You need to understand why Obama was willing to lie and lie so outrageously about the terrorist attack against the US Consulate in Libya. A lot of people simply cannot understand why Obama would lie about a terrorist attack. Here’s why:
Obama had based his ENTIRE foreign policy “triumph” on just ONE event: the killing of Osama bin Laden. Everything else – EVERYTHING ELSE – amounted to Obama’s foreign policy being a disaster that was in shambles: China’s rise as a major military power that directly threatens the United States and its control over the Pacific under Obama’s nose; the asinine “Russian-reset” that proved such a debacle as Russia again and again thwarted virtually every single thing the United States tried to do in the United Nations that Obama almost exclusively relies upon; Iran now almost imminently away from nuclear weapons; the disastrous euphemistically titled “Arab Spring” that has brought violence and anti-American Islamist regimes in place of stable ones in vital Arab countries like Egypt that had been allied with the United States for decades. I mean, a terrorist organization captured the Egyptian election and is now running the country; well over 30,000 civilians have been murdered in the Syrian bloodbath while no one has done anything to even stop Iran from arming the Syrian regime. And if Obama wanted to call the intervention that removed Gaddafi from power in Libya, that is now gone as a major al Qaeda-linked terrorist attack resulted in the murder of the first US Ambassador to be murdered since Carter screwed up the universe in 1979.
What did Obama want to do? How did he want to posture? He wanted to bury his head in the sand and pretend that the killing of Osama bin Laden essentially amounted to the killing of al Qaeda. “Bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda is on the run,” Obama said over and over. As if the former event ipso facto had resulted in the latter conclusion. And Obama was desperately hoping that his total fabrication, his grand illusion, would last him past the election.
But it didn’t. Instead, a devastating terrorist attack linked closely to al Qaeda occurred on sovereign United States territory in Libya that resulted in the murder of a US Ambassador and three other Americans. And what we found out since has been an equally devastating indictment against Obama’s foreign policy leadership. We have found out that the murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens had been pleading for increased security even as the Obama administration proceeded to take away what little security he had in the most dangerous state in the world. We have found that there had been more than 230 “security incidents” in Libya prior to that withdrawing of security that cost Ambassador Stevens and three other great Americans their lives. In two incidents, an explosive device was used – and in one a giant hole had been blown in the wall protecting the Consulate. We found that both Britain had closed down its embassy and the Red Cross had closed down its presence in Libya because of that growing buildup of terrorism that Obama was so obvlivious to because he’d chosen to skip 60% of his daily intelligence briefings.
As bad as these things are, it gets worse. Because they say that the worst thing an administration can do – the very worst thing – is to try to cover-up a scandal. And the cover-up is almost always worse than the scandal itself. In this case that is debatable; Watergate, for instance, did not result in the murder of Americans and it did not result in an enemy attack against United States territory and the humiliation of the nation with terrorist flags going up around half a dozen of our embassies in addition to our ambassador being murdered. But we find that cover-up is exactly what Obama did.
Let’s look at what the Obama administration said to describe the attack first. Note they did NOT refer to it as a preplanned and coordinated “terrorist attack,” but rather as a “spontaneous” one that resulted from some stupid video.
The Obama administration trotted out the United States Ambassador to the United Nations to ALL FIVE major network political programs and had her tell what we now know to be an outright lie over and over and over again (see here for another link with more):
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.
“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”
“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.
“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”
Republicans called her dishonesty out from the moment she came out and so ridiculously lied that even Nancy Pelosi agreed that the Obama administration was completely full of crap.
An ad is pretty damning, as it packages up the lies told throughout the Obama administration rather concisely:
In hindsight, there can be absolutely no question that the Libyan president who called the attack what it was is far more trustworthy than the Obama administration.
We now know that there NEVER WAS a spontaneous protest in Libya prior to the terrorist attack. And that Susan Rice directly lied to the American people. We now know that murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens was BEGGING for more security for well over a month prior to the attack that was timed to commemorate the 9/11 attack anniversary. We now know that there were ZERO Marines in Libya when we have Marines “guarding” many of the very safest and most secure embassies in the world instead. We now have emails of the Obama administration via the State Department specifically rejecting those pleas for more security. We now know that contrary to the deceitful Obama claims al Qaeda was GROWING rather than “being on the run.” And we know now that when the Obama White House blamed faulty intelligence for their disastrous weeks of saying something that is now well-known to be a documented lie it was just another lie.
You can start to see why Obama would demand a cover-up. And instead wanted to run on the fiction that “my messianic killing of bin Laden won the war on terror and changed the world.”
Now we find out that the CIA station chief in Libya reported within HOURS that the attack against our sovereign territory in Libya was a planned, coordinated terrorist action:
CIA Found Militant Links A Day After Libya Attack
By Kimberly Dozier – Associated Press Friday, October 19, 2012
WASHINGTON — The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.
It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went. The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.
Those statements have become highly charged political fodder as the presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House committee questioned State Department officials for hours about what GOP lawmakers said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist Islamic militants in North Africa.
And in their debate on Tuesday, President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney argued over when Obama first said it was a terror attack. In his Rose Garden address the morning after the killings, Obama said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”
But Republicans say he was speaking generally and didn’t specifically call the Benghazi attack a terror attack until weeks later, with the president and other key members of his administration referring at first to the anti-Muslim movie circulating on the Internet as a precipitating event.
Now congressional intelligence committees are demanding documents to show what the spy agencies knew and when, before, during and after the attacks.
The White House now says the attack probably was carried out by an al Qaida-linked group, with no public demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary RodhamClinton blamed the “fog of war” for the early conflicting accounts.
The officials who told the AP about the CIA cable spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to release such information publicly.
Congressional aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this week to build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare that to what the White House was telling the public about the attack. That could give Romney ammunition to use in his foreign policy debate with Obama on Monday night.
The two U.S. officials said the CIA station chief in Libya compiled intelligence reports from eyewitnesses within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate that indicated militants launched the violence, using the pretext of demonstrations against U.S. facilities in Egypt against the film to cover their intent. The report from the station chief was written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached intelligence agencies in Washington the next day, intelligence officials said.
Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points sent by the CIA to Congress said “demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault.”
The briefing points, obtained by the AP, added: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations” but did not mention eyewitness accounts that blamed militants alone.
Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming from only one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.
U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that “it was clear a group of people gathered that evening” in Benghazi, but that the early question was “whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd,” and it took until the following week to figure that out.
But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress, from both political parties.
“I think what happened was the director of intelligence, who is a very good individual, put out some speaking points on the initial intelligence assessment,” said Senate intelligence committee chair Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in an interview with local news channel CBS 5 in California this week. “I think that was possibly a mistake.”
“The early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are hearing now,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. “It ended up being pretty far afield, so we want to figure out why … though we don’t want to deter the intelligence community from sharing their best first impressions” after such events in the future.
“The intelligence briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent with what the administration was saying,” said Rep. William Thornberry, R-Texas, a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original account when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
“How could they be so certain immediately after such events, I just don’t know,” he said. “That raises suspicions that there was political motivation.”
National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment.
Two officials who witnessed Petraeus‘ closed-door testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that during questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts who disagreed with the conclusion that a mob angry over the video had initiated the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not mention the CIA’s early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that the account could change as more intelligence was uncovered, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the hearing was closed.
Beyond the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it’s also proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently killed Stevens and his communications aide or launched the mortars that killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as contract security guards at a fallback location. That delay is prompting lawmakers to question whether the intelligence community has the resources it needs to investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight against al-Qaida in Libya or across Africa.
Intelligence officials say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi militia, Ansar al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but is known to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan locals at the consulate during the violence, and intelligence intercepts show the militants were in contact with AQIM militants before and after the attack, one U.S. intelligence official said.
But U.S. intelligence has not been able to match those reported sightings with the faces of attackers caught on security camera recordings during the attack, since many U.S. intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the aftermath of the violence, the two U.S. intelligence officials said.
Nor have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers used, setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the backup compounds, then attacking the main entrance to distract, while sending a larger force to assault the rear.
Clear-cut answers may prove elusive because such an attack is not hard to bring about relatively swiftly with little preplanning or coordination in a post-revolutionary country awash with weapons, where the government is so new it still relies on armed militants to keep the peace. Plus, the location of U.S. diplomat enclaves is an open secret for the locals.
How do you think the press would have covered it had George Bush essentially stated that the war on terror was over due to his policies and triumphs? How do you think the press would have covered it if an event such as the one described above had rather catastrophically proven that Bush was a lying sack of cockroach turds?
This was NOT the result of poor intelligence, as the dishonest Obama administration is deceitfully demagoguing; this was NOT the result of a failure of intelligence, it was the failure of Obama policy. Period. The intelligence services were warning about an attack well before one actually occurred; specifically Ambassador Chris Stevens’ security team was screaming that the terrorist threat was growing and they were dangerously exposed. No. You can’t blame that on poor intelligence, unless you want to blame it on the poor intelligence of the commander-in-chief who couldn’t be bothered with such intelligence developments.
I’ve come to realize how the game is played: if a Republican is president, and says ANYTHING that isn’t the absolute unvarnished truth, he is decried as a liar by the media. If, on the other hand, a Democrat is president and tells a thousand lies wrapped in a half-truth, well, he is praised for his integrity and transparency.
What is ironic, and possibly even funny depending on the outcome of the election, is that in doing the above in the case of Libya, the media may have fatally wounded their own messiah. Because had they come out after Obama hard right away the way they would have come after Bush, they kept allowing Obama to have more and more rope to put around his neck with his lies and cover-ups – whereas Bush would have been smashed in the face with the very first appearance of deception and forced to come clean. And what is happening now is that very pissed off intelligence professionals who don’t like being slandered are going to keep a story alive just before an election that otherwise likely would have been put to bed a month ago. And by their refusal to go after Obama they have allowed him to fatally wound his own reelection.
The same thing happened with the first debate: the media sheltered Obama and Obama himself went only on friendly media territory where he would never be challenged. And as a result he suffered the most disastrous first debate performance of any sitting president in history, losing by a catastrophic fifty freaking points because he was so ridiculously unprepared.