Image 01 Image 03

Forbes, CNN destroy Obama administration’s Benghazi lie

Forbes, CNN destroy Obama administration’s Benghazi lie

Forbes contributor, Larry Bell, released an article late last night entitled, “Pants On Fire: Obama Administration Scrambles for Cover as Benghazi Lie Explodes.”

The article, drawing on reports from CNN, reveals a picture the Obama administration is desperately trying to sweep under the rug.

President Obama’s foreign policy is an absolute disaster.

Moreover, the things the Obama administration has told the American people in the days since September 11th reveal either gross incompetence, or willful deception. Perhaps, even, a combination of the two. [Emphasis added]

For more than a week after the Benghazi attack, the Obama administration which pledged to be the “most transparent administration in history”, continued to maintain a ruse that the outbreak of violence was nothing more than a spur-of-the-moment protest in response to the offensive video. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeated the fiction, and White House press spokesman Jay Carney told us all that there was “no evidence” that this was a “preplanned or premeditated attack.”

An October 2nd CNN report disagreed. It revealed that the administration repeatedly sent out talking points that contradicted top intelligence officials and sources for the network on the details of what caused the attack. It also said that: “CNN has learned tonight that the White House chose to leave out key intelligence from the attacks on Americans in Libya. There are three things U.S. intelligence has now confirmed to be true: the attacks were preplanned, terrorist attacks, and the work of Al-Qaeda- linked groups. None of these three points were in talking points distributed to congress and other government officials. U.S. intelligence knew of the al-Qaeda link within 24 hours of the attacks. And the now infamous comments by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice that the attacks were not preplanned and not the work of terror came four days after that. This doesn’t add up.”

In addition to absolutely no evidence that the attack was connected to any objectionable video, information released in a letter from Representative Darrell Issa to Secretary of State Clinton shows that the situation in Libya had been deteriorating for months. It reads: “Based on information provided to the committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012.”

This is unacceptable behavior from a sitting administration. By any objective viewing of the facts, the Obama administration has deliberately misled the American people in an attempt to shield their claims of foreign policy superiority from scrutiny in the months leading up to the election.

What’s more, as Bell points out, this is no isolated incident. The shooting at Fort Hood, the 2009 Christmas Day bomber, and the assassination attempt on the Saudi Ambassador in D.C. all have links the al-Qaeda network.

Yet this reality contradicts the narrative President Obama has been pushing about his foreign policy experience, so the acts were said to have been singular and uncoordinated incidents of violence.

Bell notes this connection.

Finally, carefully contemplate what Obama said in his speech before the Democratic National Convention: “My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy. But from all that we’ve seen and heard they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so deeply.”

Is it possible that the past blustering and blundering he referred to is really his own, and that we might truly be ready for new foreign policy leadership after all?

The American people don’t deserve to be jerked around by the Obama administration just so it can save face.

We deserve better.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Charles Curran | October 15, 2012 at 12:27 pm

The question is: How many voters will find this out, and how many will care? The last debate will be on Foreign Policy. Lets hope that Romney gets a chance to tell the story.Bob Schieffer is the moderator.It will be interesting to see how he limits Romney from getting into this.

Wow. And CNN has been virtually the standard-bearer for the Collaborationist Media for ages now. If THEY are starting to pull the rug out from under Sock Puppet, he must already be in catastrophic straits.

Don’t worry, Socky. PMSNBC will be with you all the way to the muddy, rocky bottom.

    SGLawrence in reply to IceColdTroll. | October 15, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    The reason you’re seeing CNN trying not to follow the herd entirely on this Libya Debacle is this: When CNN published a brief summary from Stevens’ “diary” detailing Stevens’ own fears about the lack of security in Libya, the State Department attacked CNN, viciously deploring CNN’s invasion of Stevens’ “Privacy” in his “Diary.” They also made out CNN as having violated an agreement with Stevens’ family to return the “Diary.”

    The “Diary” is not even a diary. It was 8 pages of handwritten notes which apparently contained personal first hand evidence of Stevens’ real fears about the growing deterioration in Libya and the increased terror incidents. This was not a prurient expose of Stevens’ private life. We weren’t told about his sexual partners.

    CNN not only had a RIGHT, it had a DUTY to disclose this information from a dead public official which had national security implications not only for understanding how and why Stevens was assassinated, but also for protecting people today whose lives are in danger (in part from the State Department’s bungling and loss of classified information in Benghazi.

    So, don’t expect total sympathy for Obama and Hillary on the subject of this huge Benhazigate scandal from CNN. CNN knows many lies are being spun to cover up an epic foreign policy failure, an epic security failure for our Diplomats and staff, and an attack on the First Amendment to help peddle all the lies. The question is how far will CNN go and will the other sheep follow suit.

      PhillyGuy in reply to SGLawrence. | October 15, 2012 at 6:19 pm

      Outstanding read on that SG. My only comment is that I expect that Obama will launch an attack on Al Qaeda in Africa right before the foreign policy debate.

        SGLawrence in reply to PhillyGuy. | October 15, 2012 at 8:07 pm

        I think you’re right. What better way to distract Americans from the layers upon layers of incompetence and evil coming out of the WH and State. It’s like Big Bird, Libyan style. Show them their Dear Leader is doing something right. The Obamaphone lady can call all her friends and tell them about how the president got the “bad guys”–the ones we apparently armed thanks to Obama.

Actually we got the government we deserved even those of us who didn’t vote for Obama. We’ve been asleep at the switch for years. We’ve let the liberal socialist take over our schools, our movie and TV fare and our government. The most glaring proof of this is the fact Obama is still considered a viable candidate for president. Only in a degraded uninformed society would he have even been elected. We have a long way to go to stop the forward march of America towards oblivion.


“Bad case of NY Times hives found bleeding through fabric by departing omsbudsman proves unresponsive to Benghazidryl.”

I’ve said for some time now that this was all political.

First, we had the Cairo demonstrations, that Romney condemned the Cairo embassy response. The MSM spent the whole day pounding on Romney, then they blamed him the next day for forcing them not to cover the second story, the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

At this point, I believe the White House made a conscious effort to deflect the Libyan terrorist attack by blaming it on what Romney had condemned the Administration’s comments coming out of Cairo, the YouTube video. This way they could create the illusion that Romney was responsible for both.

(Ignore the fact that CNN had a report recorded on 9/9 that showed that the Cairo demonstrations were for the purpose of gaining the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind sheik who masterminded the first WTC bombing, on 9/11.)

To make matters worse, since the Administration had exposed their tender underside by apologizing for the YouTube video, al Qaeda has decided now that it’s a good target to exploit.

Every time you read about how Obama, Biden, Susan Rice and Bob Carol Ted and Alice lie and say they knew nothing about the repeated requests for increased security in Libya after several terror incidents (including a bombing of the US Benghazi Consul itself on June 6, 2012), keep this in mind: Reuters told the ENTIRE WORLD about some of the terror incidents, their likely motivation (Drone killing in Pakistan of major Libya terrorist)and the fact that the State Department was being asked for more security. While Reuters reported all these facts to the whole world, CBS was busy spiking the football on Libya being a fabulous success for both Obama and Hillary, praising them on 6/6/12 with a slick infomercial about their triumphs in the war on “terror.” :

Here’s the Reuters citation my prior post didn’t include. …

There isn’t A scandal here.

There are a series of scandals. One might lead to State, while another might lead to Pres. Bumps. And that is not mutually exclusive.

At the end of the day, however, it ALLLLLLL belongs to Pres. Bumps.

Even a grade school newspaper in the most disfunctional school district in the nation could destroy the Obama administration’s Benghazi lie.

So it’s not a matter of CNN doing ‘good investigative journalism,’ but a matter of CNN ‘doing journalism’ at all.

Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

Henry Hawkins | October 15, 2012 at 1:34 pm

CNN knows that being the only MSM coming out against Obama on Benghazi keeps Obama safe, since all the other MSM outlets are spiking the story and/or spinning it beyond recognition. CNN will look like an outlier among the Dem/lib base and ignored. So, CNN gets to look like journalists for a moment without actually harming their guy. It’s a start, though, and it will push a handful of indies Romney’s way.

Apparently U.S. diplomatic security in Libya had been contracted out to a small British security firm with little local experience:

British firm secured Benghazi consulate contract with little experience

A small British firm based in south Wales had secured a contract to provide security for American diplomatic facilities in Benghazi despite having only a few months experience in the country.

Sources have told the Daily Telegraph that just five unarmed locally hired Libyans were placed on duty at the compound on eight-hour shifts under a deal that fell outside the State Department’s global security contracting system.

Blue Mountain, the Camarthen firm that won a $387,000 (£241,000) one-year contract from the US State Department to protect the compound in May, sent just one British employee, recruited from the celebrity bodyguard circuit, to oversee the work…Other firms in the security industry expressed surprise that Blue Mountain had won a large, high profile contract from the US government. One industry executive said the level of service Blue Mountain provided ‘did not appear adequate to the risks presented by a lawless city.'”

This is all very, very puzzling to me. I used to live in Central Africa, and the Marines at the Embassy were a standard part of the place there – and this was a small stable country, not one that had just undergone a revolution. In fact until I read about what happened in Benghazi, I had no idea that it was even possible U.S. Government compounds guarded by anything other than Marines.

It is really, really sad to learn how the Americans in Benghazi were basically just hung out to dry by their own government.

    PlainTalk in reply to Cassie. | October 15, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    My undestanding is that Marines are assigned only to guard U.S. embassies, not standalone consulates (consulates not in or connected to an embassy).

    One interesting question is why Ambassador Stevens was at the consulate in Benghazi, given that it was well known to be highly insecure. Was he ordered there by higher-ups, or was it a local decision? He normally would have been based at the embassy in Tripoli. There were probably good reasons to go to Benghazi, but who in Washington, if anyone, knew he would be there? Even if the consulate there was normally afforded less protection than an embassy (generally the case) why was security not ramped up for his visit?

    The theory now is that Obama knew of this takeover plan, and his own plan was to step in and ‘rescue’ Ambassador Craig Stevens and the embassy staff. This was Obama’s October surprise.

    Instead, while Obama slept late and Hillary Clinton was curing another hangover, Stevens was raped, tortured and murdered, and 3 embassy staffers were murdered.

    An October surprise, all right.

It seems folks are conflating two separate issues/events.

-There is the U.S. Embassy consulate

-There is the CIA OPS Center the State Dept. refers to as the “embassy auxiliary” or “safe house”.

One falls under the purview of the State Department, the other the Pentagon.

Blue Mountain was hired by the CIA under the Defense Clandestine Service (DCS) to help field operators track the missing shoulder fired SAMS.

    Browndog in reply to Browndog. | October 15, 2012 at 3:42 pm

    To be clear, The State Department hire the February 17th Martyrs Brigade to provide security for the embassy, not Blue Mountain.

      Browndog in reply to Browndog. | October 15, 2012 at 3:46 pm

      To be clearer, the two former SEALS were contract operators for Blue Mountain, that were contracted by the CIA.

      This is done to put daylight between the U.S. Government and clandestine operations.

      I’ll leave it at that.

    retire05 in reply to Browndog. | October 15, 2012 at 4:17 pm

    Let’s be quite clear here; the State Department, under the direction of SoS Hillary Clinton, hired the February 17 Martyr’s Brigade to provide security for the consulate in Benghazi. But you need to understand what the February 17 is symbolic of. And it ain’t throwing a church social, unless we are talking about a Muslim jihadist’s defination of a “social.”

    Why our SD would hire a radical group, known to facilitate an attack on the Italian Embassy in Libya, is beyond most clear thinking Americans imagination. But the excuse is being put out that it was because the Administration wanted the new Libyan government to think we trusted them and didn’t want to rock the boat, so to speak, by using Marines to guard the Ambassador.

    Why wasn’t the FBI in Benghazi before last week? Well, it seems they couldn’t get Libyan visas to enter into Benghazi. WTF? Visas? We have dead Americans and we are worried about some trivial diplomatic issue?

There is one item I have not seen brought up on the news or any blogs. When foreign policy demands that the US accede to the customs of the host country even to the point of having our female solders demeaningly don burkas when off the base, why was a gay man appointed as ambassador to one of the most volatile anti-gay countries in the world? Muslims and especially militants hate gays. What could the obama administration and thus Hillary Clinton’s State dept. hope to accomplish by having as our representative in this country a man the host country’s leaders could not respect and a species they have sought to kill? Couldn’t it be said they put Ambassador Stevens in jeopardy by even appointing him to this office? Either there is a conspiracy behind this debacle or this is the most inept foreign policy crew in the history of the US.

“We deserve better.” No we don’t. We elected him. We will deserve better when we defeat him decisively in the election and not before.

Don’t get lost in the weeds on Benghazi. While the lack of action to protect the Ambassador, and other American foreign service workers, looks bad it is not THE story.

It has been known for a long time that Benghazi is one of the hottest spots in the Middle East, having provided many terrorists to fight the Americans in both Afghanistan and Iraq. So knowing that it was such a hot spot, ask yourself this: what was so important that Chris Stevens had to be in Benghazi on the one day that holds so much symbolism for jihadists? What was he doing there?

That, friends, is what is being covered up. Chris Stevens mission in Benghazi. And I would pose to you that the reason he was there was to facilitate arms retrieval.

Now, you might wonder why that is, since the Administration has claimed that it only provided a certain amount of support for the Libyan rebels. We know that the rebels were armed by both France and Egypt, but did you know that a year and a half ago the Administration was trying to get the Sauds to provide arms to the Libyan rebels that we are now learning are made up of AQ?

“Monday, 7 March 2011-UK Independent

Desparate to avoid US military involvement in Libya in the event of a prolonged struggle between Gaddafi regime and its opponents, the Americans (Obama) have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi.”

OK, so Obama wanted the Sauds to arm the rebels IN BENGHAZI. With me so far?

“Their (the Sauds) assistance would allow Washington to disclaim any military involvement in the supply chain – even though the arms would be American and paid for by the Saudis.”

So a year and a half ago, the Administration wanted to arm the Libyan rebels, although we didn’t really know who the rebels were, but needed plausible deniability. Get the Sauds to arm the rebels and the Oval Office could later throw the Sauds under the bus by saying “Well, we sold the Sauds the weapons but we didn’t know they would give those weapons to the Libyan rebels. We are shocked, shocked, we tell you.”

“The Saudis have been told that opponents of Gaddafi need anti-tank rockets and mortars as a first priority to hold off attacks by Gaddafi’s armour, and ground-to-air missiles to shoot down his fighter-bombers.”

But to my knowledge the Sauds turned the deal down due to their own internal issues. Perhaps they don’t trust Obama any more than we do. They are not stupid people.

So, the facts are leading to THE actual scandal: Fast and Furious, Libyan Style. The president, in a clandestine operation, supplied the Libyan rebels who were joining AQ in record numbers, and those very weapons were used to attack the American consulate and kill four Americans. Now, Americans are not going to be thrilled to learn that our president actually provided arms to people who have turned out to be AQ or AQ spin-offs. This time the weapons were not killing Mexicans, they were killing Americans.

There is the scandal, and all the finger pointing is just to get what’s left of the legitimate press not to pay attention to the fact that Obama, without Congressional approval, armed Al Qaeda.

What was he doing there?

Officially, he was there for a dedication ceremony the next day of the opening of an NGO hospital in Benghazi.

In fact, a doctor from Boston was on the phone with the embassy discussing the details from a hotel in Benghazi when the attack started.

So, the facts are leading to THE actual scandal: Fast and Furious, Libyan Style.

Now, you’re barking up the right tree.

If you needed confirmation that the Clinton’s have declared war on Obama, this is your confirmation. Back in the ’90’s, CNN was also known as Clinton News Network…if they have begun to cut through the Obama disinformation campaign, then Hillary is about to cut loose from the Obama administration.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | October 15, 2012 at 7:10 pm

Quote- “Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) says the State Department is sitting on $2.2 billion that should be spent on upgrading security at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide, but the Obama administration will not spend the funds.” unquote

The intentional decision to not ensure / to not allow Marines to be armed, let alone not beef up security on the US Libyan Consulate Embassy in Benghazi Libya, which by the way is Hillary Clinton’s primary job as Sec of State, US Embassies fall directly under her jurisdiction and responsibility- is an intentional willful dereliction of duty, that can only be seen as a betrayal of US National Diplomatic security needs, thus criminal, even treasonous acts against American lives, and interests vital to US National Security.

The evidence is clear and incontrovertible. All the evidence points to the 911 anniversary coordinated attacks were professionally planned ahead of time, then executed.. was thus not a spontaneous reaction.. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton had US Military, National Security Agencies, CIA, and even foreign govts intelligence warnings of serious threats of danger, especially on the anniversary of Sept 11th, which all pointed a heightened need of security.

Hillary Clinton- The State Department, and President Obama, had received a direct plea by Ambassador Stevens himself, requesting Security for fear of his life, but she, and Obama both ignored it, and in fact refused it, denied security, as well as a State dept Transport aircraft in case of emergency, in light of all the evidence of danger that was coming there way. 

The evidence is overwhelming against both Obama and Hillary Clinton and both should not only be verbally held responsible, but they should be physically be held responsible, ie; impeached, charged, and tried for deliberate intentional dereliction of duty, which is not only a political offense, it’s a criminal offense.

Motivation- Obama’s Pro arab islamic muslim agenda policy to re-organize and establish the entire Middle East under complete Islamic Muslim Fundamentalist authority and control- ie; the desruction of the State of Israel. Quote- Caroline Glick : “Since taking office, Obama has made clear that he views the US as an imperialist power on the world stage. As a result, the overarching goal of Obama’s foreign policy has been to end US global hegemony.” unquote

DINORightMarie | October 15, 2012 at 8:11 pm

My question(and I say this knowing Obama/Biden and Co. are lying): IF Hillary herself, as head of the State Dept. (who were supposedly the ONLY ones who knew the “truth” and didn’t tell Obama/Biden and Co.) lied, then WHY HAS SHE NOT BE FIRED YET?! What hold does she have to prevent them firing her?

Also, since the entire world knows more and has heard more truth than our American MSM is willing to tell us, and know that Obama and Co. are LYING, how long before the US media are disregarded by the world’s media as the useless propaganda machine noise-makers into which they have willingly transformed themselves?

    Radegunda in reply to DINORightMarie. | October 15, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    Answer to the last question: Many who read the British press are getting the idea, since American readers leave comments saying they need to go to the British press to find out the facts about Benghazi.

My Dream & Fervent Wish: David Petraeus resigns as Director of CIA before the end of October. He makes it known that the true reason is that he can no longer be a member of an administration that lies, dissembles and dishonors our Warriors.

Obama and Co. would Implode.

NC Mountain Girl | October 15, 2012 at 9:12 pm

There are several sets of scandals here, the most important being the complete failure of the policy in the Middle East in general. This particularly true given the established record that groups like al Qaeda operates most effectively in destabilized areas. We’ve abandoned friends and spurned potential allies and now the whole area has the potential to explode.

Then there is the failure to provide proper security to both the consulate in Benghazi and the person of the Ambassador. Where was that decision made and who knew about it? In earlier administrations being overridden on such a decision only to have it end in tragedy might cause someone to resign so they would be entirely free to talk about what happened.

Considering that the President’s schedule does not appear to have been significantly altered by the events most people would also like to know exactly what was happening back in DC in the various hubs of influence during the attack. There seems to have been real time surveillance during at least part of the attack. We know a drone was called in. The feed should have been available at the Pentagon, State, the White House and the CIA so who all was watching in real time? What if any immediate actions were proposed? Why wasn’t a rescue attempt launched or at least an armed drone? Did the national security team actually meet in person with or without the President present? If no meeting was held with Obama was it the President’s decision or that of a gatekeeper such as Valarie Jarrett seeking to keep Obama’s short attention span focused on the campaign? Again there appear to be circumstance here that would cause an honorable man or woman to have their resignation letter ready by the next morning.

Who proposed the ludicrous idea to run with the story it was all a protest over a movie that somehow ran amok? Why did other administration members who knew it was a terrorist attack either actively participate in the farce or silently acquiesce? Again, honorable men and women would immediately compose a resignation letter upon being called to participate in this deception.

    If only someone with a press pass had your curiosity.

    the President’s schedule does not appear to have been significantly altered

    This is the most basic question no one has asked. The most innocent and innocuous of a “gotcha” question..

    Chris Wallace asked Axelrod about this twice on FNS. And military contributor COL Hunt has been asking why military assets immediately available in southern Italy weren’t scrambled to respond to an attack on American sovereign territory. The attack lasted 6 hours and not just the State Dept was observing. Did the Pentagon provide the Commander in Chief military options within an hour of the alarm going off?

[…] By Ruth King on October 16th, 2012 “Finally, carefully contemplate what Obama said in his speech before the Democratic National Convention: “My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy. But from all that we’ve seen and heard they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so deeply.”…… […]

Since kinda sorta took responsibility for the security failure, I have questions:

“I’m responsible for the State Department, for the more than 60,000 people around the world,” she said. “The decisions about security are made by security professionals. But we’re going to review everything to be sure we’re doing what needs to be done in an increasingly risky environment.”

She also addressed the question of a June explosion at the consulate in Benghazi that some have argued should have raised a red flag about security.

“I can’t speak to who knew what,” she said. “We knew there were security breaches and problems throughout Libya. That’s something that came about as the aftermath of the revolution to topple Qaddafi, with so many militias formed, so many weapons loose. … It was taken into account by security professionals as they made their assessments.”

So are we to understand that “security professionals” failed in their assessments of a consulate in a terrorist infested area?

Are we now going to depend upon the expertise of these same security professionals to improve security of the remaining US interests in Libya or anywhere else in the world?

Do you really think we are that stupid to accept security professionals would ever leave a US consulate unprotected with empty guns in a known terrorist infested area in the first place?

So Hillary, are you resigning now? No? Doesn’t sound like it.

Are any of the security professionals resigning for their incompetence in arranging for empty guns to guard a consulate in a terrorist infested area? No? Doesn’t sound like it.

Sounds to me like another cover up to distract attention from the first cover up. NO SALE!

[…] aren’t alone in this.  Legal Insurrection also links to a CNN/Forbes article.  It is all the same. We knew, they knew we knew, our people asked for help and the Obama […]

[…] Besides the debacle that is now Libya, Hillary Clinton will perhaps be remembered best for the the infamous “reset” diplomacy fiasco: Gaffe Alert: Hillary Clinton’s “Reset” Gift Backfires; Instead of “Resetting” Relations; US To “Overcharge” Russians […]

[…] Forbes, CNN destroy Obama administration’s Benghazi lie ( Share this:FacebookTwitterEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. […]