As anybody with a modicum of intelligence could have predicted, the Obama misadministration's story on the Benghazi murder of Ambassador Stevens has fallen apart. As I wrote before (here and here, for example) this misadministration has been lying about what happened in Benghazi. They tried two tactics to hide the facts. First, we had the hapless State Department spokesman, Victoria Nuland, saying there would be no more comments because the smoldering Benghazi consulate was now a "crime scene" and the FBI was in charge--the fact that no FBI agent was there, of course, was irrelevant. Second, we saw that Nuland-proclaimed "vow of silence" last about 36 hours. Once the misadministration got its lies lined up, it unleashed the dreadful political hack Susan Rice on the media in a Sunday morning blitz of all the major news shows. Like the dutiful hack she is, Ambassador Rice, a person with no direct knowledge of events in Libya, mind-numblingly repeated the line that the attack was by "folks" outraged over a 14-minute anti-Islam video produced in California by an expatriate Egyptian Christian. She assured the complacent media throughout the day that there was no evidence of premeditation, of planning, of a terror operation, and, of course, relied on the ultimate and very sophisticated-sounding obfuscation that there was no "actionable intelligence." The violence in Benghazi and the murders of four Americans were all an unfortunate result of a "spontaneous" demonstration that got out of control.
The facts now coming out plainly show that the Obamistas lied. Ambassador Stevens had no security other than that provided by some rag-tag Libyan detail. The misadministration lied about the role of the two ex-SEALs also murdered in Benghazi--contrary to what Rice stated on television, they were not part of the security arrangements and were in Benghazi working for a private contractor on something completely different. The murders were carried out by terrorists with a plan, with weapons, with good intel, and the attack was apparently masterminded by a terrorist, Sufyan Ben Qumu, released in 2007 from Guantanamo (more on that below).
The misadministration has gotten what it wanted. The lie-a-thon dominated the airwaves, and the lapdog media never pressed Rice or anybody else in the misadministration. As the misadministration's story began to decay, it unleashed the Romney "47%" video on the media, thereby, distracting us all, and changing the topic. This was combined with Obama's goofy appearance on the idiotic David Letterman's show. The Obamistas hope that by now the Benghazi story is "old news" and that the national ADD will kick in. Are they right?
Sufyan Ben Qumu was released by the Bush administration, and that administration is responsible for his being out and about. This release came as a result of the Bush administration buying the liberal nonsense that Guantanamo was a recruiting tool for Islamist terrorists. It was no such thing. Our developing of a catch-and-release policy was a disaster. It made us look weak, and that is one thing you never want to appear when dealing with the jihadis.
|Bloody handprints on the walls of Consulate Benghazi after a visit by Susan Rice's "folks."|
Are we certain that the info regarding the two Navy Seals actually came from the Whitehouse? I argued this point last night with a friend, who claimed this was a media report and that the Whitehouse never claimed there were navy seals attached to the Embassy. Confirmation would be appreciated.ReplyDelete
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
See, for example, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/ambassador-susan-rice-libya-attack-not-premeditated/ where Susan Rice blatantly states that the two ex-SEALs were part of the Benghazi security detail. That was a lie.Delete
I have now included the above link in the post. Thanks for raising the topic.Delete
Thanks so much for the confirming reference. For the benefit of my friend with whom I initially had the argument, I now have to convert this info to rectal insertion format.ReplyDelete
I have a good friend who's late father was a member of the Foreign Service and before that a mortar operator in WWII. When I mentioned this attack, he instantly knew the Administration's line was BS; you might sling a RPG on you back before attending a "spontaneous" riot, but humping mortar tubes, base plates and ammo...?ReplyDelete
Why Susan Rice? We still have no good opinions on why she was the front person for this stupid campaign of lies. She has not been a public figure this entire administration and all of a sudden she's sent out to lie on the Sunday talk shows. Is that because Hillary wouldn't? There's something here that doesn't meet the eye.ReplyDelete
As for the rest of your post, I don't know what to say. I shake my head daily in amazement that this guy is still in office. More and more voters and citizens see through his smoke and mirrors (lies, actually), yet the Congresscritters who should be debating articles of impeachment right now are plugging along like nothing's amiss. Should we laugh or cry at this clown show?
"Why Susan Rice?" Because she could be absolutely relied on to lie. I am surprised that people are suprised that they lie and lie continously. These people DO NOT CARE about ANYTHING, but retention of power.Delete
Opinion: I'm convinced the Obama Administration fully understands that it cannot continue past this year, however Obama can run again in 2016. Rice is a one-time tool who will have no purpose in a short time - she'll be replaced.Delete
The Muslim Brotherhood believes this also, hence their tactics are changing. Israel is getting ready to attack Iran and a firestorm will be the result. Obama has put distance between himself and Israel, siding with the new Caliphate. Power is his goal.
A possible new World War (a hot war) is possible. All Iran would have to do is sink a couple of aircraft carriers and 1-2 American subs to cause a conflagration.
Mitty in office would get a quick black eye, our economy in shambles, Israel fighting for her life and every Muslim around the world siding with Iran. American interests would be trashed in a world-wide freak show.
Thank You Sir, I don't think this Admin or the State-run Media can tell the truth if they did Obama and his whole crew would be tarred and feathered and run out of the country.ReplyDelete
I thought it was strange to hear the administration claim that the two former seals were part of a security detail, when reporting on the 14th indicated that at least one of the Seals was working as an independent contractor in a MANPAD hunting job. I guess the administration would rather fabricate stories to cover their security mistakes than to tell the probable real, heroic story of the two former Seals saving American lives by voluntarily entering a combat situation against numerically superior, well armed forces.ReplyDelete
The volunteerism and the heroism of individuals doesn't have much of a place in the Obama movement's narrative. Better to attribute the presence of those ex-Seals to the past decision making of some bureaucrat who placed them in the 'security detail,' than to publicize any kind of moral heroism that the two soldiers exhibited on 9-11-12 by choosing as individuals to stand in harms way so that others might escape the ambush.ReplyDelete
I want to know how many Daily Intel Briefs Obama attended in the week prior to the attack, then correlate that to the number of fund raisers attended in the same timeframe.ReplyDelete
At this point, it is sad to say that I am more inclined to believe the Libyan Governments account, including the statements that they told the US 3 days before the attack that something was going on, than my own Governments story.
Is it November yet?
I was up when the tragic events occurred and more importantly online. As a result I witnessed the time frame between news and the government response. As a result I have been SCREAMING on Facebook calling the Resident and Chief a LIAR.ReplyDelete
I have seen one post that contained a time line of the events. It appeared to be a work underway but the gaps in time were shocking. Uncovering the facts behind what happened seem to be tied to establishing an accurate time line.
I have wondered for many months why the U.S. got involved in Lybia. Finally, I was given a reasonable explanation by the Dip; oil and gas contracts to the EU. Ah-ha says I. My son's former boat, he rotated off the boat the day before it headed out, shot off everything they had and went back to Roata for more. Why? Because a slaughter "might take place." Never did pass the smell test...ReplyDelete
This is all about energy. We have a President that can't even build a pipeline from Canada. I'll buy Canadian oil all day and all night. They are our peaceful neighbors.
I could live without ever eating another date or chewing another piece of gum (gum arabic). What I can't live without is heating oil for my home or gas for my car.
I had a conversation with an environmentalist about 15 years ago. She told me that drilling for oil is a "messy business." I asked her (being the "one world" person that she is)if she thought it was any less messy in the Middle East? Who, in fact, has the greater environmental controls; KSA or the U.S.A.?
No, I am sick to death of this. Here is what I advocate:
Immediately stop all visas from the rioting nations. Make public that those that want to come to the U.S. to work, study or visit relatives need to speak up and stop this madness. The so called "moderate Muslim" needs to make themselves known.
Close the consulates in endangered areas. Make it known that the U.S. will no longer put American citizens at peril in order to serve them. Once again state that the reasonable people in these nations need to put a stop to the violence.
Announce that we are opening up exploration of energy in the domestic U.S. This would drop energy prices overnight. State that the U.S. will no longer be held hostage to juvenille insanity in the Moslem world.
I am not sure who I am more angry with; the insanity of Islam or our gov't and their quisling approach to the issue.
September 20, 2012 3:59 PM
babs makes good points. Developing domestic energy sources would remove the dependency on foreign oil and take away the false need to apease the uncivilized hordes who make the middle east home. I would also contend it would likely facilitate a fast economic recovery. Industry thrives on cheap and abundant energy. There is a correlation between the efforts of the greenies to stop all energy production in the US and the flight of jobs overseas. We also need to limit imigration to only those who can immediately contribute to the society - perhaps when the country is back on its feet we could be more 'liberally' minded again.ReplyDelete
John said: "Developing domestic energy sources would remove the dependency on foreign oil and take away the false need to apease the uncivilized hordes who make the middle east home"ReplyDelete
Getting us off the Mideast oli tit would be a good thing, but Europe and Japan would still need Mideast oil so the security situation doesn't change.
You are right, of course. But, we have our own problems and cannot be the worlds policeman in every instance. Europe should be capable of taking care of itself. I am not aware of muslim attacks against Japan. The middle east needs to sell oil and will. My point is that we do not have to buy it. Oil should not be an excuse for sending young men and women into harms way - particularly if we don't need what they are selling.Delete
It doesn't matter if the administration lies. The public expects it, and doesn't care.ReplyDelete
To enlarge on my reply above. People are under the misconception that Obama and his inner circle are radical leftists socialist ideologues. Maybe in the past that was true, but not now. What you see is naked lust for and addiction of power. They have no scruples or shame, they will tell any lie and throw anyone under the bus if necessary.ReplyDelete
On the diplomatic downside of "misadministration:"
My goal for campaign 2012 is to personally persuade at least 5 liberals not to vote for Obama, by periodically sending them 4 or 5 carefully selected links on key topics. I would really like to pass your insights along to my list of potential "persuadables," but alas! I've learned the hard way to avoid articles by conservatives who use deliberate malapropisms like the "Obama misadministration" and "Obamistas." Such terms play well enough when you're singing to the choir, but further afield --- which is where we desperately need to go -- they strike a fundamentally unserious note and make it far too easy to scoff at the source. Your vantage point comes across clearly enough without such devices.
That said, rock on!
Why did this administration get involved in Libya? While oil might be the underlying cause, my recollection is that this is where Samantha Powers' "RTP - Responsibility to Protect" was first invoked. How ironic that we spent millions of dollars to protect Libyans trying to kill Qadhaffi and not a cent to protect our diplomats. Hey, Secretary of State Clinton: what is your responsibility to protect your own employees?
Should have been "R2P", not "RTP". Sorry about that. FDelete
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.ReplyDelete