But perhaps the most damning testimony is due to come from Thompson. He will supposedly accuse then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of purposely trying to cut the State Department’s counter-terrorism division out of the loop in the first days after the attack. Thompson posits that Clinton did this because she was unwilling to portray the attack as an act of terrorism. Thompson’s statements supposedly echo those of another state department official.
Now that it is essentially undeniable that the Obama administration has blatantly and nonsensically lied to the American public, even members of the president’s own party are hopping on the dog pile. Congressional Democrats can smell the blood in the water. Maryland Rep. Dutch Ruppersbrerger, a major player on the House Intelligence Committee, admitted that Ambassador Rice lied to the American people. Massachusetts Rep. Steve Lynch said the administration gave us “false information” which was “totally inaccurate.”
It seems that the media (particularly conservative veins like Fox News and The Weekly Standard) really caught Obama this time. So what will happen next? In the finest tradition of Chicago politics, they will find a scapegoat and heap all their troubles upon it. They will throw Hillary Clinton under the bus.
Not that she probably doesn’t deserve it, but it seems doubtful that she entirely made the decision to deny the Bengahzi attack was planned. It is Obama that had the most to lose by admitting that Al-Qaeda may have murdered Chris Stevens. At the time the president’s favorite phrase was “Al-Qaeda is on the run.” Guys on the run don’t typically make frontal assaults on American embassies.
And we shouldn’t forget that, when all of this came to pass, Obama and Romney were still in the thick of a presidential election slugfest. Obama must have known that admitting Al-Qaeda might have had a hand in the Benghazi attack would make his “On The Run” talking point into a grim reminder of “Mission Accomplished.”
So much for Obama’s promised transparency. The only thing transparent here are his tactics.
12 Comments
There was a turning point in the presidential debates in 2008 when Mitt Romney thought that he had caught Obama in a ‘gotcha moment’ concerning the Benghazi attack.
But, Mitt Romney’s “facts” had been filtered through Fox News propaganda which is to say that his facts were wrong, and the president uttered those now famous words…Please proceed governor…
The attack on Behghazi took place on the evening of September 11, 2008. The next morning, at 10:43 President Obama addressed the nation from the Rose Garden with details about the attack. Among his comments was the following:
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”
To say that the Obama administration refused to call the attack “terror” is to ignore the president’s own words the morning after the attack.
The attack on Benghazi was a tragedy, and mistakes were made, but unfortunately those things happen.
But, Republicans are selective in their outrage. Where was their outrage in 2002 when the US Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan was attacked and 10 were killed? Or how about in 2004 when the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and nine were injured? Or how about when the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was attacked that same year and 8 were killed? In 2006 when one was killed in an attack on the US Embassy in Syria? Or in 2007 when the US Embassy in Athens was attacked? Or the attacks in 2008 on the US Embassies in Serbia and Yemen in which 10 lost their lives?
Republican outrage is selective, in deed. They couldn’t make political hay out of the tragedies that occurred on President Bush’s watch, so they simply ignored them. Now that President Obama has had an embassy attack on his watch, they simply can’t resist the opportunity to politicize it.
Correction. The Romney/Obama debate was in 2012. My mistake.
Actually if you read and listened to Obama’s speech IN CONTEXT it was a speech that mentioned various acts of terror. He never specified that Benghazi was an act of terror in his speech. That meant Obama was not clear about Benghazi. Don’t go by the Left-wing media’s interpretation of his words, LISTEN to the whole speech and then decide.
Nevertheless, Romney missed an opportunity. Let’s say that IN CONTEXT Obama DID call Benghazi “terrorism” during the speech. If Obama knew that it was terrorism, why did he and his administration go around calling it a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video? If Obama knew it was an act of terror, then why mislead the American people? Why were State Dept. officials lying on TV saying it was not terror?
Aside from all the lies and cover-up after the incident, why didn’t the Libyan embassy get the extra security it begged for? Why was the military told to stand down when it was under fire? THOSE are the important questions. That’s why this is an issue. It’s not just that an embassy was left unprotected, it was that the government actively prevented assistance when it was under attack. That, to many, is simply unforgivable.
IN CONTEXT??? It was the morning after the Benghazi attack. Obama was speaking directly about the attack. The Benghazi attack WAS THE CONTEXT in which he was speaking.
The GOP has had numerous hearings and investigations into the Benghazi attack and it’s still not clear what the big scandal is supposed to be. The one thing that is clear to most Americans is that the GOP is engaged in a classic witch-hunt that is based solely on their hatred for Obama and Clinton, rather than improving embassy security. It is blatantly political.
Yes, IN CONTEXT. That’s when you read a piece in its entirety with an understanding of who it was addressed to and when and why it was given. The fact is you didn’t address why the Obama administration refused to label the event terrorism when people like Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton went on TV to discuss it. They called it a spontaneous uprising in response to a YouTube video. A little inconsistent, wouldn’t you say?
Yes, the GOP has had hearings where the Obama administration staff lied and covered up. Unlike the Watergate witch-hunt where nobody died, this is only a partisan investigation because the Dems are covering up for their boss. Don’t talk about hatred when the Dems have hated every Republican in existence since Abraham Lincoln. The Dems hated Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Bush one and two. The Democratic Party is the Party of Hate. They wrote the book on hate. If the Dems cared about truth the investigation wouldn’t be partisan at all. Only now is the rest of the media catching up. Read the latest from Jake Tapper of ABC News. Read Maureen Dowd of the New York Times. Even CNN. Yeah, those GOP hacks Tapper and Dowd. Pay attention and watch the questioning of Obama spokeshole Jay Carney as he tried to lie and weasel his way through another press conference. You can only pee on the media’s leg so many times before they realize it’s not raining, and the other day they caught on.
The fact is that there is a problem with the Obama administration not providing protection to an embassy in Libya when things got dangerous and they begged for extra security. Then once they were under attack the Obama administration refused to give them any assistance. A few Special Ops guys took it upon themselves to disregard orders and help. They died as heroes as they led others to safety. Then instead of telling the American people the truth Obama and his people blamed it on a silly video that most people never heard of until then. When a State Dept. staffer asks a question to a White House lawyer the State Department Counsel Cheryl Mills demands his demotion. That is corruption, pure and simple. We have three NONPARTISAN whistleblowers who testify about the corruption and cover-up after they were punished for doing their jobs.
So yes, it IS blatantly political, but only because the left-wing Democrats who prefer to lie and cover-up made it that way.
Come on Teddy…name one “new” piece of evidence from this hearing. I dare you to write a piece on the hearing after it happens. You won’t because there won’t be anything new to write about.
You hate Obama so bad it’s clouding your judgement. That is evident to any independent following this thing. This only cheapens the already K-Mart style brand the GOP has in the national dialogue right now.
Nothing logical in that post. There are a lot of independents who can plainly see that the Democratic Party is in full cover-up mode. Hicks told the truth to power and was demoted for it. If a similar thing would have happened during a Republican administration the lamestream media would have been all over it. These days ABC spares only a few seconds coverage while ultra left-wing MSNBC — clearly taking orders from the thugs at Media Matters — mentions it in the context of criticizing Fox News for covering the story. Meanwhile the blatantly unfunny left-wing hacks on Comedy Central sound like MSNBC — at least in between taking breaths from giving Obama blow-jobs.
As for cheapened journalism, at least Fox practices it in some form, unlike the dumpster divers at MSNBC, ABC, MTV, CBS, NBC and CNN. They worship the Democratic Party and wouldn’t touch anything critical of Obama or Hillary Clinton with a 10-mile pole. (How dare those Fox New people report the truth!) Funny how the Left-wing ignores all the hate that was heaped on George W. Bush and all the members of his administration. THAT was real hate. The Left-wing even published a series of “I Hate…” books. So blatant and in your face, yet a few years later forgotten as if it never happened.
blah blah blah “we are victims bias, bias, bias.”
This is why no one takes the far right seriously especially when they claim they are the party of “personal responsibility.” You need to stop crying and start taking responsibility for why there is so much bias against the far right.
There is a reason that everything from the mainstream media to academia to mainstream culture is bias against you–a long history of hate and and puritanical rhetoric that never has any basis in reality.
I haven’t said anything about the far right. What far right groups are you talking about? Neo-Nazis? You must be thinking of a different conversation.
As for bias, they evidence for pro-Democrat and pro-left wing bias is overwhelming. If ultra far-lefties like yourself want to keep your head buried in the sand or your nether regions and keep on denying reality then there’s no chance of reasoning with you. Contrary to your nick, there’s no logic in your thinking.
Funny you bring up hate when it’s your side that is so full of it. The Democratic Party and the Left-wing are the parties of hate and hatemongering. Then when you disagree with them they call you a hater. Not only is it an example of psychological projection, but it’s hypocritical.
What far right? Who wrote anything about the far right? You must be thinking of another post in a different forum because I don’t see any posts about the far right here.
As for hate, that’s what the left-wing is all about. Name-calling, insults, lies, fabrications, distortions, ad hominem attacks. When the Democratic Party was founded it was the party of slavery and now it’s the party of abortion and racism. That’s a real long history of hate. Why doesn’t the left-wing take responsibility for that?
Here it is, not even two weeks after Teddy’s column and the great reconstituted Benghazi!!! scandal has turned out to be a dud. As a side note it has spawned its own mini-scandal surrounding the circumstances in which ABC News doofus Jonathan Karl took the word of a Republican operative as to the content and context of official government Benghazi!!! emails. Karl played the fool for the GOP and now that everyone knows the actual content of those emails, the Benghazi!!! scandal has been downgraded to tempest-in-a-teapot status.
The GOP, for its part, seem to have abandoned the Benghazi!!! scandal and moved on to other scandals in the hopes that they will hit on a winner. They won’t. Sure, they will generate a lot of heat, but no light, and more importantly no actionable impeachment material against the president. All the GOP will have to show for this when all is said and done will be talking points that the right-wing media echo-chamber will continue to beat like a dead-horse. Oh, and fund-raising material.
But do they actually have something that is going to cause Obama to leave office early in disgrace, or more importantly prevent Hillary Clinton from winning in 2016 if she chooses to run? No, they do not. Typical GOP smoke and mirrors.
We got attacked. The president and his administration did not have any idea as to what had happened. They answered the press incorrectly while trying to give answers and now this is a scandal?
I am an ex-fan of Obama and have little confidence in his Mideast policies. This route of attacking him is bullshit and needs to stop. Let’s get out of the sandbox and deal with things that matter. People that care about our country need to focus on real issues, not squabbling that distracts and leads to the constant lowering of the bar.