This has been a difficult week for the State Department and
for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi
that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence
directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had
nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of
that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.
At a news conference, Mr. Romney claimed that the
administration had delivered “an apology for America’s values.” In fact,
it had done no such thing: Religious tolerance, as much as freedom of
speech, is a core American value. The movie that provoked the protests,
which mocks the prophet Muhammad and portrays Muslims as immoral and
violent, is a despicable piece of bigotry; it was striking that Mr.
Romney had nothing to say about such hatred directed at a major
religious faith.
What's striking is how incurious the Washington Post was about what really happened.
As Barry Rubin noted a day later:
What happened in Libya has nothing to do with an obscure
video from California, it has everything to do with the question of
which side rules Libya. And the relationship between the attacks and the
September 11 anniversary was meant to show that the Libyan terrorists
supported September 11 and wanted to continue that battle.
The date of the embassy attacks, including Benghazi, should have told
anyone with a modicum of understanding that the attacks were
premeditated and not the result of some uncontrollable rage against a
video.
There a few news stories out about Benghazi that ask and answer and
analyze the question of what the administration knew and when did it
know it.
The White House provided the emails to members of the House
and Senate intelligence committees for a limited time and with the
stipulation that the documents were available for review only and would
not be turned over to the committees. The White House and committee
leadership agreed to that arrangement as part of a deal that would keep
Republican senators from blocking the confirmation of John Brennan, the
president’s choice to run the CIA. If the House report provides an
accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior
administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of
intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public.
The Weekly Standard sought comment from officials at the White House,
the State Department, and the CIA, but received none by press time.
Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State
Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05
p.m. (all times are Eastern Standard Time), indicated that the compound
was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al
Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had
claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these
alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the
highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several
hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the
fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence
operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists.
A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief
in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of
Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had
come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several
others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.
Yemeni men belonging to al Qaeda took part in last year's #Benghazi attack, sources tell CNN. on.cnn.com/122j4NB
— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) May 2, 2013
On September 10 -- at least 18 hours before the attack -- al
Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, in a video timed for the anniversary of
9/11, called for attacks on Americans in Libya to avenge the death of
al-Libi.
In March, Libyan authorities detained a man called Faraj al-Shibli in
Libya on suspicion of links to the attack, according to several
officials. The FBI was able to interview him in the presence of Libyan
officials, according to one Libyan source. It appears al-Shibli was
detained after returning from a trip to Pakistan, sources said.
It remains unclear exactly whether al-Shibli was present at the U.S.
compound at the time of the attack. It's also unclear whether his
detention is likely to lead to charges in connection with the attack.
Investigators have learned that al-Shibli has had contact with the
Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as well as al Qaeda
members in Pakistan, sources said.
This doesn't make any charges, as Hayes does, about what the
administration knew at the time. Still it shows that this wasn't a
spontaneous demonstration.
Wow. Great reporting by @jamesrosenfnc -> "State Dept's Benghazi review panel under investigation, Fox News confirms" fxn.ws/12sVKHo
— Monica Crowley (@MonicaCrowley) May 2, 2013
The IG's office notified the department of the "special
review" on March 28, according to Doug Welty, the congressional and
public affairs officer of the IG's office.
This disclosure marks a significant turn in the ongoing Benghazi case,
as it calls into question the reliability of the blue-ribbon panel that
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convened to review the entire
matter. Until the report was concluded, she and all other senior Obama
administration officials regularly refused to answer questions about
what happened in Benghazi.
But State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell disputed the
characterization of the review, saying it is "simply false" to assert
the panel is being investigated.
Hillary's State Dept hired alqaeda linked group to protect Chris Stevens in Benghazi > newsmax.com/Newsfront/beng…
— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) May 3, 2013
At some point you have to ask when will a tipping point be reached with Hillary Clinton's reputation?
Born in Gaza with a rare genetic disease, Mohammed’s hands
and feet were amputated because of complications from his condition, and
the 3 ½-year-old carts about in a tiny red wheelchair. His parents
abandoned him, and the Palestinian government won’t pay for his care, so
he lives at the hospital with his grandfather.
“There’s no care for this child in Gaza, there’s no home in Gaza where he can live,” said the grandfather, Hamouda al-Farra.
“He can’t open anything by himself, he can’t eat or take down his pants.
His life is zero without help,” he said at the Edmond and Lily Safra
Children’s Hospital, part of the Tel Hashomer complex in the Israeli
city of Ramat Gan.
The article focuses on the problem of the handicapped among the
Palestinians and, how, in some way their treatment is improving. The
story of Mohammed, though, is the focus of the article.
The president and his officials had claimed that the assault was a
spontaneous one by Muslim demonstrators offended by an anti-Muhammad
video. They were reluctant to admit that it was a premeditated terrorist
attack by Islamist terrorists at war with the United States, against
whom energetic security measures were warranted but lacking.
For all the dissimilarities, this is reminiscent of the response of the Spanish government of Jose Maria Aznar to the Madrid terrorist bombings that killed 191 people just three days before Spain’s
March 2004 general elections. Both governments feared the conclusions
that would be drawn if they stated the unvarnished truth.
The Aznar government sought to fix responsibility for the Madrid attacks on ETA,
the Basque terrorist organization, rather than on Islamists, who were
widely and instantly suspected of being — and in fact turned out to have
been — the perpetrators. The Aznar government had taken Spain into Iraq alongside the United States to depose Saddam Hussein.
Although this policy was far from popular at home, the administration
still had been expected to win re-election. That changed with the
implication that the government had sought to obscure the fact that the Madrid bombing was a consequence of Spain’s Iraq involvement. Sensing bad faith, the Spanish public threw out the Aznar government in favor of the opposition, led by Jose Zapatero.
Similarly, the Obama administration
has acted on the basis that Islamists are a potentially beneficent
force in world affairs and that wisdom dictates coming to terms with
those among them who are not engaged in active hostilities against the
United States. That’s why Mr. Obama backed the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise
to power in Egypt and Tunisia.
Where the two examples diverge is
over whether the policies these two administrations were seeking to
insulate from criticism were defensible. In Mr. Aznar’s case, they were. In Mr. Obama’s, they are not.
Spain did not become a target of Muslim armed rage in 2003 when Mr. Aznar committed forces to the Iraq war, nor did it cease to be a target in 2004, when Mr. Zapatero withdrew them. An unsuccessful 2008 Islamist suicide attack in Barcelona demonstrated that.
Rather, Spain
has been a target of Muslim grievance since 1492, when the forces of
King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella defeated the Moors and restored Spain’s Andalusia to Christian rule. Still, the Spanish government
panicked and failed to present the attack in its historical
perspective. For this failure, it paid the price of electoral defeat.
Similarly, Muslim armed rage against the United States does not have a recent origin.
And you believed Obama in Cairo and thoughtMuslims had a role in founding the United States?
Who ordered US military to 'stand down' in Benghazi?
Just when you thought all the dirt about 'Benghazigate' was out of the bag....
No, the biggest story is not that the incident was a terror attack and was not caused by a B-grade.
The biggest story is that someone ordered the US military to stand down when the embassy came under attack, and that someone's initials just might be BHO. Here's Fox News:
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi
that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during
the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours
later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who
also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the
ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in
Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a
small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S.
consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack.
When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their
higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and
requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told
to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon
after, they were again told to "stand down."
Woods and at least
two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate
which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team
from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and
Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not
find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At
that point, they called again for military support and help because
they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was
denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according
those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact
with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on
the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were
fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the
target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a
Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations
forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground
involved in intense firefights.
Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: 'No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.' So who in the government did tell ;anybody' not to help those in need? Someone
decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators.
Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.
It would have been a presidential decision. There
was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and
why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or
conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military
assets to help the Americans in need?
And because the commander on the ground tried to send in troops anyway, he's been relieved of his command.
The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom
received the same e-mails the White House received requesting
help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had
a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he
had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was
to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute
after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended
General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africon.
Two trips ago, I had trouble connecting to WiFi in Madrid. So, on the way back from the US last week, when I knew I was going to have to spend seven hours in Madrid in my torn clothes and without shoes, I decided I needed some reading material. I bought two books in London Heathrow to read during my seven hours in Madrid. One of them was Seal Team Six, which is the story of how the Seals train. Those guys aren't going to leave anyone behind. Even if the President they (and I) consider a traitor tells them to.
Incredibly callous treatment of Navy seal families by Obama, Biden and Clinton
Charles Woods, father of murdered Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, reveals the
details of meeting with President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe
Biden, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This is simply appalling.
Morons: What Obama supporters think about the Benghazi terror attack
Revealing Politics went to the Ohio University campus to an Obama event
on October 17th to find out what the President's supporters thought
about the September 11 Benghazi attacks. Turns out they didn't think
much, as most of the event attendees we interviewed had never even heard
of it.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Stephen D).
And you thought Obama supporters were 'highly educated'?
Benghazi attack an attempt to trade for 'blind Sheikh'?
Was the terror attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya a crude, botched attempt to bring about the release of the 'blind sheikh' Omar Abdel Rahman?
Mr. Romney said that “the president said that he was going to put daylight between us and Israel.” Is he correct?
...
The newspaper account did not quote Mr. Obama as explicitly stating that
his “goal” was to put distance between the United States and Israel, as
Mr. Romney characterized Mr. Obama’s intentions during a recent speech.
Instead, the account indicates that Mr. Obama was complaining that what
he suggested was the Bush administration’s unwillingness to challenge
the Israelis had reduced the American government’s leverage over Israel
and hurt its reputation with Muslim countries. At the same time, a plain
reading of the account would also suggest that Mr. Obama wanted for his
administration to be seen as less of a rubber stamp for Israel than the
Bush administration was.
The New York Times article did not link to the "newspaper account" cited
as the source for Romney's statement. (CNN quoted Romney more fully.)
In the final paragraph cited, the reporter is arguing that President
Obama "was complaining" about "reduced ... leverage." If that was
Obama's complaint that, in no way, contradicts Gov. Romney's charge. It
provides a reason for it.
The Obama administration has stressed repeatedly that it is committed
to maintaining a strong relationship with Israel. In May 2011, Obama
said, "The bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable,
and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is
ironclad."
The exact context of Obama's remarks in his closed July 2009 meeting
with Jewish leaders is not clear. And it hasn't been proven Obama
"explicitly stated" then that it was "his goal" to put "daylight"
between the two countries. His remarks, as reported, suggest rather that
"our credibility with the Arab states" suffers when U.S. and Israeli
policies are mirror images of each other.
Again CNN plays word games. If President Obama said (or implied) that
"daylight" between Israel and the United States was something that was
necessary, why wasn't that a goal.
The glimmers of daylight between United States and Israeli interests
began during President George W. Bush’s administration, when the United
States became mired in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Three years ago,
Condoleezza Rice, then secretary of state, declared during a speech in
Jerusalem that a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians was a
“strategic interest” of the United States. In comments that drew little
notice at the time, she said, “The prolonged experience of deprivation
and humiliation can radicalize even normal people.”
But President Bush shied away from challenging Israeli governments.
The Obama administration’s new thinking, and the tougher policies toward
Israel that could flow from it, has alarmed American Jewish leaders
accustomed to the Bush administration’s steadfast support. They are not
used to seeing issues like Jewish housing in the West Bank or East
Jerusalem linked, even by implication, to the security of American
soldiers. Some fret that it raises questions about the centrality of the
American alliance with Israel, which the administration flatly denies.
That's from the New York Times. It's true that the article attributes
the divergence between Israel and the United States to beginning during
the Bush administration. But the report argues that the Obama
administration adopted "tougher policies" towards Israel. In other words
its actions matched its rhetoric.
Protesters angry over an amateurish American-made video denouncing
Islam attacked the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on
Tuesday, killing a State Department officer, while Egyptian
demonstrators stormed over the fortified walls of the United States
Embassy here.
The United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. An American staff member was killed there, Libyan officials said.
On the 11th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the
assaults were a violent reminder that the changes sweeping the region
have hardly dispelled the rage against the United States that still
smolders in pockets around the Arab world.
American and European officials said that while many details about
the attack remained unclear, the assailants seemed organized, well
trained and heavily armed, and they appeared to have at least some level
of advance planning. But the officials cautioned that it was too soon
to tell whether the attack was related to the anniversary of the Sept.
11 attacks. Fighters involved in the assault, which was spearheaded by an Islamist brigade formed during last year’s uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, said in interviews during
the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a
14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad,
Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting
buffoon. Their attack followed by just a few hours the storming of the
compound surrounding the United States Embassy in Cairo by an unarmed
mob protesting the same video. On Wednesday, new crowds of protesters
gathered outside the United States Embassies in Tunis and Cairo.
