A DEVASTATING Wall Street Journal Article Documents The Massive Incompetence And Corruption Of The Obama Administration In The Libya Attack

This fiasco is far worse than Watergate – a scandal in which no ambassadors were murdered.

Obama appointee Susan Rice is the poster girl for the incredible incompetence and deceit of the Obama Administration following the attack of the US Consulate in Libya that resulted in the assassinations of the US Ambassador to Libya as well as three other Americans.  This woman went out on all five major network Sunday political shows and on each one of those shows she said something that was not only blatantly false – that the attacks were NOT terrorist attacks but rather were merely spontaneous uprisings due to a poorly made Youtube video – but now known to be an outright lie given that the Administration KNEW that it was a terrorist attack within 24 hours of the event DAYS before Rice repeatedly lied to the American people.

And there is now absolutely no question that Susan Rice lied to the American people:

Intel quickly saw signs of al Qaeda links in consulate attack
By Barbara Starr
September 27, 2012

Within a day or so of the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic post in Libya earlier this month, the U.S. intelligence community began to gather information suggesting it was the work of extremists either affiliated with al Qaeda groups or inspired by them, a senior U.S. official told CNN Thursday.

“We started to get a strong sense of it,” the official said. He declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the information.

A law enforcement source told CNN National Security Analyst Fran Townsend that this was the understanding of the intelligence community within 24-hours after the attack on September 11.

“The law enforcement source … said to me, from day one we had known clearly that this was a terrorist attack,” Townsend said on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” Wednesday night.

The efforts by al Qaeda, especially the Mali-based al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), to extend its reach into Libya and elsewhere has been of concern to the United States.

[…]

The Homeland Security chairman has specifically called upon Ambassador Susan Rice to resign.   She shouldn’t just resign; she should end up in front of an enraged jury as a criminal defendent.  But this issue has exploded far beyond Rice.  Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in this disgrace over their eyeballs.

To this day Barack Obama has REPEATEDLY refused to acknowledge that the Libyan attack was a terrorist attack even when directly asked.  And in fact he has continued to cite the Youtube video as the cause of the attack (even at his UN speech).

The sheer incompetence is beyond appalling: we just suffered a terrorist attack on American soil that wasn’t a terrorist attack that was spontaneous that was preplanned.  The Obama regime minions are the gang that is shooting wildly all over the place and they absolutely CANNOT get their story straight.

This is not merely incompetence; this is corruption at the highest levels of the Obama Administration.  They say that the cover-up is always worse than the event that an administration covers up.

Updated September 27, 2012, 12:09 p.m. ET.
The Libya Debacle
The more we learn, the more Benghazi looks like a gross security failure.

In his United Nations speech on Tuesday, President Obama talked about the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and declared that “there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice.” What he didn’t say is how relentless he’ll be in tracking down the security lapses and intelligence failures that contributed to the murders. Let’s say there’s some doubt about that.

None of the initial explanations offered by the White House and State Department since the assault on the Benghazi consulate has held up. First the Administration blamed protests provoked by an amateurish anti-Islam clip posted on YouTube. Cue Susan Rice, the U.N. Ambassador and leading candidate for Secretary of State in a second Obama term: “What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction . . . as a consequence of the video, that people gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent.”

Administration officials also maintained that the diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt, the site of the first attacks this September 11, were properly defended and that the U.S. had no reason to prepare for any attack. “The office of the director of National Intelligence has said we have no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last week, calling the security measures in place there “robust.”

Cell phone video footage and witness testimony from Benghazi soon undercut the Administration trope of an angry march “hijacked” by a few bad people. As it turned out, the assault was well-coordinated, with fighters armed with guns, RPGs and diesel canisters, which were used to set the buildings on fire. Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation. Briefing Congress, the Administration changed its story and said the attacks were pre-planned and linked to al Qaeda.

You’d think this admission would focus attention on why the compound was so vulnerable to begin with. But the Administration wants to avoid this conversation. The removal of all staff from Benghazi, including a large component of intelligence officers, would also seem to hinder their ability to investigate the attacks and bring the killers to justice.

Journalists have stayed on the case, however, and their reporting is filling in the Administration’s holes. On Friday, our WSJ colleagues showed that starting in spring, U.S. intelligence had been worried about radical militias in eastern Libya. These armed groups helped topple Moammar Ghadhafi last year but weren’t demobilized as a new government has slowly found its legs. As we’ve noted since last winter, the waning of American and European interest in Libya could have dangerous consequences.

Deteriorating security was no secret. On April 10, for example, an explosive device was thrown at a convoy carrying U.N. envoy Ian Martin. On June 6, an improvised explosive device exploded outside the U.S. consulate. In late August, State warned American citizens who were planning to travel to Libya about the threat of assassinations and car bombings.

Despite all this, U.S. diplomatic missions had minimal security. Officials told the Journal that the Administration put too much faith in weak Libyan police and military forces. The night of the Benghazi attack, four lightly armed Libyans and five American security officers were on duty. The complex lacked smoke-protection masks and fire extinguishers. Neither the consulate in Benghazi nor the embassy in Tripoli were guarded by U.S. Marines, whose deployment to Libya wasn’t a priority.

Rummaging through the Benghazi compound, a CNN reporter found a seven-page notebook belonging to Ambassador Stevens. According to the network, the diary said he was concerned about the “never-ending” security threats in Benghazi and wrote that he was on an al Qaeda hit list. In deference to the family’s wishes, CNN didn’t quote directly from the diary and didn’t divulge any private information in it.

His worries are newsworthy, however, and can inform America’s response. But Mrs. Clinton’s long-time and closest media adviser chose to attack CNN. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines called the network’s conduct “disgusting.” He then deployed words not fit for a family newspaper in an exchange with a reporter for the Web site BuzzFeed. Mr. Reines may wish to protect his boss’s legacy for her 2016 Presidential run, but that won’t be enhanced by the appearance of a cover-up.

Imagine the uproar if, barely a month before Election Day, the Bush Administration had responded to a terrorist strike—on Sept. 11 no less—in this fashion. Obfuscating about what happened. Refusing to acknowledge that clear security warnings were apparently ignored. Then trying to shoot the messengers who bring these inconvenient truths to light in order to talk about anything but a stunning and deadly attack on U.S. sovereign territory.

Four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi in a terrorist attack that evidence suggests should have been anticipated and might have been stopped. Rather than accept responsibility, the Administration has tried to stonewall and blame others. Congress should call hearings to hold someone accountable for this debacle.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page 16 A version of this article appeared September 27, 2012, on page A18 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Libya Debacle.

Professional diplomats have stated that calling Ambassador Steven’s journal a “diary” creates a very inaccurate and distorted view of what the journal was likely used for.  As an example, Ambassador John Bolton stated that it was very common for top level diplomats to record their professional thoughts, observations and ideas in such a book.  Which is to say that the book – while intended as personal and private – was far more professional than it was a “diary.”

I bring that fact out to simply categorically state that if Ambassador Stevens wrote that his security was godawful, you can bet your farm that he had also mentioned this “little tidbit” to the State Department.  Which is why there is a cover-up now going on at the highest levels of the Obama Administration: you have a now-murdered American ambassador stating in his own handwriting that the security the Administration had provided him was no security at all; and you have a now-murdered ambassador stating that he had received death threats and feared he was being targeted from al Qaeda-linked terrorist organizations.  And frankly if Obama is “transparent” or honest, he will not only lose the election for his incompetence, but he may well be impeached for his abject incompetence in failing to protect American territory and personnel when he had ample warning to know that an attack was coming.

You want more evidence of a cover-up?  How about the fact that the White House and State Department are scrubbing embarassing memos related to the Libya terrorist attack???

Above all else, this disaster proves 1) that the Obama Administration is corrupt and dishonest and 2) that Obama has a pathological mindset that simply refuses to understand that we are at war with an enemy that is determined to kill us.

Obama decided to skip something like 60% of his daily intelligence briefings – which neither President Bush EVER missed.  I wonder how many of those briefings mentioned the security concerns in Libya???

If the above incompetence and corruption aren’t enough to demonstrate that Obama and his regime are a clear and present danger to American national security, also take note of the fact that Leon Panetta just acknolwedged that the administration had lost track of the Syrian WMD that may be on its way to kill American citizens for all we know.  Given this administration’s now brazenly-revealed cynical political corruption, the view

“There has been intelligence that there have been some moves that have taken place. Where exactly that’s taken place, we don’t know.”

Translation: we know they’re on their way to Iran and Hezbollah, but we’re not going to admit it for 3 weeks.

May very well be 100 percent accurate.

And for the record, if we ever actually got our hands on Syria’s WMD, we would find out where Saddam’s WMD ended up.

Senate Democrats are joining the mob demanding that Obama stop covering-up his disgraceful incompetence and come clean with the American people.  Sadly, and may I add incredibly cynically, they are demanding that he do so AFTER election day.

Tags: , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “A DEVASTATING Wall Street Journal Article Documents The Massive Incompetence And Corruption Of The Obama Administration In The Libya Attack”

  1. Penumbra Says:

    This story gets more and more absurd for each day.

    Thanks for the references you gave me the last time I left a comment on your blog, Michael. Keep up the good spirit!

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    If only America could be 1) strong and 2) consistent and 3) send a clear message to rogue regimes such that our enemies would have it clear communicated to them that if they crossed a certain line America and her allies that stand for freedom would end them.

    But when you look at Obama’s response and rhetoric in Libya, you see that we speak with a thousand voices and none of them are really saying squat.

    One will always wonder what would have happened in Winston Churchill had been prime minister rather than Neville Chamberlain and his infamous “We have achieved peace in our time” Munich Agreement appeasement. Instead, Hitler watched weakness and indecision time after time such that he had every reason to keep thinking, “I bet they’ll give in on this, too.”

    As we stumble into World War III, it’s not a bad idea to see what liberalism did to force us into World War II.

    Always a pleasure to hear from you, Penumbra. Sweden still has a chance as long as you’re there.

  3. Anonymous Says:

    go to hell

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Anonymous,

    Why, thank you for offering me such gracious wishes. And I hope you have a wonderful day, too.

    Democrats are such nice, caring people, aren’t they though??? And clearly very thoughtful, too; I mean, look how much time this liberal spent interacting with my points in this article.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: