Official Obama White House Benghazi Narrative Implodes

It’s not often that you find a real “smoking gun” in politics, because most political operatives are very careful about not a leaving paper trail.

But it looks like we have a genuine example with respect to the White House cover-up surrounding the September 11, 2012 attack on the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya by al Qaeda-affiliated forces that resulted in the death of four US personnel.

In an email made public by Judicial Watch, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, lays out a plan for Susan Rice and other Administration spokespeople “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

Coincidentally, Ben Rhodes is the brother of the president of CBS News, David Rhodes.

Of course, Administration officials knew within 15 minutes after the embassy attack started that it was a planned, terrorist-led assault.  The most likely reason that they chose not to send security reinforcements (which could have repelled an attack, but would have started a significant firefight with numerous casualties) or rescue our embassy personnel after the attack had already started (which carried a significant risk of complications or failure) was that these actions could have resulted in the exposure of covert arms trading involving al Qaeda-affiliated rebels that had been supervised by the United States.

Earlier during the same day, protesters scaled the walls of the US Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, and attempted to tear down the American flag and replace it with a banner condemning a movie considered blasphemous and insulting to the Prophet Mohammed.  A Reuters news report describing the Cairo protest notes, “It was not immediately clear which film angered protesters.”   But soon a video that had been uploaded to YouTube was identified as the source of the protests, and the US Embassy issued a statement condemning it.

And there you have it – the perfect cover story for the Benghazi terrorist attack.  In a remarkable feat of political spin, the White House and State Department created a completely fictional narrative about a YouTube video whipping the crowd into an uncontrollable frenzy, which resulted in the destruction of our embassy in Benghazi.  How convenient.  And in a staged spectacle right out of a Soviet-era propaganda film, the Administration had the filmmaker arrested, charged, and sentenced to a year in jail.

The Obama Administration stuck to this fictional account for nearly two weeks, until overwhelming evidence pointed to terrorist involvement.  Then they tried to blame the CIA, or they tried to claim that President Obama’s single vague reference to “acts of terror” in a speech in the Rose Garden somehow negated two weeks and dozens of claims by various Administration officials that the Benghazi attack started as a riot over an offensive YouTube video and was not terrorism.

Now we know the truth.  As was long suspected, political spin was far more important to Administration officials than either honesty or regard for the lives of American citizens.  The accidental divulging of US involvement in arms shipments to al Qaeda-affiliated rebels in Libya (and possibly Syria) would have been political suicide during an election year, as would the acknowledgement that al Qaeda was organized enough to destroy an American embassy.  The official Obama campaign propaganda stated quite clearly that Osama bin Laden was dead and al Qaeda was on the run.  And that was the story that the Administration chose to stick with.

But as serious as that is, what we really need to know about is the extent of secret American arms dealings in the Middle East.  This story has the potential to make Iran-Contra look like a Sunday School picnic.  For our government to choose to let four citizens (a loyal State Department official and three security personnel) die rather than risk the exposure of their mission if a rescue attempt failed, tells me that we had gotten up to our eyeballs in a bad situation that we had no business being a part of.

The collapse of the White House’s phony video lie is a good start, but we need to keep digging and find out what the State Department (and the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton) were really up to.  We owe ourselves at least that much.

Shortlink:

Posted by on May 2, 2014.
Filed under Benghazi, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Hillary Clinton, Media Whores.
Tagged with: .


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Paul Hooson

    Whether it was Pearl Harbor, the Lebanon Marine barracks attack, 9-11 or Benghazi, there’s always a lot of after thoughts and what-ifs that linger. If each incident results in improved intelligence or security to prevent similar attacks, then there was at least some value in learning. The staffers at the Embassy actually had a good escape plan, involving underground tunnel paths out, but the mob violence was too great to save the small lightly armed group. And air cover backups were just too many miles away to help either. Didn’t some al Qaeda related elements use the guise of the street mobs opposing that controversial YouTube video to stage this attack?

    • LiberalNightmare

      Pearl Harbor, Lebanon, 9-11, underground tunnels and air cover.

      All that, but nothing about withholding documents from a congressional investigation, or evidence that the white house was involved in shaping a lie that the same white house has consistantly denied for 2 years, not to mention an implication that the administration was shipping arms to al-queda?

      Maybe Im reading the wrong post.

    • jim_m

      Typical lefty response to say, “Oh Look a shiny!”. “LEBANON!!!” No one can criticize a dem for failure because of the Marine barracks bombing.

      Sorry. This was a failure and the admin needs to be held accountable. Your dissatisfaction that Reagan was not sufficiently blamed is not an excuse to let this pass. In fact your claims that past incidents were not sufficiently investigated and punished is THE reason for pursuing this now.

      As to not being able to make any military response even the military is now calling bullshit

      Retired Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell, who at the time of the attacks was the deputy intelligence director at U.S. Africa Command, questioned the merits of the ongoing debate over whether U.S. military forces could have responded in time. Leading Pentagon and other military officials previously have argued that additional U.S. assets were not deployed to assist Americans under attack that night because they weren’t close enough.

      “The point is we should have tried,” Lovell told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in his opening statement. “As another saying goes — always move to the sound of the guns.”

      He later said the military “could have made a response of some sort.” Lovell, who was stationed in Germany during the attack, made clear repeatedly that the military was waiting for clearance from the State Department to intervene in Benghazi.

      Face it. obama hates America and is willing to let Americans die in order to protect himself. We simply haven’t found out how many he is willing to have die and if there are any limits to that. I’ll bet that there are none.

      • Commander_Chico

        This guy was the Deputy J2 but can’t say what “response of some sort” should have been made.

        All generals are political. This guy got passed over for O-8 while at AFRICOM. Now it’s time for revenge. For all we know, he’s the guy who fucked up the intel. But that would be classified.

        • jim_m

          All generals are political which is why this guy, who is retired, is willing to tell the truth , whereas those who are still in the military are unwilling to speak out lest they get the same treatment as Petreaus or Sinclair.

          • Commander_Chico

            So what was the “response of some sort?”

            After retirement is also a time for settling scores.

          • jim_m

            One assumes that even if the lives could not have been saved making some sort of military response in support of them, even if late, would have been better than the cowardly, supine pose that obama took.

            That is the point. We are supposed to try to save our people not just let them be slaughtered. I suppose that somehow you missed that lesson in your military training.

          • Commander_Chico

            There was a military response. Forces were alerted and prepared. There was not enough time. I wish you had the basic timeline straight.

    • Constitution First

      Point is, they lied. They hung those poor people out to dry then lied about it. What part of that are you missing?
      We won’t even get into the fact they were dealing weapons to terrorists out of the embassy, or protection for staff was repeatedly turned down…

  • Hank_M

    The bottom line here is that the Obama administration decided to lie (again) to the American public in order to avoid political repercussions that might affect the upcoming election.
    They lied everywhere, repeatedly and when called on it, Clinton expressed exactly what she, Obama and the rest of the administration think of American citizens, diplomats and the armed forces – “what difference does it make” when our political carreers are on the line.
    I don’t think I’ve ever seen elected and appointed “officials” display such open and brazen comtempt for the people they’re suppose to be leading.

    • jim_m

      The obama admin had decided to lie to America BEFORE Bengazi happened because they had decided that as a matter of policy there could be nothing going wrong in Libya because to make such an admission would be to say that obama’s Libya policy had failed,

      So all warnings were ignored, obama never showed up at the situation room when the assault on the embassy was going on and the first order of business was to find an excuse to shift the blame.

      Despicable does not begin to describe their behavior.

      • fustian24

        I’ve never bought the argument that the Obama administration was afraid that the mere news of a terrorist attack would cost them the election.

        I think it helps to look at this from Hillary’s perspective. She’d been told there was a security problem in Benghazi for a long time and for whatever reason had been ignoring it. An attack on a virtually unprotected embassy means that she was foolishly and incompetently wrong. In an instant it must have been clear that her political future was potentially gone.

        As the night wore on the administration problem deepened. They had done nothing to respond to the attack. Worse, this may have been intentional. I figure that there is at least one other problem with Benghazi beyond Hillary’s obvious incompetence.

        Either the administration was running something fishy out of Benghazi they still don’t want to come out (gun running has been rumored), or they actually did have military assets in place and failed to use them.

        One early report from eyewitnesses said that the marines there exposed themselves to enemy fire to laser target the terrorists in a heroic act that got them killed. There is no point in laser targeting anything unless those two Marines believed there were aircraft overhead.

        And this would explain why the survivors of Benghazi have been harder to find than the passengers on the Malaysia jetliner. It will be very interesting to see how long those people can be hidden.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      There was a certain expectation of competence as far as Obama went. Hell, I was even fairly sure he had enough on the ball to be President, because the idea that someone completely unqualified could be elected was ridiculous.

      Fuck, I wish I’d been right and that he was ‘all that, and a bag of chips’ as the Brits say.

      • Hank_M

        I completely agree. And further, I so hoped it would help us past the racial problems of the past.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          As long as they could be used for political gain, there’s nothing to be gained in getting past them.

      • jim_m

        obama has what every lefty believes is the be all and end all of guarantees of competence. He has an Ivy League BA, a Harvard Law degree, he was a university professor (OK he was only an adjunct lecturer but they claim he was a professor).

        With proper credentials the left assumes that you have the actual ability despite your never actually having had to do anything. Plus, as a minority, obama’s credentials could never be questioned because to do so would be racist. In fact his skin color makes him immune to any sort of questioning or doubt according to the left.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          Those who can, do.
          Those who cannot, lecture.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          Having known far too many MCSE (Microsoft Certified Software Engineers) who learned enough to pass the certifications but couldn’t figure out which end of a screwdriver to grab to get into the server to pull out a hard drive (“You don’t try to pull the drive until AFTER shutting the damn thing down – not all drives are hot-swappable, you dimwit!” – verbatim bit of ‘instruction’ I had to give a brand new MCSE who was getting paid twice what I was at the time…) – I learned long ago certifications didn’t mean squat.

          Beware the computer tech who doesn’t have one at home…

          God, were we scammed… :(

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    The marks are finally wising up – at least some of them… and it’s occurring to some of the media that just maybe the deity they’ve been worshiping hasn’t exactly been worthy of the adoration and protective worship they’ve been bestowing on him.

    The thing about lying is that you’ve got to cover up the lies – and that can get you into more trouble than if you’d told the truth in the first place.

    But Obama doesn’t seem to know how to tell the truth. This isn’t uncommon for a politician, but at some point you’d think that it’d penetrate that reflexive lying is going to lose him and his party more than it gains.

    • Commander_Chico

      Lying to cover up a CIA and DOD covert operation. Benghazi: The Definitive Report posits that the attack was revenge for SOC raids on Ansar Al Sharia that Ambassador Stevens did not know about. It seems plausible. Also, they were shipping weapons from Libya to Syria.

      http://nypost.com/2013/02/10/the-secret-war-behind-benghazi/

      Just another incident in the wars. Maybe killing people who weren’t directly threatening you, and you formerly supported, based on their beliefs is a bad idea. Who cares if they want sharia law in Libya?

      Chico was in Benghazi earlier this year on biz, trusted local guides pointed out an Al Qaeda flag on top of an apartment building to him and took detours to avoid Ansar Al Sharia checkpoints. From what Chico saw it’s an undistinguished city, nice location on the Med though. Been to Tripoli, too. What was surprising about Libya is how many building projects Ghaddafi had going on – maybe he wasn’t such a bad guy after all. Of course they’re all stopped now, rebars are rusting inside unfinished cast concrete.

      • jim_m

        Wait, I thought that this was all about the video. Don’t think that we have all forgotten how up until this very moment you have screeched about how this was all due to the video.

        Yes, this is what obama calls victory. Haven’t you noticed? The whole reason for the lie about the video was because this was already going on and obama could not countenance anyone questioning that these nations were falling into chaos.

        • Commander_Chico

          It might have been partly about the video, too. Video would have pissed off Ansar Al Sharia, but killing them in assassination raids would have pissed them off more.

          My own opinion is that chaos is the goal of all of these operations – Iraq, Syria, Libya.

          http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2014/05/httpwwwbbccomnewsworld-middle-east-24403003.html

          .

          • jim_m

            Don’t worry. You don’t have to admit that you were a complete stooge of the obama admin, backing their lies like a complete moron. We all know you did.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            C’mon Chico – within hours of the attack, the State Department, the CIA and DoD all attributed the attack to terrorists, not video demonstrators run amok. Thus, the “best available evidence” did not mention the video. That was an election year lie to cover-up Obama’s failing policies – sort like “If you like your ambassador to Libya, you can keep him.”

            http://www.sharylattkisson.com

            http://www.powerlineblog.com/a

          • Commander_Chico

            “Terrorists” motivated by the video. “Terrorists” is a bullshit word used in that context, anyways. We are operating in their country.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Really, Chico? You don’t like the word terrorist in this context? It’s the word everyone, including Candy Crowley and Obama, uses to differentiate between demonstrations against a video run amok [your story] and a pre-planned attack. That’s not a very big squirrel you’re shouting about.

          • Commander_Chico

            If there had been covert raids against Ansar Al Sharia going on before, do you expect the USG would say “Yeah they attacked us because we were attacking and killing them.” Would the people we were killing be “terrorists” in the absence of anything but the possession of weapons and Salafi beliefs?

            They were over in Libya. Did they attack the Benghazi mission because they were “terrorists” or because there were SOF raids attacking them before they attacked?

            Take a step back and don’t get sucked into the propaganda.

          • jim_m

            I would expect them to not be promulgating the lie that everything was wine and roses in the middle east and that “al qaeda is on the run”. It was the need to protect this false narrative in the belief that its failure would cost them the election that drove the raft of lies and propaganda from obama and his lackeys (like you, Chico).

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You ask: “Did they attack the Benghazi mission because they were “terrorists” or because there were SOF raids attacking them before they attacked?”
            I don’t know – in either event, it demonstrated the folly of Obama’s policies.
            What I do know is that they weren’t overwrought demonstrators – and so did the CIA, State Department and the DoD. They knew it was a pre-planned attack – which belied Obama’s “Al Qaeda is on the run” election spiel.
            Obama and Hillary then went on a PR offensive, apologizing for our First Amendment and lying to the parents of our dead in front of their coffins – all so Obama could be re-elected. Watergate looks benign in comparison.

          • Commander_Chico

            It’s part of the war. Whether the war is foolish you can decide. I think it is. But I am not surprised they didn’t announce that the USA was sending assassination teams into Libya before Benghazi.

            And, again: if 4 Americans killed in Benghazi demonstrated the “folly of Obama’s policies,” what do the 4300+ killed in Iraq during Bush’s time demonstrate?

          • jim_m

            Really? SO you consider embassy staff to be the equivalent of armed military in a war zone? You expect that a State dept staffer should be the same as our infantry and special forces? You’re a lying ass.

          • Commander_Chico

            I know you put low value on military lives, being a snob who never served.

            Just because you join the military does not mean your life is to be wasted.

          • jim_m

            It’s not that I put a low value on military lives. It’s that I actually put a value on non-military lives , something you do not do. I suppose in that regard I value military lives less because I also value other lives, so when you compare the live of a soldier to something of value it may seem to be worth less than when you compare the life of a soldier to something that has not value at all.

            I don’t put zero value on military lives but I do come with the expectation that certain activities that the military participates in, like war for instance, have a high likelihood of injury or death associated with them. Since the military is an all volunteer, professional organization the people who are at risk should have that expectation as well and we should not be surprised when it happens.

            I believe that all lives have value not just the military and certainly I believe that military lives are worth more than parasitic a-holes like you who joined for the benefits and not because you wanted to serve this country as you have admitted on multiple occasions.

          • Commander_Chico

            Give me a break.

            Recruits with or without HS education who joined at age 18 on recruiter’s lies/promises vs mature well educated diplomats and Tier 1 CIA paramilitary contractors who are fully informed (have TC/SCI clearances), and can turn down assignment or quit at any time.

            Who has greater knowledge to assume the risk, volunteer agency, and autonomy to make the choice?

            I know you’ve lived a sheltered existence, but Tier 1 CIA paramilitary contractors in particular don’t go to safe places or do safe things.

          • jim_m

            So your claim is that 18 YO’s entering into military service have NO idea that military service could involve them in a war? Your claim is staggering in its dishonesty.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Well – when you consider that the local Exchange no longer is allowed to sell adult magazines, tobacco consumption in the military is discouraged, and alcohol ‘abuse’ that would have gotten a ‘You stupid shit, don’t come into work hung over like this again’ in the ’70s is now practically prohibited – there’s a strong argument to be made that the ‘powers that be’ in the administration see the average military member as having the discernment and judgment of a not particularly bright 16 year old… no matter how old they actually are.

            (Then again, who needs to buy Penthouse and Playboy when you’ve got wifi? For the articles?)

            When I joined in the ’70s, things were different. (Shrug.)

            Times change – but the idea that someone signing up now isn’t aware we’re at war, and thinking his shiny little butt isn’t ever going to be in more hazard than having a drill instructor yell at him is pretty ridiculous.

          • Commander_Chico

            There were and probably still are troops who were told by their recruiter that their MOS would keep them out of the war zone. Obviously this does not apply to your infantry enlistees.

            I am in total agreement on the social climate in the military. It can’t be fun anymore.

          • Commander_Chico

            No, your claim was that CIA paramilitaries and diplomats posted to an unstable country do not know they are putting their lives at risk at least as much as military do.

          • jim_m

            I think that that is an accurate assumption that someone working inside an embassy or consulate is not as at risk as someone on the front lines of a war.

            Are you really such a dumbass to think that a desk job is as dangerous as the infantry? WTF Chico? are you really that dishonest that you think that some desk jockey from the State Dept is in as dangerous a job as the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division in Afghanistan?

            It’s not even worth arguing about. You’re irrational. Just take your benes and get yourself some psychiatric care. You obviously need it.

          • Commander_Chico

            “I think it is an accurate assumption” lol

            CIA paramilitary is a desk job? Several ambassadors and other diplomats have been killed, including in Iraq and Afghanistan; it is not a “desk job.”

          • jim_m

            Chief consul is a desk job. You knew exactly who I was speaking about. It just goes to show how dishonest a debater you are.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Which vertebrae?

      • Constitution First

        I heard about the gun running in MIL blogs within days of the attack. Weapons and ammo are the only real currency in the ME.
        I also hear there was high friction between the CIA and the State Dept. as to who controlled the flow and who got the goods. That it was the main reason Stevens was there that day, sorting out the weapons flow… and why he insisted on more protection, bad people knew there were weapons for the taking. Seems that was the main goal of the assault, as the first thing they did was make a bee-line to the weapons depot.
        You’ve got to wonder… where did they get their intel?

        • Commander_Chico

          From the locals working for the CIA and DOS, including the militias who were contracted to protect the compound.

  • stan25

    This email is the straw that broke the camel’s back. One could say this email is the equivalent of the Watergate tapes. Now that this email shows that Obama and Whitehouse staff fabircated the video story about the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate, there ought to be some prosecutions, but alas, with Eric Holder covering Obama’s backside, that will not happen any time soon.

    • Hank_M

      We can only hope this is the straw….
      But with the MSM we have today, I really have my doubts.

  • GarandFan

    The attacks when on for over 8 hours…..but not to worry, King Barack got a good night’s sleep.

    • jim_m

      I’m sure he made his tee time.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      The emergency call came in and the *[P]resident rolled over and went back to sleep.

  • Crystallite

    Tommy Vietor (“dude”) gave it away when he said Barry was in the WH that night, but when pressed by Bret Baier, said that he did not have a tracking device on Barry in the residence. So apparently Barry was in the private residence of the WH and not in either the Situation Room or the Oval Office while our Benghazi compound and annex were being attacked. It’s nice to be so clear-headed, isn’t it?

    • Hank_M

      He’s the one who said “Dude, this was like two years ago.”
      Nice to see adults in charge /sarc/

  • helloevrysjlc

    And then the dik gave a speech at UN, “noone should slander the prophetZ” That azzhole.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    Alas, the LIV demographic wouldn’t know Benghazi from Benihana, inner city blacks nevertheless will vote 90-10 for Hillary, even if she turned up on videotape admitting to the cover up, and then you still have the unions, the Jon Stewart waste cases and the Sandra Fluke demographic with which to deal. Factor in the non-voting conservative poseur demographic and the religious nuts and the prospects for 2016 and thereafter at best are quite bleak. Sad but true.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      You can spare yourself the horror by opening your veins now…

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Rodney, Rodney, Rodney.

      • jim_m

        Really, Rodney, this would serve no good purpose unless he captures it on video for our amusement.

    • Commander_Chico

      Jon Stewart is a great American.

  • Ma’Balz Es-Hari

    Proof positive (once again) that the political machine knows no bounds and will willingly sacrifice American lives to further it’s agenda. Liberals have blood on their hands. It’s beyond time they be held accountable!!!

  • Jon Slater

    it’s just one lie after another. i wounder how obama will explain this new footage http://youtu.be/Pdxlo_Jyq7g