As Reuters reported late Tuesday night, e-mails were sent to the White House situation room within two hours of the attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, that claimed the life of our our ambassador and three others. The e-mails prove that the White House was told within two hours that a terrorist group was claiming responsibility for the attack — with no mention of any mob-related activity.
We can dance around by calling it misleading, less than truthful, etc. We can even speculate as to why. But the simple fact is that the Obama White House lied about the Benghazi terrorist attacks. We were hit and hit hard. They knew it. The President knew it. Or should have known it. And they blamed it on a video.
Those who accuse me of being some sort of right-wing shill won’t like it, but the word that comes to mind? Disgusting.
It was received in the White House in the Situation Room. Thus the president’s staff knew within the first hour of the attack that the attack had begun, were wrongly told it was over, and of a claim of responsibility by al Qaeda-related terrorists, all within two hours. It was 9/11, and radical Islamists were claiming to have attacked a United States consulate. [emphasis mine]
If true, President Obama and his Administration knowingly misled the American people and the world to believe that the attack was a random act triggered by a video critical of Islam made by an American citizen. If they truly weren’t sure, they should have simply said they weren’t sure.
Chris Stirewalt of Fox News sums up the revolting quandry here:
State Department emails obtained by FOX News colleague Chad Pergram show that even as the fighting continued between Islamist militants and the tiny, doomed garrison at the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, high-ranking officials had reason to believe an al Qaeda was involved.
This comes on the heels of the revelation that top officials, and perhaps even the president himself, were able to watch the hours-long battle in real time as U.S. drone aircraft circled the besieged compound filming the slow-motion massacre.
The president knew, or ought to have known, about the involvement of al Qaeda and may have seen the attack unfold. In speeches the next day, he certainly suggested that he understood what had happened, referencing acts of terror in his Rose Garden remarks and then more explicitly calling the raid “terror” in a campaign speech in Las Vegas that night.
But then the administration and the president wheeled around and began focusing more on a YouTube video that was deemed offensive by Muslims. Rather than staying on his language about defiance in the face of terror and promising retribution, Team Obama backpedaled for two weeks, abandoning the president’s first posture.
That was a grave error.
Key questions now become:
- Why was the security there so light? A few Marines with bayonets might have come in very handy. It’s almost as if the choice had been made to ensure that Ambassador Steven’s mission there maintained a low profile. But why?
- Why was there not a military response? Perhaps this could be traced to the misinformation sent in one of the emails claiming the compound was secure. Yet given that the location was very close to a now-known CIA station, the likelihood is very high that eyes were on the events from above. We know for certain now that some were watching. So what kept us from sending in more help? Fear of drawing attention? Silence causes us to fill in the blanks with our worst fears.
- When was the President told of the claims by the terrorist group? If only someone in the WH press room would ask (attention Jake Tapper) on what credible sources did the President base his claim that the attack was triggered by a YouTube video when we now know that he had received evidence that it was, in fact, a terrorist attack? Look for someone to take the fall for this one in the coming days; but there’s just no way the White House Situation Room gets informed of these things and the President is not immediately told.
For what it’s worth, here’s my non-expert theory of what likely happened. Our Ambassador was doing something that the Administration did not want to draw attention to. (I’m not saying it was or was not legitimate). Hence the light security in a highly risky environment. When the attack began, the Administration hesitated, hoping that it would prove to be nothing. Early reports came back that it was under control. The Administration breathed a sigh of relief and went on its way, all too eager to accept the first response over the latter one claiming terrorist responsibility. Once the story had been dismissed, it became far more difficult to speak up in an Administration that doesn’t reward such transparent behavior.
We may never know what happened next, unless President Obama is somehow reelected. Then the congressional investigations will likely reveal some rather unpleasant truths about Benghazi and how the Administration handled the tragedy.
As I predicted last week, Benghazigate will dwarf Watergate by the time all has come into the light. I think the American people have a growing sense that this true and would rather not go through it all. I suspect this cover-up will confirm their desire to go another direction based on economic reasons in twelve days.
Even though they may not fully understand all the details, they know enough to know that something’s fuzzy in the District of Columbia. And they’d really rather not get into it.
Truth be told, I’m not so sure I want to know. I find the failure in leadership to be stomach-turning as I think of our ambassador suffocating to death and our President telling us — and the world — that it was all because of an American making a stupid video.
Yet another apology.
Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.