Georgia Voices: Lies pile atop lies in explanation of Libya attacks
by The Augusta Chronicle
October 16, 2012 12:00 AM | 1497 views | 3 3 comments | 8 8 recommendations | email to a friend | print
When does presidential malfeasance become a scandal? Answer: Probably at the point where something bad has happened and no amount of explanations over several weeks seems to answer the questions or, sometimes, even make sense.

By that standard, the Obama administration’s juvenile and contradiction-filled changing explanations over the lack of security at the Libyan embassy, and just what took place there that led to the deaths of four Americans, is a fully involved barnburner of a scandal.

First, understand that it is now known, despite repeated protestations to the contrary, that the Obama administration was well aware early on that information pointed to a planned and coordinated al-Qaida-style terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi Sept. 11 that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others.

Nonetheless, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice went on television with firm assurances days later that information indicated the attack was a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video on the Internet. White House spokesman Jay Carney did too.

And now the administration not only admits none of it is true — and that it was a terrorist attack — but also says it never said the video was the likely culprit. Even though they said it all on camera.

“It’s pretty clear the State Department, now caught in a lie, is responding with yet another lie,” a Republican foreign policy adviser told The Washington Post.

Moreover, officials now admit there wasn’t even a protest outside the embassy before it was attacked.

Did the Kremlin take over the White House? Isn’t this a Soviet Union-style set of bald-faced lies and fairy tales?

In addition, information has revealed that embassy personnel practically begged for increased security well in advance of the attack, and that the requests were denied.

“The State Department,” wrote the Washington Post, “acknowledged Wednesday that it rejected appeals for more security at its diplomatic posts in Libya in the months before

a fatal terrorist attack in Benghazi.”

Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, formerly involved in security at the

embassy, said security there was “weak.”

“The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there,” he told a congressional panel. “Diplomatic security remained weak.”

Eric Nordstrom, a former regional security officer, twice asked for more security and was ignored by the Obama administration. Nordstrom termed security there “inappropriately low.”

Some are suggesting the Obama administration avoided security infrastructure and manpower in order to provide an appearance of “normalization” of relations and of the security situation. But there were repeated incidents in the months leading up to the attack.

It seems clear enough now that the attack on Sept. 11 was planned to coincide with the anniversary of the 2001 attacks on America — and that the Obama administration was wholly unprepared.

Then, in the aftermath, the administration has repeatedly lied through its teeth — not only about what it believed was behind the Libyan embassy attack, but also — unbelievably — about having said it to begin with.

They’re hoping the media will move on, that you’re not smart enough to smell a lie that’s put right in front of your nose, and that they can kick this scandal past the Nov. 6 election.

It’s hard to remember more blatant lies coming out of a government in this country.

The level of truth telling at the White House appears to be the same as the level of security in Benghazi:

Inappropriately low.
Comments
(3)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Bob Stewart
|
October 21, 2012
Obama and Benghazi

A drone strike killed Abu Yahya al- Libi in Pakistan

Given Barack Obama’s fetish to apologize to our enemies, it is my thoughts that, “The Apologizer And Chief” asked Libya if they would accept his apology for killing al Qaeda No. 2 leader, who was from Libya. I think the Libyans said no, but will trade blood for blood. Ambassador Chris Stephens was that blood. Obama provide the cover, by not allowing security for the Consulate in Libya.

The movie trailer Innocence of Muslims was probably found by one of Obama’s advisors and alerted him to watch it. Given Mr. Obama’s Islamic background training in Indonesia, he was the one who was outraged and used it to cover his trade.
Devlin Adams
|
October 16, 2012
Foley, are you trying to excuse this by blaming a budget cut? How utterly stupid! Obama has complete control over the best trained military forces in the world. It would haev cost very little to have moved a company of Marines into each embassy area perceived to be in danger on 9-11. It was not like it was secret.

Sorry, but your argument is weak, as are most of your arguments.

By the Way, I note our brave President is now hiding behind a woman's skirts.

Kevin Foley
|
October 16, 2012
Here's a small fact that escaped the Chronicle's editorial board: The same Republicans conducting their cheap political investigation cut the State Department budget by a $500 million.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides