Burning questions

Lies pile atop lies in administration's explanation of attacks in Libya

  • Follow Editorials

When does presidential malfeasance become a scandal? Answer: Probably at the point where something bad has happened and no amount of explanations over several weeks seems to answer the questions or, sometimes, even make sense.

By that standard, the Obama administration’s juvenile and contradiction-filled changing explanations over the lack of security at the Libyan embassy, and just what took place there that led to the deaths of four Americans, is a fully involved barnburner of a scandal.

First, understand that it is now known, despite repeated protestations to the contrary, that the Obama administration was well aware early on that information pointed to a planned and coordinated al-Qaida-style terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi Sept. 11 that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others.

Nonetheless, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice went on television with firm assurances days later that information indicated the attack was a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video on the Internet. White House spokesman Jay Carney did too.

And now the administration not only admits none of it is true – and that it was a terrorist attack – but also says it never said the video was the likely culprit. Even though they said it all on camera.

“It’s pretty clear the State Department, now caught in a lie, is responding with yet another lie,” a Republican foreign policy adviser told The Washington Post.

Moreover, officials now admit there wasn’t even a protest outside the embassy before it was attacked.

Did the Kremlin take over the White House? Isn’t this a Soviet Union-style set of bald-faced lies and fairy tales?

In addition, information has revealed that embassy personnel practically begged for increased security well in advance of the attack, and that the requests were denied.

“The State Department,” wrote the Washington Post, “acknowledged Wednesday that it rejected appeals for more security at its diplomatic posts in Libya in the months before

a fatal terrorist attack in Benghazi.”

Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, formerly involved in security at the
embassy, said security there was “weak.”

“The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there,”he told a congressional panel. “Diplomatic security remained weak.”

Eric Nordstrom, a former regional security officer, twice asked for more security and was ignored by the Obama administration. Nordstrom termed security there “inappropriately low.”

Some are suggesting the Obama administration avoided security infrastructure and manpower in order to provide an appearance
of “normalization” of relations and of the security situation. But there were repeated incidents in the months leading up to the attack.

It seems clear enough now that the attack on Sept. 11 was planned to coincide with the anniversary of the 2001 attacks on America – and that the Obama administration was wholly unprepared.

Then, in the aftermath, the administration has repeatedly lied through its teeth – not only about what it believed was behind the Libyan embassy attack, but also – unbelievably – about having said it to begin with.

They’re hoping the media will move on, that you’re not smart enough to smell a lie that’s put right in front of your nose, and that they can kick this scandal past the Nov. 6 election.

It’s hard to remember more blatant lies coming out of a government in this country.

The level of truth telling at the White House appears to be the same as the level of security in Benghazi:

Inappropriately low.

Comments (44) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
itsanotherday1
51099
Points
itsanotherday1 10/14/12 - 11:18 am
3
3
And no one yet has refuted

And no one yet has refuted any specific claim of this op ed.

dichotomy
40759
Points
dichotomy 10/14/12 - 11:24 am
4
3
Yeh Techfan......the Kurds

Yeh Techfan......the Kurds would love to debate you about WMD in Iraq.....if they were still alive. Apparently some people can look at facts and STILL come to the wrong conclusion.

Seems that most of the Democrats believed it and voted to strike and most of our allies believed it too. My guess is that the WMD were moved to Syria when it became obvious we were going to invade Iraq.

and shrimp for breakfast.......still waiting for you to point out the "malarkey" (Biden word). Seems to me they are spot on.

Evil Regal
85
Points
Evil Regal 10/14/12 - 11:27 am
0
0
The Obama adminstration never lied about Libya...
Unpublished

The bottom line is that the whole 'issue' speaks more about the population's demand for instant gratification than it does the administration's response to it. We were told by the administration on September 13, 2012 that the overwhelming likelihood was that this attack was a planned assault.

"It was not an innocent mob," the official said. "The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective, but this was a clearly planned military-type attack."

That was two days after the attack.

By September 19, 2012, they had more information:

"They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. ... At this point, what I would say is that a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly the Benghazi area, as well we are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb." Olson also said U.S. officials had no "specific evidence of significant advanced planning."

Same day:

September 20, 2012:

"It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials."

September 21, 2012:

"What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans."

So basically, within two days, they suspected it was a terrorist attack and by about a week later, they were characterizing it as a terrorist attack. I think a lot of people are conflating what was being said about the Libya attack with what they were saying about the other worldwide protests that happening simultaneously. But the narrative that it was 'weeks' before they were characterizing this event accurately is just ludicrous.

It is the narrative that has taken hold though and will probably continue to do so, because if the right wing commentariat is good at one thing, it is repeating a lie over and over and over again until people believe it.

One final note:

As far as I know, the FBI only gained access to the consulate building about a week ago. Prior to that, our government and the Libyan government thought that there might be a chance that the FBI would get attacked. Apparently, also a week ago, they arrested a couple of people trying to enter Turkey with false identification who might have been involved in the attack.

The bottom line is that generally, despite what we see on shows like CSI and Criminal Minds, investigations like these tend not to be quick affairs, especially if the investigators' problems are doubly complicated by having to operate in a dangerous environment.

I can easily see the justification for criticizing intelligence shortcomings that made it take so long to get a clear grasp of what happened in Benghazi, but given the choice between erring on the side of caution (Obama's mistake) and erring on the side of aggression (Bush's mistake), I prefer caution. It concerns me that Mr Romney seems so anxious to jump the gun and get us involved in arming Syrians, and launching military actions against Iranian nuclear facilities. What really irks me is that Mitt is critical of Libya, where a lot of guns and ammunition made their way to missing stockpiles and so he is now wanting to give guns to the Syrians, knowing that some of the rebel factions are linked to Al Qaeda. Hmmmmmmm?

Evil Regal
85
Points
Evil Regal 10/14/12 - 11:28 am
0
0
As far as the lacking of security...
Unpublished

Well is it any wonder why Security at US embassy's is lacking ??

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program -- well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration's request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.

carcraft
31434
Points
carcraft 10/14/12 - 12:25 pm
3
3
Dr Bailey, USS Cole, World

Dr Bailey, USS Cole, World Trade Center bombing, Kobar Towers bombing, and two Embassies bombed during Clinton's watch and no response from Clinton! All these attacks were treated as criminal activity!

DeepThink
46
Points
DeepThink 10/14/12 - 04:53 pm
2
5
No wonder why Biden laughs!

No wonder why Biden laughs! This editorial -like the GOP- is laughable! Overblowing the Libyan incident is nothing but an elections ploy! Coming out and criticising our government before the facts are out is un-American....not waiting for a full investigation and just yapping hot air is utter foolishness! Lets get back and start discussing the real issue - the economy.

KSL
157750
Points
KSL 10/14/12 - 05:59 pm
3
1
Good grief, avid

See my post about Jimmy Carter on another thread. He told a bald faced lie after his youngest son graduated from high school. He was vindictive and punished people who supported his opponents. And he was run by his wife.

InChristLove
22486
Points
InChristLove 10/14/12 - 05:51 pm
4
1
Deep Think, it is troubling

Deep Think, it is troubling to know you, just like the VP of the US think a terrorist attack on the United States is laughable.

"Overblowing the Libyan incident is nothing but an elections ploy! Coming out and criticising our government before the facts are out is un-American...."

No Sir!!! What is un-American, is refusing to provide the security our American Consulate and U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi needed and requested in the months before it was overrun in a deadly terror attack. What is un-American is lying to the American people about another terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11. What is un-American is the belittling of the significance of this attack and the thinking that the American people are too stupid to know the difference.!

KSL
157750
Points
KSL 10/14/12 - 06:06 pm
3
2
And just exactly what is

And just exactly what is Obama 's attempt to get Iran to announce a suspension (albeit temporary) of its nuclear program until after the election in exchange for the promised lifting of sanctions?

KSL
157750
Points
KSL 10/14/12 - 06:13 pm
3
2
I await your answer, deep.

I await your answer, deep.

carcraft
31434
Points
carcraft 10/14/12 - 06:35 pm
2
2
Deep Think, It is unAmerican

Deep Think, It is unAmerican To stand In front of the World Leaders at the UN and lie to them and the American people, especially since the security and intelligence agencies of these leaders had probably ascertained the truth and wondered why Obama appeared to be an idiot!

myfather15
59556
Points
myfather15 10/14/12 - 07:13 pm
2
2
@Deepthink

You stated "....not waiting for a full investigation and just yapping hot air is utter foolishness!"

OMG!! Tell me you didn't just go there towards republicans, did you? Maybe you should tell your liberals friends in this administration this exact same advice. So, they should wait until a full investigation is done before yapping, huh? Does that mean maybe they shouldn't have came out and blamed a meaningless video? Doesn't this comment from you go both ways? Couldn't Obama, Clinton and all the others reserved their comments until the "full invesitgation" was over? But they choose to come out blaming a ridiculous video, absolutly knowing that was a lie!! Why? To deceive the American people and support their radical islamic friends of course.

myfather15
59556
Points
myfather15 10/14/12 - 07:27 pm
2
2
@Techfan

For God's sake, please give it a rest on the "Bush Lied" about Iraq thing. It didn't work in 2004 and it just keeps getting more sad. Anyone with half a brain realizes Senators such as John Kerry, Hillary Clinton voted for it, along with 27 others, and only 21 democrats voting against it, in the senate. In the house it was 82 democrats for, 126 against. Do you honestly think you can put all the fault on Bush?? Seriously?? Bush didn't run out into the field and do all the intelligence gathering himself, did he? I mean, Presidents don't actually do that do they? Of course not, thats ridiculous. Bush only reported what was being reported to him. Just like Obama didn't go out and find Bin Laden, he just gave an order to complete the mission. He should get ZERO credit for Bin-laden, but he sure does love to tout himself and use that for political gain.

He loves to make it sound like such a tough decision and only HE could make it. So, lets say your President and you get a call saying "Sir, we are 95% sure we have the location of Bin-Laden." Do you think ANY HUMAN BEING wouldn't make that call??? Seriously? It is completely insane to think ANY AMERICAN wouldn't make that call.

But nooooooo, thats the liberal way. Blame Bush for Iraq and say he lied, while completely ignoring the fact the Senate approved it with many democratic votes. But give King Obama ALL THE CREDIT for Bin-laden. This kind of logic makes me sick!!!

Bizkit
39392
Points
Bizkit 10/14/12 - 08:20 pm
2
2
Likely the same intelligence

Likely the same intelligence that says Iran won't have nukes for another three years, or as Biden stated during the debate "told them the story they depicted to the media" . That intelligence. Sheez. I feel so safe now. So likely we would do better just assuming the opposite of whatever the best present intelligence states.

allhans
25528
Points
allhans 10/14/12 - 08:41 pm
2
1
The main reason that the Bush

The main reason that the Bush administration believed that Saddam was a madman was that they were told that by the Clinton administration. They were briefed after being sworn in Jan 20th and the 9/11 attack happened just 8 short mos later. They hadn't had time to verify information the intelligence supplied by Clinton era defense dept and had no reason to doubt the veracity of the info.

allhans
25528
Points
allhans 10/14/12 - 08:43 pm
2
1
Even after the 9/11 attack

Even after the 9/11 attack George Bush never pointed a finger at Bill Clinton and it would have been so easy to pull all the old tapes and expose them. Can you imagine Obama staying quiet in that situation?

CobaltGeorge
193433
Points
CobaltGeorge 10/14/12 - 09:06 pm
1
2
I Just Can't Help

posting this for those that didn't see it.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1899565422001/mother-of-us-official-killed-in...

This mother was completely denied viewing her son after he was killed while giving his life for this country.

That King SMNCICBHO better be glad .....That It Wasn't My Son!

This a pure example of how this worthless piece of ......thinks about America and it's citizens unless your a muslim.

CobaltGeorge
193433
Points
CobaltGeorge 10/14/12 - 09:13 pm
1
2
This Inhuman

needs to be Impeached Immediately for Treason and not allowed to finish his last remaining 24 days as the title given to him.

wayne2410
1239
Points
wayne2410 10/15/12 - 05:33 am
0
2
Bush never called people who
Unpublished

Bush never called people who were going to vote against his side the enemy like Obama did in 2010 either. Our enemy sits in the White House now, if you are white and Christian Obama does not care one bit about you, to him you are an enemy clinging to your guns and religion. Funny, he never accuses the muslims of that. Of course being on their side he hardly would, now would he?

YeCats
12605
Points
YeCats 10/15/12 - 10:22 pm
0
1
Wow!

One of my burning questions was answered.

Madam Secretary has accepted responsibly. One night before the 2nd debate. Sure didn't look like she thought it was a terrorist attack a month ago. Yet, she says she's in charge of security, so the blame falls on her.

Did she just fall on her sword, or is it just politics?

I knew it was the President's blame, can't fault him for anything.

Bruno
780
Points
Bruno 10/16/12 - 02:10 pm
0
1
Techfan, if you haven't

Techfan, if you haven't noticed, GWB isn't President anymore and isn't running. Bringing GWB up in any discussion about Obama's actions as President is nothing more than a weakly conceived dodge.

Bizkit
39392
Points
Bizkit 10/18/12 - 10:30 pm
0
1
Sadly Dr. Bailey is correct

Sadly Dr. Bailey is correct but both Clinton and then Bush both under estimated the Al qaeda threat. I note Obama has stopped with the bin Laden and Al qaeda rhetoric since the attack. We see terrorism is growing and violence is spreading under Obama's term. But of course, it isn't his fault-I'm sure. Obama must think he is the invisible man. I think we see trickle down government is a greater failure than trickle down economics. Enough with de trickle it's runnin' down my leg.

Back to Top
loading...
Search Augusta jobs