I’m beginning to think this President is at worst, a pathological liar or at best, Bipolar. A month ago, he was barking like a junkyard dog in defense of Susan Rice, after admitting he sent her out to lie to the nation. Now we get this from Obama on Benghazi (via MSNBC):
GREGORY: In the politics, in the back and forth in this, do you feel like you let your friend Susan Rice hang out there to dry a little bit?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: No. First of all, I think I was very clear throughout that Susan has been an outstanding U.N. ambassador for the United States. She appeared on a number of television shows reporting what she and we understood to be the best information at the time. This was a politically motivated attack on her. I mean of all the people in my national security team she probably had the least to do with anything that happened in Benghazi. Why she was targeted individually for the kind of attacks that she was subjected to is– is– was puzzling to me. And I was very clear in the days after those attacks that they weren’t acceptable. So, you know, the good thing is– is that I think she will continue to serve at the U.N. and do an outstanding job. And I think that most Americans recognize that these were largely politically motivated attacked– attacks as opposed to being justified.
Politically motivated? Mr. President, you admitted YOU sent her out there. We all now know that both of you knew at the time you set her out to the talk show circuit that what she was telling the nation was a lie. The criticism of Rice was not about politics, it was about LYING. It still is about lying.
The Blamer-in-Chief just prior to these remarks on Rice said this about our Embassy security, emphasis added is mine:
Some individuals have been held accountable inside of the State Department and what I’ve said is that we are going to fix this to make sure that this does not happen again, because these are folks that I send into the field. We understand that there are dangers involved but, you know, when you read the report and it confirms what we had already seen, you know, based on some of our internal reviews; there was just some sloppiness, not intentional, in terms of how we secure embassies in areas where you essentially don’t have governments that have a lot of capacity to protect those embassies. So we’re doing a thorough-going review. Not only will we implement all the recommendations that were made, but we’ll try to do more than that. You know, with respect to who carried it out, that’s an ongoing investigation. The FBI has sent individuals to Libya repeatedly. We have some very good leads, but this is not something that, you know, I’m going to be at liberty to talk about right now.
Again, Mr. President — you’re trying to install an unsupported narrative here. This embassy was vulnerable for at least the 6 months prior to the attack on September 11th; it had been attacks twice prior. The security of this consulate was already at a dangerously low level. There were warnings three days before the attack, which were ignored. Even the Ambassador himself asked multiple times for more security. Instead of granting those requests, his security was actually cut back. (Related: State Department withdrew 16-member special forces team from Benghazi one month before 9/11/12 terrorist attack)
This is not about sloppiness. Sloppiness implies security was implemented, but did it in a manner leaving things in a state disarray. Mr. President, you didn’t implement anything, you removed it and in doing so, thereby leaving your Ambassador Stevens and his staff wide open to attacks. Attacks this administration was warned about from several sources. What transpired wasn’t sloppiness, it was criminal.
By the way, Nakoula was unavailable for comment.
Related Reading from LL1885: