Benghazi

Given all that has been slowly and painfully dragged out of the Obama Administration about the Benghazi terrorist attack, this is my theory of what happened:

Once it was confirmed that a terrorist attack was underway in Benghazi, the primary focus of the Obama Administration became insulating President Obama from any possible political fall out.  This, I think, is why Obama was removed from the loop of what was going on – the reason he apparently never showed up in the Situation Room and why we have no clear idea where he was while the event was on-going…and why he was sent off on a fundraiser to Las Vegas immediately after.  This dovetailed in with the “it was a video” story line – if it was just a demonstration which got out of hand rather than a terrorist attack, then it simply wasn’t worthy of intense, Presidential-level effort.  The story was to be cast as, “nothing to see here folks; just a tragic event” – because if the truth was immediately presented to the American people it could well have cost Obama the election (remember, “GM is alive and bin Laden is dead!”; an al-Qaeda terrorist attack on 9/11 killing a US ambassador after repeated warnings of both al-Qaeda terrorists and that the facility was not secure would have wrecked the narrative).

Who decided to blame the video remains unclear – we have plenty of e mails and other information indicating that very quickly the video was pegged as the culprit, but who in the White House even knew of the existence of the video and decided to use it as an excuse is unknown.  It is clear, however, that very senior officials approved the lie and went out and backed it (Rice in her infamous interviews, Hillary with her bald-faced lie over the caskets of the dead, the sick and disgusting arrest of the video-maker over a minor charge – this is not done by low level people). Whether or not Obama was directly involved remains unknown – I doubt that he was.  My guess is that after a quick conference somewhere in there where the decision was taken to remove him from the loop, he gave no orders to anyone about it.

Since that time, the whole focus has just been on keeping the truth hidden until it became “old news”; which it has.  Finally dribbling out the last links in the cover-up chain now, in 2014, just makes sure that the whole scandal is also “old news” by the time Hillary runs in 2016.  But the bottom line is this:

President Obama’s policies in regard to the War on Terrorism have failed; al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups are strong and active. Obama’s policies led directly to the situation in which a US facility was attacked and four Americans died needlessly (we’ll leave aside, for now, just why no military response was made – the official word is “no stand down order was given”…which is fine, but it doesn’t explain why no “stand up” order was given; probably because only Obama could really order that, and that would put him in the loop, thus wrecking the “its just a video” narrative”). Obama and his team then deliberately and with malice crafted a lie to cover up the policy failure and sold it to the American people as a means of preserving Obama’s political viability in 2012.

Advertisements

49 thoughts on “Benghazi

  1. Amazona May 1, 2014 / 2:25 pm

    It is possible that one reason the White House felt the need to try to put so much distance between it and the attack is the reason Stevens was there, doing whatever he was doing. There have been rumors that he was sent to track down weapons supplied by the U.S, which were in the hands of people the U.S. now did not want to be associated with.

    The fact is, the U.S. could easily have done something to protect these people, as the fallout for going into Libya with armed forces would not have been that great, given the situation. It appears that the real danger was not in sending in armed troops or other armed support, but in being linked to something that was supposed to be a secret.

    If the Obama administration was engaged in another Fast and Furious type of action, providing weapons to radical Islamists, and Stevens was involved in this in some way, it is easier to see how the White House might go into panic mode, and pull the covers over their heads, just hoping it would all go away..

    After all, that is the White House response to every other crisis seen as potentially damaging to The One We Have All Been Waiting For.

    • M. Noonan May 1, 2014 / 2:59 pm

      Oh, there is that possibility, too – but as far as the cover up of the attack, I think it was just to preserve Obama’s viability. What else was going on in the background remains to be seen…but the deliberate and malicious lie? That was just so that Obama could get re-elected…on the same line as “if you like your plan, you can keep it”, but in this case four people died.

      • shawny2011 May 1, 2014 / 10:39 pm

        You’ll need a stiff drink for this one…..this administrations foreign policy has caused many more that four American deaths. It give me great hope that The Young Republicans are doing their homework. We denounce those who voted for Obama but it should sicken all of us who voted for McCain as he has been even more the warmonger and traitor, as he and many of our elected representatives have supported the drug, arms and terrorist cartels with our tax dollars.

        Used and Abused: The Manipulation of the American Military by the Muslim Brotherhood
        http://nyyrc.com/blog/2014/04/used-and-abused-the-manipulation-of-the-american-military-by-the-muslim-brotherhood/

        MODERATOR’S NOTE: APPOLOGIES, SHAWNY, SOMETHING IN THE LINK CAUSED YOUR COMMENT (ALL 3 TIMES YOU POSTED IT) TO GET THROWN IN THE SPAM FILE. IT’S NOT SOMETHING WE CHECK FREQUENTLY, AND PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE CAUGHT IT AT ALL IF YOU HADN’T SAID SOMETHING.

  2. Retired Spook May 1, 2014 / 3:41 pm

    It does look like the whole mess is beginning to come unraveled. There’s an old saying that “the cover-up is worse than the crime”. I think this time the reverse will be true. “For the Record”, Glenn Beck’s investigative report on the Blaze TV, last night presented pretty convincing evidence that the Obama administration knowingly and purposefully provided weapons to Al Queda and other terrorist groups in Libya, and the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was just collateral damage. I honestly don’t know where it goes from here because, even if the House were to impeach Obama, (and I don’t think they will), there will never be 67 votes in the Senate to convict him, not even if the GOP succeeds in winning back the Senate in November. I think that would be the case if Obama were on video raping and strangling a female staffer in the Rose Garden.

    One thing that virtually everyone has seemingly forgotten is Obama’s statement in a news conference on November 14, 2012.

    • shawny2011 May 1, 2014 / 8:57 pm

      Many have forgotten that statement by Obama, but not the one he made about bringing the attackers to justice. That he has done nothing in that regard and that the survivors have so carefully been prevented from talking to the press and telling their story of events as they happened on the ground, what their mission was there and what the Ambassadors mission was…….that and all the conflicting testimony and lies surely need an independent council. And where is the drone video the State Dept. testified they were watching live at the time? The families of the fallen, all of our military and diplomats around the world, and the American people need to know what happened in Benghazi and that it will never, ever happen that way again.

      • shawny2011 May 1, 2014 / 9:04 pm

        For The Record-Zero Footprint

      • Retired Spook May 1, 2014 / 10:35 pm

        Shawny,

        How did you get a postable copy of the Zero Footprint episode? Exceptionally well done and well researched. There should be literally dozens of people from this administration that should be in the big house instead of the White House.

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) May 2, 2014 / 1:18 pm

      From Obama’s 11/14/12 news conference: “If they want to go after someone, they should go after me.” Too bad Jonathan Karl didn’t follow up by asking, “so, does that mean you’re the one who told Susan Rice what to say, and, if not, who in the White House did?”

  3. Cluster May 1, 2014 / 5:31 pm

    This is only one lie the regime told during the campaign – don’t forget the ACA; “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, period”.

    This cabal of incompetent educrats, have no moral compass and lie on a regular basis without shame. I have never seen anything quite like it. The entire Obama Presidency is an epic failure on every front, and what’s worse is the excuse making not only by members of the cabal, but by the media, their lackey’s on the internet, and so on.

    I am honestly amazed at the hubris exhibited by this little man who calls himself President. The only good thing that will come from this, and the last 18 months, is that the Democrats have shattered all trust with the American people, and all but destroyed any hope they have for holding on to the Senate this November.

  4. Cluster May 1, 2014 / 5:46 pm

    Let’s not forget that Obama set the table for Benghazi, by “leading from behind”, deposing Qadaffi, and leaving a void of leadership in the country. He then ignored repeated security requests and was AWOL on the night of the attack, despite having support an hour away in Italy.

  5. Retired Spook May 1, 2014 / 7:20 pm

    This cabal of incompetent educrats, have no moral compass and lie on a regular basis without shame.

    Cluster,

    We can complain about it till the cows come home, but imagine yourself being part of the opposition party on Capital Hill where your opponents just lie to your face. You know they’re lying; they know you know they’re lying, and they do it anyway. How do you get anything of substance done in that atmosphere?

    • Cluster May 1, 2014 / 8:39 pm

      Frustrating isn’t it? At this point (as an elected representative), i would go public with the fact that they are lying, and I would use as strong of language as possible to make my point, be damned with my reelection or political career. I would not want to serve with people like that anyway, because to answer your question, you can’t get anything of substance done in that environment. You have to change the people.

  6. shawny2011 May 1, 2014 / 10:43 pm

    Spook, that just went up on Youtube and I grabbed it. Yes, everyone one needs to see it. It’s excellent investigative journalism.

  7. Cluster May 2, 2014 / 11:39 am

    I am so extremely disappointed in not just the administration and their willingness, if not desire, to mislead the American public whenever convenient, but also the media and the lackey’s on the internet who rush to the administrations defense, and who don’t take half the American publics concerns seriously. I will say that I watch quite a bit of Morning Joe on MSNBC every morning to get a read on what the progressives are thinking, and yesterday Donnie Deutsch stated he felt that the GOP should be careful on their reaction to this newly revealed email, to which Scarborough nearly popped a blood vessel. To Scarborough’s credit, and I applaud him for it, he lit into Deutsch and chided him for defending the administration and putting the onus on the GOP.

    As Spook says – there is nothing of substance that can be done with people like this who don’t take the opposition, or what is happening to this country, seriously

    • M. Noonan May 2, 2014 / 5:05 pm

      I doubt it will go much of anywhere…in the final analysis, Obama cannot be impeached.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) May 2, 2014 / 5:22 pm

        It doesn’t really have to go anywhere. If it causes one in five or even one in ten Democrats to either not vote or switch sides in November, it will be worth it.

      • Amazona May 2, 2014 / 5:39 pm

        J.R., I think that is really all we can hope for, though I would love it if there were to be some fallout for those who voted for Obama.

        The Left has carefully set up an elaborate construction in which any criticism, even if specifically couched as a critique of policy, could and would be spun to allow the accusation of racism, while simultaneously working to exacerbate what racism still existed in this country and bring black people, in particular, to a fever pitch of perceived bigotry. Literally anything could be spun as an anti-black, racist, comment.

        This has served to insulate Obama from any meaningful action, as any such action would have to be weighed against the cost of even more heightened paranoia and rage and hostility from the “black community”, possibly even full-blown race riots. As much damage as has been done to this nation by the Obama attitude toward race and this administration’s callous fostering of racial discord, it would be nothing compared to the impact, both immediate and long-term, of that kind of response to an actual formal prosecution of Obama.

        I think we are stuck with him, and will have to let history write the story. All we can do is work around him and make sure that in a few years the Left has lost its stranglehold on our educational system, so history CAN tell the story.

  8. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) May 2, 2014 / 7:04 pm

    Just as a reminder, The House Judiciary Committee submitted Articles of Impeachment on Nixon to the full House for consideration/vote; see if any of this seems pertinent today.

    … using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. – See more at: http://www.american-presidents-history.com/nixon-articles-of-impeachment.html#sthash.XJfWK8an.dpuf

    The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

    1. Making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States.
    2. Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States
    3. Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.
    4. Interfering or endevouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees.
    5. Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities.
    6. Endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.
    7. Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability.
    8. Making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: Or
    9. Endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration i return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
    In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States

    Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office. – (Emphasis added)

    • Cluster May 4, 2014 / 12:20 pm

      The similarities are amazing

  9. Cluster May 3, 2014 / 10:09 am

    Defend to the end. That’s the progressive strategy on Benghazi. This from the shameless Obama sycophant David Corn of Mother Jones:

    But as we know now, the CIA and the State Department took the lead in fashioning the talking points. A year ago, the release of internal White House emails about the drafting of the talking points clearly showed there had been no White House effort to shape the narrative in a devious manner. (It appeared the CIA and the State Department were more concerned about their own bureaucratic imperatives.) And the new email from Rhodes is pretty standard stuff, indicating a White House desire to justify its policy on the Arab Spring in the face of troubling events. Rhodes was encouraging Rice to present the case that the anti-video protests that had occurred in various places in the Muslim world were sort of a one-off event, not an indication that the overall Obama approach toward the region was misguided. Note that Rhodes referred to “protests,” plural, when making this point. That week there had been violent anti-video uprisings in Egypt, Yemen, and Sudan, not just Libya. So all the fuss about the Rhodes email—which quickly passed through membrane between Fox News and the rest of the media, receiving airtime on CNN, ABC News, and elsewhere—is smoke, not fire.

    • Amazona May 3, 2014 / 12:33 pm

      It looks like Corn has graduated, with honors, from the Jay Carney School of Don’t Look At What It Says Because It Doesn’t Say What It Says It Says, It Says What We Say It Says, After We Said It.

      There’s some Obama and Napolitano in there, too, in describing the unnecessary deaths of Americans while they waited for help that never came as one of some “troubling events”.

      Anyone know the source of Corn’s claim that other “events” he claims had “..occurred in various places in the Muslim world ..” were really “anti-video”? Which “events” and who says they centered on this heretofore unknown video?

      • Retired Spook May 3, 2014 / 2:17 pm

        and who says they centered on this heretofore unknown video?

        Which, IIRC, was released in June – 3 months earlier. I heard something this past week — don’t remember where and not sure if it was fact or someone’s speculation; that someone in the administration tweeted something about the video, and that’s what brought it to the Muslim world’s attention and set off the demonstrations in Cairo.

      • M. Noonan May 3, 2014 / 6:16 pm

        That is another weird thing in the whole time line – but, for me, the crucial aspect of it is that once the attack in Benghazi commenced, the sole concern of Team Obama was to keep Obama out of it.

      • Cluster May 3, 2014 / 2:55 pm

        The final cover and corresponding article in Newsweek magazine is a shocker considering what a “progressive” publication it is. Here’s an excerpt:

        Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?

        He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor;” a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

        Over at the progressive blogs, the story continues to be that Benghazi is simply a GOP conspiracy and that it clearly shows that the GOP has nothing to offer. Of course this completely overlooks the multitudes of bills and legislation that the GOP House has passed and now sits in some drawer in Harry Reid’s desk never to see the actual floor of the Senate, let alone any debate.

        Progressives have to continually mischaracterize the opposition in their sad effort to make themselves feel better about their ideology. Fortunately, some of them are coming around, as this Newsweek article demonstrates.

      • watsonthethird May 3, 2014 / 3:36 pm

        The final cover and corresponding article in Newsweek magazine is a shocker considering what a “progressive” publication it is.

        It might have been a “shocker” to some, I suppose–if it had been published in Newsweek. It wasn’t. So tell us, Cluster, the source of this misinformation. A chain email you received?

      • Cluster May 3, 2014 / 4:10 pm

        No, you’re right. But this article from Matt Patterson is spot on:

        http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/obama_the_affirmative_action_president.html

        I could not have said it better myself. And the cover of Newsweek “Hit the Road Barack” hits the nail on the head.

        Now run along, you have some spinning to do – you still need convince America that Obama is a good President. Almost 6 years in and you’re still failing.

      • Cluster May 3, 2014 / 4:25 pm

        I was a long term subscriber of Newsweek through the 80’s and into the 90’s until they became so progressively stupid (sorry for the redundancy), that when they called to renew my subscription one day, I told them how I felt and that I was canceling. The gal on the other end was silent, so I just hung up.

        I think a lot of people are starting to cancel their progressive views, and now Newsweek is out of business.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) May 3, 2014 / 5:30 pm

        if it had been published in Newsweek. It wasn’t.

        Using leftist logic — fake but accurate.

      • Amazona May 3, 2014 / 6:15 pm

        The wattle is trying to pretend that it is the content of the commentary that is the “misinformation” and not the mistakenly identified source.

        Sorry, wattle, but the statement is completely true, and echoes what millions have been saying for years. What it does not address is the even more incomprehensible REELECTION of this empty suit, after four years of embarrassment and failure.

        While the first election can be excused, to some extent, as a combination of Bush fatigue, a horrible Republican candidate, and a desire to show America as a nation that could and would elect a black man to the presidency, the second is inexcusable, and every single Obama voter in 2012 bears responsibility for the horrible mess we are in now. America has gone from hoping we can get a decent president next time around to fearing that we might not last that long.

        The saddest thing about all this is not just the kneepad adoration of Obama, but the belief that Hillary would be a good president. I guess the thinking, such as it is, goes: “Well, she was a terrible lawyer, a failure as a First Lady and architect of nationalized health care, she was implicated in many crimes and lied to Congress, she was a zero as a Senator, and a miserable failure to the point of criminal negligence as Secretary of State—–let’s hand her the keys to the whole country and see what she does in the Oval Office”.

      • Cluster May 3, 2014 / 7:34 pm

        I loved this line in Patterson’s article:

        …..the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.

        Watson, KMG and their cohorts still suffer from that hysteria. They have no concern for the catastrophic failure of the Obama Presidency, preferring instead to prop up whatever vestiges of hope they can cling to, and maliciously mischaracterize any and all opposition. They are loyalists to the end, and will go down with the ship.

      • M. Noonan May 4, 2014 / 2:05 am

        “Inscrutable and disturbing” is best translated as “we’d better hide this guy’s background from the LIV or McCain’s gonna get 90% of the vote”.

      • watsonthethird May 3, 2014 / 6:23 pm

        The wattle is trying to pretend that it is the content of the commentary that is the “misinformation” and not the mistakenly identified source.

        And Little Amy is trying to pretend she knows what she’s talking about.

        Look, Cluster made a statement that is not true; one that is propagated by conservatives like you and him. I simply corrected it. And you immediately jump to name-calling and belittling others here. I mean, I understand that you would prefer to be just write false crap and lies without it going challenged…

        Cluster admitted that the article was wrongly sourced. The sourcing was challenged. He admitted it was wrong. If you want to challenge the content of the article do so but the sourcing issue has been resolved. //Moderator

      • Cluster May 3, 2014 / 7:23 pm

        The article is real Watson, and the content is uncontested. Unless you want to try and contest it. Any chance you want to do that half wit?

      • tiredoflibbs May 3, 2014 / 6:30 pm

        “He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor;” a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?”

        Watty is too much of a mindless drone to actually consider the above assertions.

        Watty would not dare to do a self-examination and answer:
        What academic accomplishment has obame made? Can we see his transcripts?
        None and no would be the answers – watty is afraid of them.

        Signature legislation?
        Voting “present” is what he has…. again, watty is too scared to face the answer.

        Troubling associations….. too controversial… on their Left is Wrong blog they love to label the TEA Party “domestic terrorists” but would hardly consider obame’s association with Bill Ayers and his wife a problem much less call them “domestic terrorists”. They were progressive freedom fighters in their narrow world.

        His ilk is too intellectually dishonest to face the truth of this failed pResident. Pathetic as usual watty.

      • Cluster May 3, 2014 / 7:20 pm

        The article by Patterson was spot on, and funny enough it was written in 2011. Amazing how people like Watson can be so duped by an empty suit.

      • watsonthethird May 3, 2014 / 6:42 pm

        Sometimes it takes you longer to fall into nothing but insults and name calling. When you do, you get cut off. //Moderator

      • Cluster May 3, 2014 / 7:19 pm

        Well, you guys are the “lie” experts. And you fall for Obama’s lies every single time. You’re a good rube Watson. Oh and Toyota is leaving California for Texas and taking a lot of good paying jobs with them. You just keep voting for Democrats and pretty soon your state will be a wasteland.

      • Amazona May 4, 2014 / 9:57 am

        Awww poor wattle, trying to conflate the content of the article with the error in stating its source. Of course this can only be done, by the wattle, if accompanied by a couple of sneers: “And Little Amy is trying to pretend she knows what she’s talking about” and “Look, Cluster made a statement that is not true”

        Wrong, as usual, on both counts.

        So what did the article say?

        (1) He left no academic legacy in academia
        (2) authored no signature legislation as a legislator
        (3) troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor;”
        (4) a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor

        Naturally wattie can’t debunk any of these statements, as they are absolutely true.

        What did I say about Hillary?

        (1) she was a terrible lawyer
        (2) a failure as a First Lady and architect of nationalized health care
        (3) she was implicated in many crimes
        (4) lied to Congress
        (5) was a zero as a Senator
        (6) and a miserable failure to the point of criminal negligence as Secretary of State

        Again, fact after fact after fact.

        Poor wattle is reduced to bleating about the error in the source of the first article.
        Wattle posts seem to consist of Waaaaaa Waaaaaaa Waaaaaa and Baaaaaaaa Baaaaaa Baaaaaa.
        About what we can expect from a crybaby sheeple

      • Amazona May 4, 2014 / 10:19 am

        I’m going to answer my own question here: “Anyone know the source of Corn’s claim that other “events” he claims had “..occurred in various places in the Muslim world ..” were really “anti-video”? Which “events” and who says they centered on this heretofore unknown video?”

        An excerpt from an excellent article by Andrew McCarthy: (emphasis mine)

        “Thanks to President Obama’s policy of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic supremacists in Egypt, post-Mubarak Cairo became a very hospitable place for jihadists. That included al-Qaeda leaders, such as Mohammed Zawahiri, brother of al-Qaeda emir Ayman Zawahiri; and leaders of Gama’at al-Islamia (the Islamic Group), the terrorist organization led by the Blind Sheikh — Omar Abdel Rahman, the terrorist I convicted in 1995 for running the jihadist cell that bombed the World Trade Center and plotted to bomb other New York City landmarks.

        In the weeks before September 11, 2012, these jihadists plotted to attack the U.S. embassy in Cairo. In fact, the Blind Sheikh’s son threatened a 1979 Iran-style raid on the embassy: Americans would be taken hostage to ransom for the Blind Sheikh’s release from American prison (he is serving a life sentence). Other jihadists threatened to burn the embassy to the ground — a threat that was reported in the Egyptian press the day before the September 11 “protests.”

        The State Department knew there was going to be trouble at the embassy on September 11, the eleventh anniversary of al-Qaeda’s mass-murder of nearly 3,000 Americans. It was well known that things could get very ugly. When they did, it would become very obvious to Americans that President Obama had not “decimated” al-Qaeda as he was claiming on the campaign trail. Even worse, it would be painfully evident that his pro–Muslim Brotherhood policies had actually enhanced al-Qaeda’s capacity to attack the United States in Egypt.

        The State Department also knew about the obscure anti-Muslim video. Few Egyptians, if any, had seen or heard about it, but it had been denounced by the Grand Mufti in Cairo on September 9. Still, the stir it caused was minor, at best. As Tom Joscelyn has elaborated, the Cairo rioting was driven by the jihadists who were agitating for the Blind Sheikh’s release and who had been threatening for weeks to raid and torch our embassy. And indeed, they did storm it, replace the American flag with the jihadist black flag, and set fires around the embassy complex.

        Nevertheless, before the rioting began but when they knew there was going to be trouble, State Department officials at the embassy began tweeting out condemnations of the video while ignoring the real sources of the threat: the resurgence of jihadists in Muslim Brotherhood–governed Egypt, the continuing demand for the Blind Sheikh’s release (which underscored the jihadists’ influence), and the very real danger that jihadists would attack the embassy (which demonstrated that al-Qaeda was anything but “decimated”).

        The transparent purpose of the State Department’s shrieking over the video was to create the illusion that any security problems at the embassy (violent rioting minimized as mere “protests”) were attributable to the anti-Muslim video, not to President Obama’s policies and patent failure to quell al-Qaeda.”

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376952/obamas-blame-video-fraud-started-cairo-not-benghazi-andrew-c-mccarthy/page/0/1

      • Cluster May 4, 2014 / 10:34 am

        Great article by McCarthy. I also like hearing McCarthy’s analysis as a commentator which you will only find on Fox. So not only has Obama misread and miscalculated the Middle East, whether intentional or not, his read on, and handling of Russia has been horrible. I remind you of Romney’s comment that Russia is our number one political foe, to which Obama, in typical progressive fashion, marginalized and made fun of not only the comment but the commentator as well. Clearly Romney was right, and Obama again is coming off as the amateur.

  10. tiredoflibbs May 4, 2014 / 5:51 am

    Wow, watty you still have trouble with the written word. Cluster said California “WILL BE A WASTELAND” if Democrats continue their policies that drive businesses from the state.

    He never said that California “IS A WASTELAND” as you said earlier. Does the mention of people leaving Arizona (albeit for different reasons) change the fact that people and businesses are leaving California due to harmful progressive policies? No. But then again, that would require you to face truth you don’t want to hear, just like those of the article above. Cluster got the source wrong, but the content is true and left unchallenged by you.

    Typical. Are you afraid to contest the article’s content? Or are you just going to attack cluster to avoid answering the challenges?

    Definitely, the latter.

    • Amazona May 4, 2014 / 10:01 am

      How many of those allegedly wanting to leave Arizona are being driven out by the lawlessness of a violent, unprotected, border? That is, thanks to the utter failure of this administration to protect the nation and its citizens from invasion by hostile forces?

      Do the cartels still control the United States National Park they took over a few years ago? There’s a feather in Obama’s cap. Yet he sued the Arizona governor for trying to enforce the law.

      It looks like flight from BOTH states is due to Progressive policies.

  11. Retired Spook May 4, 2014 / 11:24 am

    Let’s face it, though, this whole select committee thing is nothing more than an exercise in political posturing unless they dig into the events leading up to the Benghazi attack. And I don’t think the Repubs have the cajones to try to prove that the President, Secretary of State and numerous other administration officials are guilty of treason. And, if indeed, they did knowingly provide weapons to Al Queda and AQ related groups to overthrow a sovereign nation, and then send Chris Stevens and several dozen CIA operatives to Libya to retrieve those weapons and route them to more Al Queda and AQ related groups in Syria, then treason is the only conclusion one can conclude. Just an old spook’s take on the situation.

    • Amazona May 4, 2014 / 11:44 am

      We can see why the Left objects so much to a taking the Constitution literally. After constant whining that our problem is not Islam, but merely a few radical elements such as Al Queda, learning that this administration had been supporting and arming a group even the Left has defined as enemies of the United States would be downright uncomfortable.

      From that pesky old Constitution:

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

    • Cluster May 4, 2014 / 11:45 am

      Treason would be a difficult threshold to cross, however incompetence, political gamesmanship and outright dishonesty are definitely within reach. Obama is directly responsible for deposing a leader of another sovereign country that posed no imminent threat to America, and then sending a largely unprotected Ambassador into that lawless area with a yet an undisclosed purpose that resulted in his and others death, of which Obama completely mislead the country about. It’s inexcusable, but so is the GOP’s hesitance to clearly state this case.

      • Retired Spook May 4, 2014 / 5:04 pm

        It’s inexcusable, but so is the GOP’s hesitance to clearly state this case.

        How bad is it when your main concern in deciding to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law is whether or not it will cost you votes?

  12. Retired Spook May 7, 2014 / 1:01 pm

    The following is a letter that was re-printed in a military newsletter I get from a retired navy admiral to Bill O’Reilly regarding the entire Benghazi affair”

    Mr. O’reilly,

    I am mad as hell because the truth about how combatant commanders and the department of state can and should protect embassies is not being clearly explained. The fact is that there are policies, precedent, resources and procedures that could and should have prevented the embassy in Benghazi from coming under attack, or defended it if it did come under attack, or vacated it if the threat was too high. The ongoing discussion on your show and elsewhere that centers on the video and subsequent cover up is necessary as is the discussion about whether or not we should have responded during the attack. But those discussions have not brought to light the fact that none of this should have happened in the first place.

    Fact: The combatant commanders, in this case AFRICOM, have access to our national inventory of intelligence community resources as well as international resources in order to thoroughly understand the risks and threats in any part of their Area of Responsibility (AOR). The complete picture of what was happening in Libya should have been known by AFRICOM leaders and this should have been briefed up the chain daily.

    Fact: The first two cornerstones of AFRICOM’s mission are (1) Deter and defeat transnational threats posed by al-Qa’ida and other extremist organizations and (2) Protect U.S. security interests by ensuring the safety of Americans and American interests from transnational threats… In other words it is the mission of AFRICOM to prevent exactly what happened at the embassy in Benghazi.

    Fact: The policy is for AFRICOM leaders to work in-conjunction with the state department’s Regional Security Officer (RSO) to establish the threat and then work with the Joint Staff and inter-agency to quickly provide plans and resources to deny that threat.

    Fact: There are units specifically designed to bolster security in embassies. The USMC has three companies of Fleet Antiterrorism Security Teams (FAST) and one of these companies (or units from it) could have been deployed to FASTEUR in Rota, Spain, as the risk materialized. Each company has six platoons of 50 men each.

    Fact: In July 2003 when I was the J3 at European command (AFRICOM had not been created yet) we had a similar situation develop in Liberia whereby two warring factions were threatening the embassy in Monrovia. The EUCOM team began planning for embassy support PRIOR to Ambassador Blaney’s request. When he did ask for help, we responded immediately, worked with his staff and received SECDEF approval to deploy a single FAST team platoon from Rota to the embassy to provide security. We worked with the Joint Staff and created the mission and structure for Joint Task Force Liberia, an anti-terrorism force based upon USS Iwo Jima and the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU).

    Fact: Elements from the MEU arrived and relieved the FAST platoon. The warring parties signed a cease fire, the embassy in Monrovia was secured, no Americans were hurt.

    So, the questions are:

    1. What was the assessed level of threat in Libya prior to the September attack?

    2. If it was not considered high then what were the intelligence failures that lead to that wrong conclusion?

    3. If the threat was considered high then why wasn’t a FAST team or other resource deployed?

    4. What did Ambassador Stephen’s see as his threat and what did he ask for? If he asked for help and was not provided it, that is inconceivable to me. My two bosses at EUCOM, General Chuck Wald (USAF) and General James L. Jones (USMC) would have bent over backwards to provide anything the ambassador asked for and more. They would have leaned on the Joint Staff to provide the authority to deploy and, in fact, during the Liberian situation described above, they were pushing me every day to provide solutions for the Joint Staff to approve. And should anyone forget, this was July of 2003. We were already in Afghanistan and had invaded Iraq just four months before. We were busy but not preoccupied.

    Very Respectfully,
    Hamlin Tallent
    RADM, USN, retired

Comments are closed.