting that groups in ... eastern Libya were seeking to coalesce, but there wasn't anything specific and certainly not a specific threat to the consulate that I'm aware of."

Sept. 27: In a report on " Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees," Fran Townsend, former Homeland Security adviser to President George W. Bush, says the administration knew early on that it was a terrorist attack. "The law enforcement source who said to me, from day one we had known clearly that this was a terrorist attack," she says.

Sept. 27-28: Intelligence 'Evolved'

Sept. 27: The White House spokesman is asked yet again why the president has refused to call the incident a terrorist attack. "The president's position [is] that this was a terrorist attack," Carney says.

Question: If the president does not call it, label it a terrorist attack as you and others have, is there some legal or diplomatic trigger that that brings? Why hasn't he said that?

Carney: I think you're misunderstanding something here. I'm the president's spokesman. When the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, in open testimony in Congress answered a question by saying yes, by the definitions we go by - this is me paraphrasing - this was a terrorist attack - I echoed that, because this president, this administration, everybody looks to the intelligence community for the assessments on this. And it has been since I said so, the president's position that this was a terrorist attack.

Sept. 28: Shawn Turner, a spokesman for the director of national intelligence, says in a statement that the office's position on the attack evolved. It was first believed that "the attack began spontaneously," but it was later determined that "it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack," he says.

Turner: In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.

As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate.

Oct. 2-3: Clinton Cites 'Continuing Questions'

Oct. 2: White House spokesman Carney at a press briefing in Nevada: "At every step of the way, the administration has based its public statements on the best assessments that were provided by the intelligence community. As the intelligence community learned more information they updated Congress and the American people on it."

Oct. 3: Clinton tells reporters after a meeting with Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Erlan Idrissov: "There are continuing questions about what exactly happened in Benghazi on that night three weeks ago. And we will not rest until we answer those questions and until we track down the terrorists who killed our people."

Oct. 9: 'Everything Calm' Prior to Benghazi Attack, No Protests

Oct. 9: At a background briefing, senior state department officials reveal there were no protests prior to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi - contrary to what administration officials have been saying for weeks. A senior department official says "everything is calm at 8:30 p.m." (Libya time) when Stevens was outside the building to bid a visitor goodbye. The ambassador retired to his bedroom for the evening at 9 p.m. The calm was shattered by 9:40 p.m. when "loud noises" and "gunfire and an explosion" are heard. (The background briefing provided on Sept. 12 also said the attack began at about 10 p.m., or about 4 p.m. EDT, but it did not provide information about what happened prior to the attack.)

A senior official says it was "not our conclusion" that the Benghazi attack started as a spontaneous protest to the anti-Muslim video. He also said "there was no actionable intelligence of any planned or imminent attack."

Question: What in all of these events that you've described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?

Senior state department official two: That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion. I'm not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened. The Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on the street at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we saw on the cameras the - a large number of armed men assaulting the compound.

Oct. 10: Administration Says It Gave Public 'Best Information'

Oct. 10: Carney, the White House spokesman, is asked at a press briefing why the president and administration officials described the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause of the attack on Benghazi when the State Department "never concluded that the assault in Benghazi was part of a protest on the anti-Muslim film." He replied, in part: "Again, from the beginning, we have provided information based on the facts that we knew as they became available, based on assessments by the intelligence community - not opinions - assessments by the IC, by the intelligence community. And we have been clear all along that this was an ongoing investigation, that as more facts became available we would make you aware of them as appropriate, and we've done that."

Kennedy: [T]his is obviously an incredibly complicated situation. We've always made clear from the very beginning that we are giving out the best information we have at the time we are giving it out. That information has evolved over time. For example, if any Administration official, including any career official, had been on television on Sunday, September 16th, they would have said the same thing that Ambassador Rice would have said. She had information at that point from the intelligence community, and that is the same information I had and this - I would have made exactly the same points. Clearly, we know more today, but we knew what we knew when we knew it.

Oct. 15: Clinton Blames 'Fog of War'

Oct. 15: Clinton, in an interview on CNN, blames the "fog of war" when asked why the administration initially claimed the attack began with the anti-Muslim video, even though the State Department never reached that conclusion. "In the wake of an attack like this in the fog of war, there's always going to be confusion, and I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence," Clinton says. "Everyone who spoke tried to give the information they had. As time has gone on, the information has changed, we've gotten more detail, but that's not surprising. That always happens."

Oct. 15: The New York Times reports that the Benghazi attack came "without any warning or protest," but "Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers" say it was "in retaliation for the video."

Oct. 24: White House, State Department Emails on Ansar al-Sharia

Oct. 24: Reuters reports the White House, Pentagon and other government agencies learned just two hours into the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic militant group, had "claimed credit" for it. The wire service report was based on three emails from the State Department's Operations Center. One of the emails said, "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripol." The article also noted, "Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate." (It should be noted that Reuters first reported on Sept. 12 that unnamed U.S. officials believed that Ansar al-Sharia may have been involved.)

Oct. 24: Clinton warns at a press conference that you cannot draw conclusions from the leaked emails because "cherry-picking one story here or one document there" can be misleading. She said, "The independent Accountability Review Board is already hard at work looking at everything - not cherry-picking one story here or one document there - but looking at everything, which I highly recommend as the appropriate approach to something as complex as an attack like this. Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence, and I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be."

Oct. 24: Carney, the White House spokesman, says that "within a few hours" of the attack Ansar al-Sharia "claimed that it had not been responsible." He added, "Neither should be taken as fact - that's why there's an investigation underway."

May 8, 2013: At a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, Rep. Trey Gowdy reads excerpts of a Sept. 12, 2011, email written by Acting Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East Beth Jones. According to Gowdy, Jones wrote, "I spoke to the Libyan ambassador and emphasized the importance of Libyan leaders to continue to make strong statements," and "When he said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attack, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists." Gowdy said the email was sent to several top State Department officials, including Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy. The committee did not release the full contents of the email. House Speaker John Boehner said the State Department did not allow the House to keep a copy of it.)

May 15, 2013: The White House releases 100 pages of emails regarding the CIA's original talking points that were developed for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and used by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice during her Sept. 16 Sunday talk show appearances. The emails show there were extensive changes made at the request of the State Department. (See "Sept. 16" in our timeline for more information.)
Update, Nov. 6, 2012: This article was updated to add the president's Sept. 12 interview with "60 Minutes," which did not release the video and transcript until Nov. 4. Update, May 9, 2013: This article was updated to include testimony from the May 8, 2013, hearing of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform. Update, June 29, 2016: We updated this article to include material from reports issued by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Select Committee on Benghazi. - by Eugene Kiely
National Counterterrorism Center. " Terrorism Definitions." 27 Aug 2010.

U.S. Department of State. " Briefing by Senior Administration Officials to Update Recent Events in Libya." 12 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. " Statement on the Attack in Benghazi." 11 Sep 2012.

Reuters. " U.S. confirms death of official in Benghazi attack." 11 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. " Statement on the Death of American Personnel in Benghazi, Libya." 12 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. " Remarks on the Deaths of American Personnel in Benghazi, Libya." 12 Sep 2012.

White House. " Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya." 12 Sep 2012.

White House. " Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event - Las Vegas, NV." 12 Sep 2012.

White House. " Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney en route Las Vegas, NV." 12 Sep 2012.

Banerji, Robin. " Did Ansar al-Sharia carry out Libya attack?" 12 Sep 2012.

Roggio, Bill. " Ansar al Shariah issues statement on US Consulate assault in Libya." 12 Sep 2012.

Spetalnick, Matt and Hadeel Al Shalchi. " Obama vows to track down ambassador's killers." Reuters. 12 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. " Remarks at Reception Marking Eid ul-Fitr." 13 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. " Daily Press Briefing." 13 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. " Remarks at the Opening Plenary of the U.S.-Morocco Strategic Dialogue." 13 Sep 2012.

White House. " Remarks by the President in Golden, CO." 13 Sep 2012.

Aarthun, Sarah. " 4 hours of fire and chaos: How the Benghazi attack unfolded." CNN. 13 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. " Remarks at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony to Honor Those Lost in Attacks in Benghazi, Libya." 14 Sep 2012.

White House. " Remarks by the President at Transfer of Remains Ceremony for Benghazi Victims." 14 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. " Daily Press Briefing." 14 Sep 2012.

White House. " Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney." 14 Sep 2012.

Lesniewski, Nils. " Senators Question Leon Panetta About Syria, Libya." Roll Call. 14 Sep 2012.

CBS News. " Face the Nation." 16 Sep 2012.

White House. " Weekly Address: Carrying on the Work of Our Fallen Heroes." 15 Sep 2012.

Fadel, Leila. " Consulate Attack Preplanned, Libya's President Says." NPR. 16 Sep 2012.

CBS. " The Late Show with David Letterman." 17 Sep 2012.

White House. " Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney." 18 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. " Remarks With Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Patricia Espinosa After Their Meeting." 18 Sep 2012

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. " Homeland Threats and Agency Responses." 19 Sep 2012

U.S. Department of State. " Daily Press Briefing." 19 Sep 2012

White House. " Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney." 19 Sep 2012

White House. " Remarks by the President at Univision Town Hall with Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas." 20 Sep 2012

U.S. Department of State. " Remarks With Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar Before Their Meeting." 21 Sep 2012

U.S. Department of State. " Remarks With Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf Before Their Meeting." 24 Sep 2012

Knox, Oliver. " Obama: Libya attack 'wasn't just a mob action'." Yahoo News. 24 Sep 2012.

Madhani, Aamer. " Team Romney: Obama fails to call Libya incident terror." USA Today. 26 Sep 2012.

White House. " Remarks by the President to the UN General Assembly." 25 Sep 2012.

White House. " Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney Aboard Air Force One en route Ohio." 26 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. " Interview with Al-Jazeera." 26 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of Defense. " DOD News Briefing with Secretary Panetta and Gen. Dempsey from the Pentagon." 27 Sep 2012.

CNN. " Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees." 26 Sep 2012.

Office of the Director of National Intelligence. " Statement by the Director of Public Affairs for ODNI, Shawn Turner, on the intelligence related to the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya." 28 Sep 2012

White House. " Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney en route Virginia Beach, Virginia." 27 Sep 2012.

White House. " Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney." 2 Oct 2012.

U.S. Department of State. " Remarks With Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Erlan Idrissov After Their Meeting." 3 Oct 2012.

U.S. Department of State. " Background Briefing on Libya." 9 Oct 2012.

Klapper, Bradley. " State Dept reveals new details of Benghazi attack." Associated Press. 10 Oct 2012.

White House. " Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney." 10 Oct 2012.

U.S. Department of State. " Hearing on Benghazi Security Issues." 10 Oct 2012.

U.S. Department of State. " Interview with Elise Labott of CNN." 15 Oct 2012.

Kirkpatrick, David. " Election-Year Stakes Overshadow Nuances of Libya Investigation." New York Times. 15 Oct 2012.

Hosenball, Mark. " White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails." Reuters. 23 Oct 2012.

U.S. Department of State. " Remarks With Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio de Aguiar Patriota After Their Meeting." 24 Oct 2012.

White House. " Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney en route Davenport, Iowa." 24 Oct 2012.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The question won't go away: Did President Obama and administration officials mislead the public when they initially claimed that the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began "spontaneously" in response to an anti-Muslim video? The question surfaced again on Oct.

# data[].attributes.headline
Many Americans may not be informed, but the IRS scandal was a huge screw up for the Liberals this past and present year. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Many Americans may not be informed, but the IRS scandal was a huge screw up for the Liberals this past and present year. 

# data[].attributes.body
The IRS scandal, was about the IRS scrutinizing the conservative party. By looking into them, people listed under the "Tea Party". The Democratic party going after the Republicans, for what? Difference in belief? Very unprofessional way to handle a problem, one that cost jobs of high ranked officials.