Skip to comments.Denying the Libya Scandal - The vice president was dishonest during the debate.
Posted on 10/13/2012 12:22:17 PM PDT by neverdem
Exterior of Red Cross offices in Benghazi following a rocket-propelled grenade attack in May 2012
The desultory vice-presidential debate underscored that, even if there were not a thousand other reasons for denying President Obama a second term, the Libya scandal alone would be reason enough to remove him.
By the time the ineffable Joe Biden took center stage Thursday night, Obama operatives had already erected a façade of mendacity around the jihadist murder of our ambassador to Libya and three other U.S. officials. The vice president promptly exploited the debate forum to trumpet a bald-faced lie: He denied the administration’s well-established refusal to provide adequate security for the diplomatic team. Just as outrageously, he insisted that the intelligence community, not the election-minded White House, was the source of the specious claim that an obscure, unwatched video about Islam’s prophet — a video whose top global publicists are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — spontaneously sparked the Benghazi massacre.
Our emissaries in Libya understood that they were profoundly threatened. They communicated fears for their lives to Washington, pleading for additional protection. That is established fact. Yet Biden maintained that it was untrue: “We weren’t told they wanted more security again. We did not know they wanted more security again.”
Shameful: so much so that even Jay Carney, no small-time Libya propagandist himself, would feel compelled to walk Biden’s denial back the next morning. But the vice president was far from done. His assertion that “the intelligence community told us” that protests over the video had sparked the murders of our officials was breathtaking, even by Biden standards.
For a moment, let’s pretend that there is no historical context — meaning, no Obama-policy context — in which to place what happened in Benghazi on September 11. Let’s just stick with the freshest intelligence.
In recent months, Benghazi has been the site of several jihadist attacks. The International Red Cross offices there were bombed in May by an al-Qaeda affiliate called the “Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades” — named in honor of the “Blind Sheikh,” whose detention in the U.S., on a life sentence for terrorism convictions, al-Qaeda has repeatedly vowed to avenge.
On June 4, four missiles fired from an unmanned U.S. drone killed 15 people at a jihadist compound in Pakistan. The most prominent was al-Qaeda’s revered Libyan leader, Hassan Mohammed Qaed, better known by his nom de guerre, Abu Yahya al-Libi. It was a severe blow to the terror network, and the intelligence community instantly knew al-Qaeda was determined to avenge it.
The following day, the Abdul Rahman Brigades detonated an explosive outside the American consulate in Benghazi. According to CNN, the attack was specifically “timed to coincide with preparations for the arrival of a senior U.S. State Department official.” The Brigades recorded the attack on video, interspersing scenes of the mayhem with footage of al-Qaeda leaders and 9/11 carnage. In claiming responsibility, the jihadists brayed that they were targeting U.S. diplomats in retaliation for the killing of al-Libi. A week later, the Brigades shot rockets at the British ambassador’s convoy as it moved through Benghazi.
By midsummer, al-Qaeda’s emir, Ayman al-Zawahiri, recorded an acknowledgment of al-Libi’s death that exhorted jihadists, particularly in Libya, to retaliate: “His blood urges you and incites you to fight and kill the crusaders.” Naturally, Zawahiri was targeting September 11 as the moment for vengeance. His recording was released on that morning, intimating that a revenge strike would be the most fitting way for Libyans to mark the day when, eleven years earlier, al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans. Obligingly, al-Qaeda affiliates carried out the Benghazi massacre later that day.
Not only did the intelligence community have reason aplenty to anticipate trouble in Benghazi on September 11 — reason having nothing to do with the Mohammed video. We now know, thanks to reporting by the Daily Beast’s Eli Lake, that the diplomatic compound’s surveillance cameras recorded “an organized group of armed men attacking the compound.” Mr. Lake adds that the intelligence community had a surveillance drone taking video “for the final hour of the night battle at the consulate compound and nearby annex.” Moreover, U.S. intelligence officials figured out, within a day of the attack, that the operation was pre-planned and several participants were tied to al-Qaeda affiliates.
