Protesting too much

President's patronizing demeanor obscures truth on Benghazi

  • Follow Editorials

Chivalry lives!

But so does chicanery.

President Obama sends U.N. Secretary Susan Rice out to perpetrate a hoax on America – claiming that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was the result of a protest over an Internet video – and then tries to ride to her rescue when someone dares question her bogus story.

Asked at a rare White House press conference Wednesday about Rice’s role in the Benghazi cover story, Obama angrily defended her reputation and scowled that if Republicans have a problem with the Libya story, they should “go after me.”

No doubt they would appreciate the opportunity, Mr. President. Your administration has bungled Benghazi from the get-go, and it’s time the buck stopped on your desk.

“Mr. President,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., “don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi.”

But in the spirit of the president’s manufactured Sir Galahad act, we would argue: Methinks thou doth protest too much.

First, let’s address the gender patronizing going on.

If the president wants females in his administration to take leadership and spokesperson roles – including his wife – then let them take the heat as well. They’re not tender, helpless little girls who need his
gallant protection. It’s more than a little chauvinistic to pretend otherwise.

Second, the overall patronization:

This president appears to have never been seriously questioned about anything in his life. Liberals like to make an issue of the color of his skin; the real problem is its thickness, or lack thereof.

Four people were killed at our embassy in Benghazi on Sept. 11. The official story for days from this administration was that the attack was the result of a protest gone bad. They later had to admit there was never any protest, and that it was a clear, premeditated, commando-style raid on our consulate. And they knew that pretty early, if not immediately.

That means someone in this administration had to concoct, from scratch, the video protest sham story.

It’s time we found out who. And it’s time this president learned how to answer tough questions without getting all bent out of shape. The campaign is over, Mr. President. Time to do your job. And time to level with the American people.

Of course, many of us would argue that the time has long since passed. But the president managed to kick this can past Election Day. So be it. Now it’s time for a Day of Reckoning.

We don’t care who gets asked the many questions that need answering, whether it be a woman or a man. But if this president doesn’t want his surrogates questioned, that’s tough; they’re going to be. If he wants to prevent it, wants to be truly chivalrous, he can always proffer some answers himself. It’s called accountability.

Another thing: This president keeps blaming the intelligence community for the video protest hoax. Well, if he’s being truthful, then some heads need to roll in that department – because someone there imagined a citizen protest out of thin air.

Some are calling for a Watergate-, Iran-Contra-style select committee investigation in Congress. And it looks like that’s the only way we’ll get any answers about why four Americans died after repeated requests for security – and after seven hours of administration inaction during the murderous raid.

Just a word of caution to the committee: Be careful not to ask any tough questions of the Obama women!

Comments (38) 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.
faithson
5193
Points
faithson 11/20/12 - 02:00 am
8
16
yadda, yadda,yadda...

Let's be honest... it DOESN'T matter WHAT the facts bear out about what happened on that disastrous day, the AC editorial board will continue its shrill about how this President is inept, no matter the issue at hand. This constant banter on the President's supposed inadequacy only denigrates the purveyors of such putrid rhetoric.

OJP
6783
Points
OJP 11/20/12 - 03:13 am
6
14
As far as I can tell, ACES - not the President - sees a gender

element to this. There's a term for that: projection.

And the story as a whole is partisan politics at its worst. So much for loyal opposition. Obama is stuck with hysterical conspiracy peddlers.

carcraft
26226
Points
carcraft 11/20/12 - 06:32 am
15
5
I guess Obama should get a

I guess Obama should get a pass for lying to America and the World? The intelligence community has spoken and they said it was a terrorist attaack from day one. Obama, during his debate with Romney said it was a terrorist attack from day one. So why did Rice go out 5 days later and say it was a demonstration? Why did Obama go out 10 days later and imply, in front of world leaders at the UN, it was a demonstration? Why try to decieve people about the truth surrounding the death of four Americans? Maybe it is just in Obama's genes to lie. I really don't know. Someone issued the talking points and they should be fired and if Rice knew the talking points were a lie she shold be fired! It would be nice if Obama assisted in geting rid of the liers in the White House. Eon't forget that this isn't the first report that has been altered by this administration. The Obma administration altered a report on his moritorium on oil drilling in the gulf. The attroney General, Eric Holder has presented false information to congress. Seems to me like a pattern!

Rhetor
1015
Points
Rhetor 11/20/12 - 06:53 am
6
13
There is still (contrary to

There is still (contrary to the AEI) no clear evidence of anything other than the normal confusion that occurs after an event of this kind. The President did call the event terrorism right from the get-go (contrary to this editorial); however, the early messages from the administration were indeed inconsistent and sometimes inaccurate--as are the early messages from almost any sudden event (9/11, Pearl Harbor, etc.). The conservatives' desperate attempt to create a scandal out of this tragedy are getting silly. When you have real evidence, let me know.

InChristLove
22480
Points
InChristLove 11/20/12 - 07:41 am
11
6
"Normal confusion?" It

"Normal confusion?"

It doesn't take 5 days to figure out normal confusion. And the President DID NOT call the event terrorism. He spoke about terrorism referencing the attack on 9/11 but only spoke of terrorism in general terms......never referring to the Bengahzi attack as terrorism.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 11/20/12 - 07:45 am
7
7
Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff 2/7/2003

If U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell didn't produce a smoking gun in his case against Iraq at the United Nations Wednesday, he certainly produced a loaded gun.

The Saddam Hussein regime that was given one last chance three months ago to cooperate with U.N. arms inspectors in disarming weapons of mass destruction still has not accounted for:

Between 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons and 16,000 battlefield rockets.

Four tons of VX nerve gas.

Whereabouts of missiles with a range of 620 miles, or more, putting Russia and other nations beyond Iraq's immediate neighbors in potential danger.

At least 15 munitions bunkers with active chemical munitions inside.

18 trucks that Iraq uses as mobile biological weapons labs.

Powell also connected the dots between Baghdad and al-Qaida operatives, showing how they are working together and that some followers of a senior associate of Osama bin Laden are currently in the Iraqi capital, with the approval of Saddam.

In his powerfully persuasive presentation, Powell displayed satellite photos showing cleanup activities at nearly 30 suspected weapons sites in the days before inspectors arrived.
....The point of Powell's presentation was that the evidence is there to force Iraq to disarm and that time is running out.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 11/20/12 - 07:58 am
6
7
Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff 6/5/2003

As evidence of weapons of mass destruction continued to elude coalition forces this week, U.S. and British officials were put in the position of defending the war even after its merciful conclusion.

"It wasn't a figment of anyone's imagination," Secretary of State Colin Powell said of the belief that Iraq held chemical and biological weapons. "There was no doubt in my mind as I went through the intelligence that the evidence was overwhelming."....

As long as the inquiry - by the Senate Intelligence Committee this month, to begin with - is honest and nonpartisan, it's not a bad idea. The Bush administration should provide whatever evidence it can safely divulge.

But if the process turns into an excuse to try to embarrass the president during the upcoming election cycle, then forget it.

It is beginning to appear that the coalition had better find that smoking gun. Otherwise, this military action and others that may be necessary in the future could get bogged down in questions over legitimacy

InChristLove
22480
Points
InChristLove 11/20/12 - 07:58 am
9
5
And your point Techfan??

And your point Techfan??

grouse
1635
Points
grouse 11/20/12 - 08:19 am
5
9
As I recall, Bush sent Colin
Unpublished

As I recall, Bush sent Colin Powell to tell the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. No one resigned. As I recalled, Bush claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11. No one resigned. As I recall, Bush was warned about the possibility of 9/11 and ignored it. We were attached and no one resigned.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 11/20/12 - 08:20 am
4
7
"First, let’s address the

"First, let’s address the gender patronizing going on."

This was one of the first talking points I heard of Fox News too.

"They later had to admit there was never any protest, and that it was a clear, premeditated, commando-style raid on our consulate. And they knew that pretty early, if not immediately. That means someone in this administration had to concoct, from scratch, the video protest sham story."

The CIA had asked to keep things hush hush, so that the enemy watching American news would not know that the CIA has been on them. But- when trying to score points and hurt the President, what does leaking national secrets, and damaging/hindering missions matter?

wayne2410
1239
Points
wayne2410 11/20/12 - 08:40 am
1
0
The point about the CIA
Unpublished

The point about the CIA trying to keep things quiet so their hand would not be tipped could be a valid one, at least it sounds like something that could happen. This has been a strange story, I'm no fan of Obama by any stretch but I would be reluctant to make many strong accusations, I don't think we know what all really happened and probably never will.

InChristLove
22480
Points
InChristLove 11/20/12 - 08:42 am
5
5
"Bush sent Colin Powell to

"Bush sent Colin Powell to tell the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. No one resigned"

It has yet to be proven whether Iraq had weapons and had time to move them or whether they never had them.

There is no doubt that from the beginning this was a terrorist attacked in Benghazi and 4 Americans are dead.

OpenCurtain
10049
Points
OpenCurtain 11/20/12 - 08:53 am
7
3
Some said Obama "is" guilty

Another immortal Liberal Democrat once said under oath.
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

Mr. Bill is still giving $500k speeches and is the true power behind the DNC not Mr. Obama.

CobaltGeorge
160731
Points
CobaltGeorge 11/20/12 - 08:57 am
7
6
Has Anybody Heard The Word...

Impeachment yet for this action of Treason?

Little Lamb
46365
Points
Little Lamb 11/20/12 - 08:59 am
7
4
Terrorism

Rhetor posted:

The President did call the event terrorism right from the get-go. . . .

