#BENGHAZI: “Sloppiness” and Susan Rice – Again.

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:

Shortlink:

Posted by on December 30, 2012.
Filed under 9/11, Barack Obama, Libya.
Tagged with: .
LadyLiberty1885 (A.P. Dillon) is a Conservative minded mother and wife living in the Triangle area of NC. Mrs. Dillon began writing in 2009 when she founded LadyLiberty1885. Her writing can also be found at Da Tech Guy and at Wizbang. Mrs. Dillon also write science fiction and children's novellas that are works in progress and unpublished as of yet.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

    And then there are the lies by omission. Obama has been asked what he knew and when he knew it…things that it would not take a committee to discover. He has tyet o volunteer to tell the truth. Let’s all hold our breath waiting for that to happen!

  • http://foxmuldar-conservative-thinker.blogspot.com/ Foxmuldar

    Another lie Obama is now pushing. Some individuals have been held accountable inside of the State Department. Four individuals we were told earlier had resigned their positions. But we now know that none of them actually are out of a job. All they did was change the chairs they use. All four will remain on the State Department staff. Its a joke and the Liberal media continues to cover for this sorry sack of dog shit.

  • herddog505

    Barry could save a lot of time and effort by simply saying, “Gee whiz, I don’t have a clue how that happened.”

    And it would be true…

    I must say, too, that the whole “those nasty ol’ Republicans were just mean to poor Susan Rice” is crap: Rice is the one who was the face of the administration, peddling a lot of horse sh*t that we now know THEY knew was bunk when she said it.

    But I guess that this is politics in the Age of Obama: get a minority to peddle one’s lies, then cry RAAAAACISM / sexism / homophobia if anybody challenges it.

  • lasveraneras

    No, no, it’s going to get even worse. Just look at this sentence and think about it. “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.” Let’s say they Republicans achieve a miracle and actually shrink government expenditures. And, subsequently, the militant anti-American jihadists or whatever learn the appropriate Benghazi lesson, i.e. that with some basic planning U.S. overseas facilities can be successfully attacked with relative impunity. The Obama-media response? It’s all the fault of those mean ol’ Republicans for denying us “the funding” to protect our consulates and embassies adequately. You can bank on this one.

    • jim_m

      The sad truth is that no matter what the republicans do the MSM will blame them for any and all failures. The even sadder truth is that the republicans will continue to fail to recognize this essential truth and they will continue to suck up to the media in hopes that one day the media will like them.

  • ackwired

    The administration’s reaction to this attack has been pathetic from the start. I think they took their cue from the reaction to the original 9/11 attack. The parallels are sickening.

    • jim_m

      Enlighten us. Name the parallels. Most of us are not seeing any. At what point during the original 9/11 attacks did the Bush White House refuse to stop the attacks? Or refuse to respond in any way?

      Or are you going to claim that Bush knew about them beforehand?

      Certainly, you are not going to say that the Bush admin spent the following 4 months covering up what happened and blaming low level State Dept officials for it and then accepted fake resignation while merely shuffling the officials laterally?

      Please tell us how in any facet the incredible incompetence and deceitfulness of the obama admin resembles the response after the original 9/11. Because from where I am sitting had obama responded in anything resembling the purposefulness and resolve that Bush did, he would have done a hell of a lot better.

      • ackwired

        Both administrations ignored repeated warnings of the danger. Both administrations deflected attention from those warnings after the attack. Both administrations fought hard to prevent any public access to investigation of the attacks.

        • herddog505

          Really?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

          The “repeated warnings” about 9-11 seem to be limited to “al Qaeda really hates us and wants to attack us”. Nothing specific, nothing we didn’t already know.

          Contrast this with SPECIFIC warnings from the ambassador in Libya.

          As for public access, the only “public access” that Bush and Co. seem to have “denied” involved the fevered fantasies of the Troofers about thermite and C-4 and drone airliners. Now, if you would care to provide links to credible sources that somebody told Bush, “Hey, sometime this year, AQ terrorists plan to take over domestic airliners and use them as missiles against major buildings and other sites in the United States”, please feel free. Otherwise, all you’ve got is Richard Clark’s hysterical (in more ways that one) ravings that he “warned” about the attacks. Again, those “warnings” were of the form that AQ was out to get us, which we knew since the ’90s.

          Here’s your problem: I and others actually remember the history. We recall that we knew about AQ and bin Laden from the ’90s. We knew that terrrorists like to hijack airliners and have since the ’70s; the manned missile use was something new. We knew that EVERYBODY was totally shocked in the aftermath of 9-11; there was no, “Oh, yeah: we saw that coming”, no, “Hey, we had specific, recent warnings that it was going to happen.” There were also no, “Hey, we TRIED to get Bush to tighten security, but… well, SOMEBODY refused. Dropped the ball, really. We’ll make them resign… then rehire them in another, similar position immediately afterward.”

          BTW, why doesn’t Slick Wille come for this sort of criticism regarding the embassy attacks, the Cole, the Khobar Towers bombings, etc? Why don’t you criticize Slick for not “getting” bin Laden?

      • Commander_Chico

        I’ll tell you: Bush ignored the warnings (“OK, you’ve covered your ass”)

        http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/did-the-neocons-blind-bushs-eyes-the-looming-9-11-attack-7455

        flailed around after 9/11, did not get Bin Laden, diverted resources to the disastrous-for-the-USA invasion and occupation of Iraq, and let the Taliban come back into Afghanistan in the meantime.

        Benghazi: four American dead

        Iraq and Afghanistan: 6659 Americans dead and counting.

        • herddog505

          Yeah, totally the same. Fight three wars (including the nasty, undeclared drone war in Pakistan) in response to 9-11 vs. send Susan Rice out to claim that it was all a spontaneous and irrepressible response to a YouTube video and nobody could POSSIBLY have seen it coming and we’re gonna make these people resign (“resign” meaning get a different desk in another office).

          Yeah: TOTALLY the same.

          Jebus, you lefties really, really hate Bush, don’t you? But I guess he serves his purpose: hating him lets you set the bar really, really low for your boy Barry.

          • Commander_Chico

            Most Americans hate Bush, because he was the biggest fuck-up ever.

          • jim_m

            Wrong. Carter. No contest. Anyone who denies this is irrational.

          • Hank_M

            I still think Obama is in the running, and with 4 more years, may indeed surpass Carter.

          • Commander_Chico

            Robert Gates, who is an impeccable non-partisan patriot, said Carter laid the foundation for Reagan’s successful face-down of the USSR in his book From the Shadows.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201181.html

            For one thing, Carter obtained the commitment to install medium range TNF to counterbalance the SS-20 in Europe. I was there in Europe then, and it was not easy to accomplish that politically. It was a full-court press from Soviet propagandists against the deployment, plus people’s natural reluctance to become nuclear targets.

            Carter also appointed Paul Volcker chairman of the Fed.

            I can’t find any mistake Carter made that compares to Bush’s Iraq fiasco in 2003-06. There was nothing the USA could have done to save the Shah: he had dug his own grave for years before as the Czar had. Sic semper tyrannis, and all that.

          • jim_m

            Riiiiight. Carter by kissing up to the Soviets (quite literally in fact)prepared the way for Reagan. After all, why would hte Soviets have suspected a president to actually stand up to them after Carter?

            I can’t find any mistake Carter made

            “Malaise”
            Inflation = 14.4%
            Interest Rates = 18%
            Unemployment = 7.7%
            Doubled the annual deficit while in office

            The whole malaise thing is significant in that Carter publicly stated that the best days of America were behind her. Carter believed that we were in irreversible decline. I suppose you believe the same thing and you want America to be in decline so you like Presidents who promote it.

            And that doesn’t even scratch foreign policy where he was tripping over himself to kiss Breznev and his passive Middle East policy lead to the Iranian revolution and has given us islamic fascism today. THAT legacy alone should relegate Carter to the ash heap of history. Then again, you probably look at the rise of a new kind f fascism as a gift.

          • Commander_Chico

            Another fact-free rant, except for the economic stats.

            Stagflation was a problem throughout the 70s. Remember Nixon’x wage and price controls? Remember Ford’s “Whip Inflation Now?”

            And as I said, Carter appointed Volcker, the guy who fixed the problem.

            As for the Sovs and Brezhnev, this is what Gates had to say about Carter:

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201181.html

            Gates, a career Sovietologist who rose to become CIA director . . . thinks Carter was far tougher on Moscow than is generally recognized.

            “I believe the Soviets saw a very different Jimmy Carter than did most Americans by 1980, different and more hostile and threatening,” Gates writes. In both conventional weaponry and in the nuclear arena, he argues, Carter would “provide a strong foundation for Ronald Reagan to build upon.”

            Most of all, writes Gates, who was the national intelligence officer for the Soviet Union at the time, Carter’s emphasis on human rights cast a spotlight on the Soviets’ greatest vulnerability. The rights theme, Gates says, made Carter “the first president during the Cold War to challenge publicly and consistently the legitimacy of Soviet rule at home.” In his view, these were “the first steps” toward the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union.

          • jim_m

            That’s right Chica. It was fact free, except for all the facts I listed. Jeez, you have become such a lefty ideologue lately.

            You don’t bother denying that Carter believed America to be in decline. He didn’t believe that we could experience 2 decades of growth like what we saw with Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton. In fact the whole point of his Malaise speech was that America’s life style was the problem and that we needed to settle for less. We needed to expect to be poorer than our predecessors.

            The USSR didn’t collapse because of human rights violations, it collapsed economically. Too bad you are so infatuated with communism and other totalitarian doctrines of the left to understand that they are failures.

            Just like your fascist insistence that no one can voice opinions on the military or national security other than ex military or that only former military personnel should be allowed to own guns the one thread in all your ideology is an authoritarian control of the masses and continual apologia for lefty adventures in marxism.

            Nor does it surprise me that you leap to the defense of a rabid antiSemite like Jimmy Carter.

          • Commander_Chico

            OK, Robert Gates and I see it one way, you see it the other way. I’ll stick with Gates’s view, having been in Europe with the U.S. military at the time.

            Carter did recognize the beginning of American decline, because of imported oil and overconsumption of fuel. He never used the word “malaise” in the speech, that was the propagandists.

            Now, the speech looks prescient. The USA was battered by a series of problems since then because of our involvement in the middle east, including the Gulf War, 9/11 and the Iraq war. The balance of trade is unfavorable, and the national debt is huge.

            After Bush, who greatly accelerated the process, there is really no denying the USA is a declining power. Simply wishing it weren’t so does not change reality.

            Glad you could throw an “anti Semite” in there, it’s your hallmark.

          • jim_m

            The US is in decline because leftists like you make it a self fulfilling prophecy. It doesn’t have to be in decline, but you want it to be so and you actively work to make it so.

            I mention the anti-Semitism because it is the one common feature of all the people you admire.

          • Commander_Chico

            No, the US is in decline because most Americans are stupid and profligate.

            This is what Carter said in his speech:

            In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning….I’m asking you for your good and for your nation’s security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel…. I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy-secure nation.

          • jim_m

            because most Americans are stupid and profligate.

            Leftist projection. I have no doubt that represents many of the people you know and associate with.

          • herddog505

            So-called because people have bought into the liberal agit-prop that’s made him responsible – SOLELY responsible – for everything from 9-11 to the housing meltdown to our present fiscal cliff.

  • Pingback: Benghazi “sloppiness” | Fausta's Blog

  • imtorqued

    He. Is. Insane. Who cares what label they want to slap on him. Psychopath, sociopath, malignant narcissist, hell I think he is every diagnosis in the book!

    He needs a lobotomy and a straight jacket and a constant IV drip of Haldol, Ativan and Thorazine.