Skip to comments.Why The Obama Administration Lied About Benghazi
Posted on 10/10/2012 11:16:24 AM PDT by CaroleL
Today the House Oversight Committee is holding a hearing on diplomatic security; specifically the lack of security that facilitated the September 11 murders of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Most often these investigations center on the question 'What did a government official know and when did they know it?' but in this case we already have those answers.
Hours before the congressional hearing began, the State Department briefed reporters on the facts of the case saying it never determined that the deadly attack on the US consulate stemmed from protests over an anti-Islam YouTube video as administration officials claimed for over a week. So the question which needs to be answered is not what did Obama & Company know and when did they know it but rather, why did they blatantly and repeatedly lie to the American people?
The possible answers:
A. A terrorist attack on US soil that resulted in the death of four Americans including an ambassador does not substantiate the administration's assertion that President Obama's foreign policy has been a success. The fact that four years of apologies and appeasements did not result in the new era of mutual respect Mr. Obama promised; but rather in more hate and terror will not assist the president in winning a second term.
B. The administration wanted to cover-up the fact that it denied and/or ignored requests for additional security in Libya. In the weeks after the Benghazi attack, multiple requests from US officials in Libya have been uncovered which show concern over the lack of security there. Ambassador Stevens himself repeatedly asked the Obama administration for more security in Benghazi but his requests were denied. US Security Officer Eric Nordstrom asked his State Department superiors for more security agents months before the Benghazi attack but got no response.
C. Blaming the ridiculous YouTube video for the attack in Benghazi gave the president another opportunity to apologize for American values rather than defend them. The day after the murders, Mr. Obama condemned the violence but also condemned criticism of Islam. This attempt to morally equate murder with the exercise of free speech was such an obvious political disaster that the president had to quickly release a statement asserting that the First Amendment "is one of the hallmarks of our Constitution that I'm sworn to uphold, and so we are always going to uphold the rights for individuals to speak their mind."
D. They thought they could get away with it. With the mainstream media tucked comfortably in Mr. Obama's pocket for years, there was good reason for the administration to believe that if they repeatedly lied about what happened in Benghazi, the lie would be reported as the undisputed truth. In the most blatant case, US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appeared on numerous television programs stating the attack was "a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response to what had transpired in Cairo" and that what transpired in Cairo "was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video." The dutiful media aired what we now know to be brazen lies without challenge.
As the State Department begins to reveal the truth and the Congressional investigation moves forward, it looks like the answer is most likely E. All of the above.
Perhaps you are unaware that Articles of Impeachment originate in the House of Representatives, currently controlled by the GOP.
uncitizen~ “ wonder how much of what weve been told by the o admin over the last 4 years has been lies....”
It’s all part of the “CHICAGO method “ of politics and thuggery.
A sage once said : “ Trust ,..but verify “
Personally , I don’t trust much of what I have heard in the last 4 years from this adminsitration , .. as they have a secret “agenda” .
DuncanWaring ~ :” Perhaps you are unaware that Articles of Impeachment originate in the House of Representatives, currently controlled by the GOP. “
Yes , but you need some spine behind that Boehner !
Someone should ask Carney if that includes Propaganda Ministers and mouthpieces like himself?
Nixon was NOT impeached. There have bee oly 2 impeachmentsin our Presidential history —Andrew Johnson (after the Civil War) and William Jefferson Clinton in 1998. Neither was removed from office because the Senate couldn’t agree.
They were threatening to impeach Nixon, and the Republicans told him that they could not protect him. He resigned, instead.
More 0baman BS.
By international accord, the host country is supposed to guarantee the security of diplomatic personnel/property.
Ambassadors and Embassy staff are supposed to be inviolate.
To clarify, those words in italics are J Carneys not mine. Careful there FRiend.
That’s why I called them “0baman BS”.
Here's my theory:
There is an Executive Order that is almost ready for release. That EO gives the President the authority to shut off the internet in the time of a national crisis, for reasons of security. There was an attempt earlier this year, by Joe Lieberman, to get this passed thru Congress, but it didn't pass Congress. This Executive Order, by itself, is pretty radical. Obama needed an event. A reason to put this radical EO into place.
Thus, Libya. On 9/11.
The Libyan embassy was purposely left in a state of poor security. The curious September 10 tweet that apologized for the YouTube video was meant to create demonstrations. The demonstrations were supposed to start BEFORE the AlQeida attack on the embassy. However the AlQeida attack occured without demonstrations. AQ was tipped off where the ambassador's safe house was. But there were no demonstrations.
Had this gone as planned, Obama would have had a seemingly valid reason to give himself the authority to shut off the internet. Just in time for the elections.
But it didn't go as planned. So Plan B was implemented. Seeing no reason why he couldn't continue to blame the attack on the video, with an excuse of "I didn't have the right Intelligence" as cover, Obama sought to incite violence elsewhere. So the administration continued to use the YouTube video as an excuse, hoping to incite sufficient violence at another Islamic country's embassy. He did this for a week. But the demonstrations at other embassies never rose to the level of violence that was necessary for Obama to envoke the new EO.
Tin Foil hat time? If I told you Obama was purposely giving guns to Mexican drug lords so that he'd have a reason to attack the Second Ammendment, would you think I'm crazy? Why wouldn't he be capable of something that would attack the First Ammendment?
1st Ammendment attack.
I agree, but with a different twist.
See my post #29
There was a lot of “butt covering” going on in the hearing. The two on the right were covering for obama and Hillary.
The two on the left nailed them both.
Sandy Adams, R-Florida, tore the state department lackeys to pieces. Adams for AG!
Here is a reason.
Ya beat me to it! Not surprising that the MSM is silent on the incompetence of our current Secretary of State. With a U.S. Ambassador and three others dead, they should be screaming for her removal.........
Perhaps I DO KNOW the Senate is controlled by the lead RAT Harry Reid. Harry cannot stop the House from introducing Articles of Impeachment for all the HIGH CRIMES AND MISDOMEANORS this clown has committed.
You will have to get your gratuitous playacting elsewhere.
The Disaster will be gone by the end of January which is as soon as an impeachment trial could be gotten to in the Senate anyway.
I would like to see him drawn and quartered on national tv but that ain’t going to happen either.
O really? What a shock. Of course that has nothing to do with my point but thanks for playing.
Your arrogance is superceded only by your ignorance.
That should have been “exceeded”, not “superceded”.
Either one works for you.
Presuming I don’t know EXACTLY how impeachment works is rather unwarranted. Most intelligent people don’t jump blindly into an argument. What is your excuse?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.