The president never used the word "terrorism" to describe the Bengazi event. You will not find that word in any of his statements about Bengazi to this day.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/20/12 - 09:08 am
11
5
Rhetor.. writes "There is
Unpublished

Rhetor.. writes "There is still (contrary to the AEI) no clear evidence of anything other than the normal confusion that occurs after an event of this kind."

WRONG.

Obama claimes that it was a demonstration that went wrong, and there is very clear evidence that no such demonstration was even occuring.

Edit------- A thumbs down for pointing out a demonstrable fact. Gotta love these liberals.

Little Lamb
46365
Points
Little Lamb 11/20/12 - 09:06 am
10
4
Gas

grouse posted:

As I recall, Bush sent Colin Powell to tell the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. No one resigned.

They had poison gas and used it multiple times against the Kurds. Gas is considered a weapon of mass destruction.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/20/12 - 09:07 am
9
4
The CIA also didn't testify
Unpublished

The CIA also didn't testify that they told Bush something different, and that their evidence had been edited for political reasons. Can Obama make that claim?

allhans
23752
Points
allhans 11/20/12 - 09:42 am
9
2
All the antiquated talk about

All the antiquated talk about Iraq. Democrats voted for that war, they based their votes on facts given to them by the Clinton/Gore administration (YOU can look this up). Hillary Clinton, John Kerry voted "yes"...Al Gore said that had he been elected he would have made the same decision as Bush.

effete elitist liberal
3137
Points
effete elitist liberal 11/20/12 - 10:21 am
4
5
Or, not protesting at all....

Oh this is rich, from the same MR and ACES who have failed abysmally to protest assaults on a woman's right to choose, on moronic Republican candidates who attempt to distinguish between "legitimate" and illegitimate rapes, on continuing pay disparities between men and women for the same work. Rich indeed, and "so sad...."

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/20/12 - 10:24 am
7
4
Nice diversionary change of
Unpublished

Nice diversionary change of subject. Is that "continuing pay disparity" you mention the fact that the President pays his female staffers less than his male staffers?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/20/12 - 10:43 am
7
4
I also don't recal any
Unpublished

I also don't recal any Republicans "assaulting" my right to choose anything that doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 11/20/12 - 10:59 am
3
7
Uh oh!! Another terrorist

Uh oh!! Another terrorist attack on a US embassy!! I wonder how the right can find ways to impeach Obama now!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20407503

What we need to do- is go after the congress folks willing to give up national secrets and missions to try and score political points. Again- the CIA was conducting operations, and they had requested that the White House not reveal information that would compromise their mission. But the far right doesn't care, just like they didn't care about outing CIA agents under the Bush admin.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/20/12 - 11:06 am
6
4
So the CIA asked Obama to lie
Unpublished

So the CIA asked Obama to lie to the American people about Libya? That's not what they said under oath.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 11/20/12 - 11:12 am
5
4
"So the CIA asked Obama to

"So the CIA asked Obama to lie to the American people about Libya? "

Yep- because of how they knew what was going on- the techniques and tactics would have been revealed, and the enemies we hunt down change their ways, and missions are lost, intell and collection and has to start over. Saying it was from a video- which was going on with other protests in other areas would keep OPSEC.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 11/20/12 - 11:23 am
6
4
And you base your knowlege
Unpublished

And you base your knowlege on.....................

That's not what the CIA has said under oath.

What tactic would have been revealed by NOT making up a cock and bull story about a protest that didn't exist? Why are YOU privy to this information if it's so secret?

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 11/20/12 - 11:24 am
3
3
"That's not what the CIA has

"That's not what the CIA has said under oath"

Funny how you keep saying that- but provide no transcripts.

Blue State Of Mind
26
Points
Blue State Of Mind 11/20/12 - 11:30 am
2
3
Why did the AC never get this
Unpublished

Why did the AC never get this up in arms about the TWELVE embassy attacks that resulted in 52 deaths under Bush?

Besides, how does it benefit Obama to cover up the killing of his own ambassador? It doesn't. The intelligence was mixed, there were protests in nearby Muslim nations about the film - what part of "investigate first, judge later" is so unattractive to you guys? Do you really want a President who rushes to judgment?

There were TWENTY (that's a "2" with a "0" after it, as in one more than 19) intelligence reports in the beginning suggesting that anger about the film was to blame for the attacks. In other
words, there was conflicting intel about the source and cause of the attack. Every statement by the Administration was prefaced with a caveat that "this is what we know at this time," or some formulation thereof. Simply stated, there was no effort to mislead the public or the Congress. BTW, a "coverup" is an effort to obscure or hide an act or event. There has been no effort to obscure or hide the killing of Ambassador Stevens and his contract security force. There has been disagreement about the cause of the attack. The cause of the attack is still under investigation.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Broad Street fire still investigated

Downtown streets were closed for several hours Tuesday as firefighters worked to put out a blaze in a Broad Street building.
Search Augusta jobs