Yet, the administration continued, day after day, blaming the massacre on the video. The claim was absurd on its face. Plus, it contradicted an intelligence tapestry signaling a well-planned jihadist operation, to say nothing of the manner of the attack — the timing, preparation, and cruelty of which veritably screamed, “al-Qaeda!” Still, even now, Biden and the Obama administration claim that the intelligence community actually believed our people were killed over a video — that Obama officials were simply repeating what they were told, not spouting what they audaciously hoped to deceive Americans into believing.
Why the deception? Because if you conclude the Benghazi massacre had nothing to do with a cockamamie video no one has seen, you soon realize Obama’s favorite campaign theme — namely, that killing bin Laden decimated the terror network — is nonsense. And you realize that what happened in Benghazi on September 11 is directly traceable to Obama’s Middle East policy.
As noted above, the recent intelligence we’ve just reviewed arose in a historic context. Beginning in 2009, the Obama administration, echoing the Republican establishment, told Americans that Qaddafi had become a key ally of the United States against terrorism. Obama even substantially increased the American aid the Bush administration had begun providing to Qaddafi’s regime. The rationale for embracing the dictator was straightforward: Not only had Qaddafi abandoned his nuclear program; he was providing vital intelligence about jihadist cauldrons throughout his country. By percentage of population, more Libyans traveled to Iraq to wage terrorist war against American troops than did citizens of any other country. And in Libya, Benghazi was the epicenter of the jihad.
In 2011, however, President Obama initiated an unprovoked war against the Qaddafi regime. Though Qaddafi had taken no intervening hostile action against the United States, and though no vital American national interest would be served by Qaddafi’s removal, Obama chose to side with the Islamist rebellion against him. Why? As demonstrated in my new book, Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, the president was determined to sell the “Arab Spring” fantasy of a Middle East seized by the desire for freedom rather than strangled by the ambitions of freedom-killing Islamic supremacists.
In Libya, Islamists were the backbone of the rebellion: the Muslim Brotherhood partnering, as it is wont to do, with violent jihadists — in this instance, al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Toppling Qaddafi would necessarily result in their empowerment. They’d insinuate themselves into any new government. They’d set up sharia enclaves where they were strong enough to do so. And they’d strengthen themselves by seizing chunks of Qaddafi’s arsenal of high-powered weaponry. Being incorrigibly anti-American, they’d use their new influence and power against the United States.
That is why some of us implored Obama not to intervene. As I argued at the time (responsively quoting a Fox News anchor):
I am not “suggesting that we would be better off with the Qaddafi dictatorship still in effect.” I am saying it outright. If the choice is between an emerging Islamist regime and a Qaddafi dictatorship that cooperates with the United States against Islamists, then I’ll take Qaddafi. If the choice is between tolerating the Qaddafi dictatorship and disgracing ourselves by . . . turning a blind eye to the atrocities of our new Islamist friends . . . then give me the Qaddafi dictatorship every time.
The “atrocities” of note at the time were twofold: the massacres Libya’s Islamists carried out against black Africans suspected of allying with Qaddafi’s regime, and the barbaric murder of Qaddafi himself — when he was abused and displayed as a trophy, just like Ambassador Christopher Stevens would later be. These opened a ready window on the type of savages Obama’s policy was guaranteed to abet.
The straight line from Obama’s Libya policy of empowering Islamists to the Benghazi massacre is rarely discussed. Maybe it would be clearer if the Republican establishment had not ardently supported Obama’s war against Libya. Maybe it would be clearer if Romney and Ryan stopped sounding nearly as delusional about the “Arab Spring” as Obama and Biden do. Maybe it would be clearer if Romney and Ryan stopped talking about reprising the Libya debacle in Syria, joined at the hip to what they call “our ally Turkey” — Hamas’s new sugar daddy and staunchest defender. It would surely be welcome if the GOP ticket started diagnosing “spring fever” instead of manifesting its symptoms.
In Benghazi, we see the wages of the disease. The pathogen was not a video. Want to know why our people were left unprotected and why mounds of intelligence foreshadowing peril were ignored? Don’t look to Obama’s vice president, look to Obama’s policy.
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the executive director of the Philadelphia Freedom Center. He is the author, most recently, of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, which was recently published by Encounter Books.
Duh? How's that for understatement of 2012?
It strikes me that this event was as poorly timed as it could possibly be for the administration.
Long enough before the election for their cover stories to fall apart, but too close for people to get used to it and discount it.
This is as contrasted with the GOP Senate candidate in MO who made the stupid comments. They are now far enough in the past he has a chance of pulling it out.
Andrew....he LIED!! THEY ALL LIED and are STILL LYING!
The Current Regime people are not - lying. At least in their own minds, this is not a “lie”. More like, the term in Arabic, “Taqiyya”, which is to preserve honor and status, because it OK to “misdirect” those who are not in on the Great Belief.
For Muslims, the Great Belief is directed toward the Prophet and the holy words of the Koran, all done in defense of Allah, doncha know. For liberal Democrats, the Great Belief is in the almighty power of the State, at whatever level.
After days of digesting as much information as possible, all I can conclude for certain is that Obama, Biden and Hillary are nothing but damn COWARDS.
Lying about this tragedy is disgusting enough, but acting like 2 year olds pointing fingers is the mark of
COWARDS in my view.
Not ONE of them uttered anything close to what a DECENT
self-respecting adult would say -
Their followers are all freakin schizophrenic! Where
the he** are the anti-war idiots who beat their drums for years and years???? Damn liars, all of them.
I detest these pigs and pray God punish them as HE sees fit. (Preferably in my life time)
What if the motivation for the cover-up runs deeper than merely protecting policy errors? What if Obama seeks to protect a policy of surreptitiously accommodating Islamicists?
If you really want to get an advance take on how BenghaziGate is going to play out in the next week or so, LISTEN to the first 18 minutes of the Podcast - Larry Kudlow - today.
He interviewed Ed Klein. Amazing.
Here is a link to the Kudlow Podcast page:
They lie because the Leftwing media grants them the privilege of doing so.
It’s not enough for the citizens of Liberty to win the political battles.
Certainly he lied . He and his dipstick partner in the White House have been lying for the last 4 years , what is one more lie?
Lies are like Manna to Democrats, they eat it up. They love it.
Essentially - Ed Klein told Kudlow that it seems that Obama is going to either have to deny what VP Biden said in the debate, or that he is going to have to try to hang it on State Dept and Hillary. Meanwhile, the Clinton’s are preparing legally for such an eventuality, and will eviscerate Obama if he tries to do that.
For liberal Democrats
You do realize, our first MUSLIM PRESIDENT is simply playing a liberal Democrat, don't you? Obama is a traitor working for them (that means the destruction of America).
If you don't, what will it take, our Muslim President declaring Sharia Law is now the law of the land in the USA? Or will it take Bill O'Reilly and the NY SLIMES both coming to their senses and actually telling you the obvious?
Another thing that Kudlow went through with Ed Klein in the podcast of his show that I referenced above is the way information goes up from agencies such as embassies, up through the chain of command, to the daily NSA briefings that the president gets (whether he reads or hears them or not). Quite a nice, detailed, yet concise account of the process.
Are you afraid to say our first Muslim President is a traitor working for the Muslims?
Henry I. Miller, a physician, and the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford Universitys Hoover Institution,ASKS:
Dont voters have a right to know whether Biden is ill or merely unlikeable, impulsive and prone to deceitfulness?
First, and most important, there is no proof.
Second, Obama could easily point to his surge in Afghanistan and his assassination of Osama bin Laden to say that the charge is absurd.
If you are attempting regicide, you better be damn sure you're gonna kill the King.
Hillary AND Obama have BLOOD on their hands!! Let them fight to the DEATH.