The wave of unrest set off by the video, posted online in the United
States two months ago and dubbed into Arabic for the first time eight
days ago, has further underscored the instability of the countries that
cast off their longtime dictators in the Arab Spring revolts. It also
cast doubt on the adequacy of security preparations at American
diplomatic outposts in the volatile region.
The bolded text suggest that Kirkpatrick source appears to have been some of the actual attackers.
MEMRI released the testimony (taken from an Arab newspaper) of one of the Libyans who had been charged with guarding the consulate compound:
'Ali, who was assigned to the consulate's main gate (referred to as
"Charlie 1"), was taken by surprise by the attack, which he said "seemed
to come out of nowhere." He said that he first noticed that the police
car outside the consulate – an additional layer of security provided by
the Libyan government – "took off quickly, fleeing the scene." He then
saw some 50 men, mostly unarmed, approaching the consulate by foot on
the dirt road leading up to it, headed by eight masked men, two of whom
carried RPGs. Another guard said that the mob seemed to be unsure as to
the exact layout of the consulate, because they were searching the
various entrances for "Charlie 1." Shortly thereafter, one of the
attackers fired three rounds at the main gate, while others stormed the
consulate wall.
"[C]ame out of nowhere," does not suggest a demonstration but a planned
attack. I am unaware that the New York Times used the account given
here.
No one misled? His U.N. ambassador went on not one but five morning
shows to spin a confection that the sacking of the consulate and the
murder of four Americans came from a video-motivated demonstration
turned ugly: “People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very
violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with
heavy weapons.”
But there was no gathering. There were no people. There was no fray. It was totally quiet outside the facility until terrorists stormed the compound and killed our ambassador and three others.
...
Not wishing to admit that we had just been attacked by al-Qaeda affiliates,
perhaps answering to the successor of a man on whose grave Obama and
the Democrats have been dancing for months, the administration
relentlessly advanced the mob/video tale to distract from the truth.
Kirkpatrick, this past week tracked down one of the terrorists reportedly involved in the attack, Ahmed Abu Khattala, and interviewed him.
Owing in part to the inability of either the Libyans or the Americans
to mount a serious investigation, American dissections of the assault
on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi have become muddled in a political
debate over the identities and motivations of the attackers. Some
Republicans have charged that the Obama administration initially sought
to obscure a possible connection to Al Qaeda in order to protect its
claim to have brought the group to its knees.
Mr. Abu Khattala, 41, wearing a red fez and sandals, added his own spin.
Contradicting the accounts of many witnesses and the most recent
account of the Obama administration, he contended that the attack had
grown out of a peaceful protest against a video made in the United
States that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and Islam.
He also said that guards inside the compound — Libyan or American, he
was not sure — had shot first at the demonstrators, provoking them. And
he asserted, without providing evidence, that the attackers had found
weapons, including explosives and guns mounted with silencers, inside
the American compound.
Of course this raises the question, if a reporter for the New York Times
could contact one of those responsible for the Benghazi attack, why can't the United States and deliver the retribution that President Obama promised last night in the debate?
A born-again Christian who served a single term as president from
1977 to 1981, Mr. Carter said he has been to Israel and the Palestinian
territories about 30 times. He recalled swimming in the Dead Sea on his
first visit, in 1973, and noted that there were then about 1,500 Jewish
settlers in the West Bank, compared with the 350,000 living there now.
And he has long been an outspoken critic of Israeli policy, particularly
in his 2006 book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”
But Mr. Carter said Monday that the situation is “worse now than it’s
ever been for the Palestinians” because of the expanding settlements and
lack of prospects for change. Describing himself as “grieved, disgusted
and angry,” he said the two-state solution is “in death throes,” which
he called “a tragic new development that the world is kind of ignoring.”
Surveys show Palestinians and Israelis overwhelmingly support a
two-state solution, but intellectuals on both sides have increasingly
been talking about a binational, single state. But models for such a
state generally either imagine Israel losing its Jewish character, or
ruling over a Palestinian majority in an undemocratic way. Mr. Carter
called the one-state option “a catastrophe — not for the Palestinians,
for Israel.”
Later:
Mr. Burg said Mr. Carter dominated the three-hour conversation and
displayed impeccable knowledge of the intricacies of the situation. Mr.
Abdul Hadi said the former president urged the Palestinians to follow
through on their bid for statehood at the United Nations — a move the
Obama administration opposes — and to reconcile the rift between the
Fatah faction, which dominates in the West Bank, and Hamas, which rules
the Gaza Strip.
Note that the way things are presented the problem is the "rift" between Fatah and Hamas, not Hamas's continued terrorism.
Late in the story Rudoren quotes Mark Regev, but why didn't she, in any
form, challenge Carter's false charges? Or is it that Rudoren believes
that anything anti-Israel is news, regardless of its plausibility.
The reason I bring up Carter, is because there's perhaps a bigger story that Rudoren misses.
The Yesh Atid leader courted rightwing voters, saying “I’m not a
lefty,” that settlement blocs, including the city of Ariel, must stay
under Israeli sovereignty, and Jerusalem should not be divided.
As for the lack of peace talks in recent years, Lapid said “the
Palestinians brought this upon themselves. If after the disengagement
[from Gaza] they didn’t build hospitals and schools, but training sites,
there is no doubt that it is their responsibility – but we also need
negotiations for ourselves.”
...
This is the land of the Jews, and we have the right to finally get
rid of the Palestinians. There won’t be a new Middle East, but we won’t
have 3.5 million Palestinians in Israeli territory.”
Lapid is seeking votes. He doesn't see any benefit to calling for more
concessions or condemning his nation. I would argue that Lapid's view is
the "center" in Israeli politics.
Carter and his cheerleaders may think that this anti-peace or to
Israel's detriment, but they are caught in a time warp in which Israel
never withdrew from most of Judea and Samaria; Israel didn't pull out of
southern Lebanon; Israel didn't withdraw from Gaza - and in each case
was rewarded with an increase in terror rather than peace.
Rudoren appears to be reporting from some ivory tower version of Israel
that exists in the minds of academics, diplomats and activists, but she
is not reporting from the real Israel.
Incredible: US had real time info from Predator drone hovering over Benghazi consulate, still did nothing
This ought to give you some idea of what true cowards President 'gutsiest call ever' and his pussy Secretary of 'Defense' are: They had real-time information from a Predator drone hovering over the US consulate in Benghazi, and they sat and watched (or in Obama's case went to sleep) and did nothing.
The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate
in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans — which
should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed
yesterday.
“They stood, and they watched, and our people died,” former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News.
The
network reported that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft
observed the final hours of the hours-long siege on Sept. 11 — obtaining
information that should have spurred swift action.
But as
Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three colleagues were killed by
terrorists armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers,
Defense Department officials were too slow to send in the troops,
Berntsen said.
...
“They made zero adjustments in this. You find a way to make this happen,” he fumed.
“There isn’t a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments.”
...
Several requests for additional security in Benghazi were made to the
State Department prior to the attack. They were all rejected.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to deflect blame from
President Obama last week, saying the decision not to beef up guards
was her responsibility.
“I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world [at] 275 posts,” she told CNN.
“The
president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about
specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They’re the
ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a
considered decision.”
Yeah sure. I suppose Hillary was watching the drone feed too. What a bunch of lies.
Krauthammer: Media had to be shamed by Fox into looking into Benghazi attack
Charles Krauthammer slams the Obama administration and the mainstream media, saying that the media had to be shamed by Fox News into investigating the White House's false account of the Benghazi attack.
Bolton: 'These people cannot be left in the same room as our national security'
Here's an investigative report done by Fox News' Greta van Sustern about the terror attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the Congressional hearing into the attack. It includes a devastating interview with former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.
Dumb Dumb Debbie: Just because the statements on Libya were wrong doesn't mean they were false
Karen Harrington, who is running for Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Congressional seat, should have a field day with this. Wasserman Schultz has told CNN's Piers Morgan that just because the statements issued by the White House on Libya were wrong, doesn't mean they were false.
Let's go to the videotape.
Where did the Democratic National Committee find this dope? More here (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
US State Department admits there was no 'demonstration' in Benghazi
The Obama-Clinton State Department has finally admitted that there was no 'demonstration' outside the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 before Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US diplomatic personnel were murdered there.
This revelation stands in contrast to the story originally reported by the Obama administration and others, who claimed that a protest against the anti-Islam film "The Innocence of Muslims" outside the American consulate was co-opted by violent extremists.
The administration has come under harsh criticism from conservative critics in recent weeks over its actions before and after the attack. The first congressional hearing on the subject is scheduled for Wednesday.
Should be an interesting hearing. I wonder how the Obama administration will try to suppress the results until after the election.
Unbelievable: Democrats claim Americans don't want to know what happened in Benghazi
This is unbelievable. Dick Harpootlian, Chairman of the South Carolina Democratic party, tells Fox News that Americans don't want to know what happened in Libya. Or at least they don't want to know before November 6.
Compare Barack Hussein Obama's arrogant, detached indifference to the Benghazi terror attack with Mitt Romney's reaction to the murder of four Americans last month in Libya's second largest city.
How can anyone say that Hussein Obama cares about 'ordinary Americans' but Mitt Romney doesn't? You can't say that. In fact, if anything, you can only say the opposite: Romney cares about Americans. Obama cares about destroying America.
What did the President know and when did he know it?
The question in the title should sound familiar to those of you who are old enough to remember Watergate. It was asked repeatedly by Senator Howard Baker (R-Tn), the ranking minority member of the Senate Select Committee that investigated the Watergate scandal in 1973-74 (not to be confused with James 'F**k the Jews, They Don't Vote for Us Anyway' Baker, who was Secretary of State under Bush I).
Now, the American Crossroads SuperPAC asks the very same question regarding the terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 of this year. The question resonates and I doubt we will get an answer to it before the election.
Bombshell: Obama-Clinton State Dept. Withdrew 16 Member Security Team From Libya Before Attack
Bombshell: The Obama-Clinton State Department withdrew a 16 member SEAL security
team from Benghazi one month before the deadly attacks. This was
despite the fact that there were 13 attacks in the country in the past
several months.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Jack W).
Note also that the Obama administration still hasn't given up on trying terrorists in court. What could go wrong?
Video: The White House disinformation campaign on Libya
New evidence shows there were security threats in Libya in the months
prior to the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador
Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Despite these threats,
the State Department left its personnel there to fend for themselves.
Despite these reports, in public statements and private meetings, top
U.S. officials spent nearly two weeks highlighting intelligence
suggesting that the attacks were spontaneous protests against an
anti-Muslim film, while playing down the involvement of organized
militant groups.
It was not until last Friday that Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper's office issued an unusual public statement, which
described how the picture that intelligence agencies presented to U.S.
policymakers had "evolved" into an acknowledgement that the attacks were
"deliberate and organized" and "carried out by extremists."
The
existence of the early reports appears to raise fresh questions about
the Obama administration's public messaging about the attack as it seeks
to fend off Republican charges that the White House failed to prevent a
terrorist strike that left a U.S. ambassador and three others dead.
"What we're seeing now is the picture starting to develop that it
wasn't a problem with the intelligence that was given, it's what they
did with the intelligence that they were given," Representative Mike
Rogers, chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee,
said in an interview on Tuesday.
"This picture is still a little
fuzzy but it is starting to come into focus and it appears that there
were, very early on, some indications that there was jihadist
participation in the event," he said.
A dozen intelligence reports pointing to al-Qaeda within 24 hours of
the attack is not a narrative that “evolved.” If the administration
didn’t want to get into the details of the attack until more information
came in, that would have been understandable. But that’s different from
them spending nearly two weeks blaming the attack on a protest over an
anti-Islam video that they knew didn’t cause it.
It also raises another issue. If the administration had a dozen
immediate reports of al-Qaeda involvement, then obviously the scapegoats
in the intelligence community were not responsible for the changing
narrative. Did the White House put pressure on intelligence officials to
provide knowingly false conclusions to Congress and the public in the
days following the attack? And what exactly would the implications of
that be?
Indeed.
The Republicans should be all over this story. The Obama administration is trying to convince everyone that since they killed Osama Bin Laden (which they didn't - the Navy Seals did that), the war on terror is 'over.' Sadly, that is far from true. There is no shortage of Islamist terrorism in the world. The Obama administration would prefer to ignore it.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
