Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Denying the Libya Scandal - The vice president was dishonest during the debate.
National Review Online ^ | October 13, 2012 | Andrew C. McCarthy

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.

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: andymccarthy; benghazi; benghazicoverup; benghazigate; biden; bidenlies; libya; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last
To: Elle Bee; AFPhys; All
Thanks for both of your links.

For those too young to appreciate why the Omar Abdel-Rahman Brigades are so named, Omar Abdel-Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh," was convicted in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. I'm surprised the link is still there.

21 posted on 10/13/2012 1:26:22 PM PDT by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Not what if.

He does.

22 posted on 10/13/2012 1:30:30 PM PDT by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheel barrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
What if Obama seeks to protect a policy of surreptitiously accommodating Islamicists?

I'd have to old axiom applies here...

"Actions speak louder than words"

I have always contended that Obama middle East policy or strategy was not necessarily to accommodation Islamist,( he gets a twofer ) but to use them squeeze Israel into concessions

MB to their north in Syria, MB run Egypt to their south, stalling on Iran...

He's got a legacy to build, don't you know and a Nobel peace prize to live up too...

He pulls off a ME peace, he's a shoe in for UN General Secretary...

23 posted on 10/13/2012 1:36:24 PM PDT by Popman (November 7th...will be a good day for America..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

dishonest before, during and after!

24 posted on 10/13/2012 1:58:04 PM PDT by Reily (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

Amazing interview, isn’t it? I hope all FReepers listen to that interiew with Ed Klein on the first 20 minutes of Kudlow’s podcast today

25 posted on 10/13/2012 2:08:25 PM PDT by AFPhys ((Praying for our troops, our citizens, that the Bible and Freedom become basis of the US law again))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Are you afraid to say our first Muslim President is a traitor working for the Muslims? ANS: Yes, for several reasons....

regicide: In a narrower sense, in the British tradition, it refers to the judicial execution of a king after a trial.

You don't have to have proof to state the obvious. Obama is doing everything he can to destroy the USA. $Trillions wasted, stimulus a joke, executive orders that are Unconstitutional.... Obama could not be that stupid to act so unAmerican and so destructive to our country.

You may prefer to wait for the NY TIMES to tell you Obama is a traitor. I prefer to say the obvious.

Egypt: Supports the Muslim Brotherhood which is a terrorist organization. Obama wants to give Egypt $Billion for SUBMARINES!!!!

Libya: Illegally used US Troops to attack a government that wasn't out to lunch as far as US interests are concerned.

Iraq: Pulled out US troops. Terrorist attacks are coming back.

Syria: just starting to replace that Gov't with Muslims that want to join other Arabs.

End game is Syria, Iraq, Libya and Egypt joining Iran to destroy Israel. That's why Obama wants to give submarines to Egypt.

You don't hang Obama for treason until after the trial.

26 posted on 10/13/2012 2:18:06 PM PDT by politicianslie (Obama: Our first Muslim PRESIDENT,destroying America $1 Trillion at a time! And America sleeps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys

Great Kudlow interview. Thanks

27 posted on 10/13/2012 2:40:18 PM PDT by jesseam (eliev)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
I got this from FARS from another thread:

" ** Just dribbling in from Iran sources, which often take a while to be clarified and confirmed as well as can be done, is this horrifying information.

The very high tech pilotless UAV reportedly brought down and captured by Iran was a PRE-PLANNED GIFT from Obama to the Mullahs to update Iran’s ability to penetrate Israel stealthily.

In the past weeks Iranian UAVs were spotted and shot down THREE times in Israeli air space. Launched at very close range from Hezbollah territory, their penetration into Israel is hard to prevent instantly but so far so good. ** "
28 posted on 10/13/2012 3:28:40 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jesseam


I just discovered an article about it that I will post now. I think it deserves a spot in the RH column of FR.

29 posted on 10/13/2012 3:31:32 PM PDT by AFPhys ((Praying for our troops, our citizens, that the Bible and Freedom become basis of the US law again))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

30 posted on 10/13/2012 3:34:11 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Looks like Israel got some nice Intel.
Perhaps Israel is looking to say all tell all and start talking to the world about a few world leaders.
31 posted on 10/13/2012 3:35:59 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford


32 posted on 10/13/2012 3:36:42 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Col. Hunt On The Newest Libyan Revelations (huge coverup!)

Everyone was informed of the attack in Benghazi in real time. Sec. State, Pres., the Pentagon, the CIA ... It's automatic, required by law and all logged.

33 posted on 10/13/2012 3:39:02 PM PDT by TigersEye ( - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
" 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?"

Hezbollah's CFO defects to Israel ?

* Hezbollah’s CFO has fled to Israel taking with him large sum of stolen money, classified documents and maps, local news media reported on Friday. *

With $ 5 Million and classified documents to boot...

DO tell Israel, DO TELL !
34 posted on 10/13/2012 3:47:29 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Thanks for the link.

35 posted on 10/13/2012 8:55:34 PM PDT by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson