Image 01 Image 03

People Died, Obama Lied

People Died, Obama Lied

In yet another story that you won’t find in the New York Times, Charlie Spiering in the Washington Examiner reported that Hillary Clinton was scheduled to meet President Obama at the White House today “as more damaging details about the terrorist attack against a United States consulate in Libya emerge.”

Yesterday, the State Department revealed  that the attack was “unprecedented” and wasn’t preceded by a protest over the controversial YouTube video, directly contradicting explanation of the attack by the Obama administration.

Their story is unraveling, and only the acquiescence of the mainstream press has kept it from becoming a full-blown scandal.  So what did the president and his secretary of state discuss today?  Foreign affairs?  Or better lies?  My guess is better lies.

Clinton’s State Department, and therefore in all probability the White House, had forewarning of at least a growing danger when “foreign fighters” began flooding over the Egyptian border prior to the attacks.  And, worse than doing nothing, they actually prevented security from being beefed up, though they had been warned that the level was “inappropriately low.”

Back to Spiering:

Meanwhile, Robert Gibbs, this morning tried to minimize the damage, defending U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s assertion that the attack was sparked by the YouTube video.

Gibbs admitted that Rice was wrong, but insisted that it was based on intelligence briefings and that she would never “deliberately mislead” anyone.

Oops.  Now the State Department has disavowed even that fatuous denial.

In an unusual display of disunity, State Department officials have disowned remarks by one of their top officials, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, regarding her explanation of the deadly terrorist assault on U.S. diplomats in Libya in September. Not only did they say Rice’s characterization of those attacks as “spontaneous” was wrong, but also, they said that assessment was never the conclusion of the State Department at any point in time.

This is getting to the point where it’s worth a step back in time, to mere weeks after the September 11 attacks—the first September 11—when Rep. Cynthia McKinney began what would soon become an avalanche of accusation and innuendo directed at President Bush:

“We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11. What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11?”

Farfetched as the claim may have seemed–the utterance of a leftist conspiracy wacko–the Georgia congresswoman was the first but would not be the last to accuse President Bush of having purposefully ignored intelligence that predicted the imminent use of hijacked planes as missiles.

Echoed Senator Hillary Clinton soon thereafter–from the Senate floor, no less: “What did Bush know and when did he know it?”

Ditto Howard Dean. The then-presidential candidate passed along the “theory”–as he called it–on WAMU radio that Bush “was warned ahead of time by the Saudis.” (Later came the pronouncements of former Nixon aide John Dean. Promoting a book about the Bush administration titled Worse Than Watergate, the convicted felon wrote that the president “likely” ignored “the potential of terrorists [to fly] airplanes into skyscrapers.”)

A headline in the New York Times declared, “Bush Was Warned Bin Laden Wanted to Hijack Planes,” which was what the Washington Post confirmed with its “Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers.” These stories, among many, referred to comments by co-chair of the 9-11 commission Thomas Kean, synopsizing the first findings which suggested that the attacks could have been prevented.

The clamor inevitably reached the morning TV chat fests (Katie Couric: “What did Bush know and when did he know it?”) and the rest of the zeitgeist, growing so pervasive that it sounded like hillside coyotes celebrating a kill. Its apotheosis would later appear in the person of Richard Clarke, former National Security Council chief of counter-terrorism. His bestselling book, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror, received much media attention for his claims that the president and his team had remained willfully ignorant of the threat posed by al Qaeda.

Karma’s a bitch, ain’t it, Madame Secretary?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I’ve lost count of the layers of lies here.

Certainly approaching the depth of the weaves on Sheila Jackson-Lee.

What does Obama care about the lives of lessors? the Ambassador should consider himself fortunate to offer up his life for Obama, not many get that chance. Once Romney swards in there will be no more chances.

I watched the entire Congressional hearing today and one thing stuck out: Charlene Lamb, of State, testified that they watched the Benghazi consulate on video in the early evening as Ambassador Stevens went outside to say good-by to a visitor. That was at 8:30 p.m. and there was no one on the street.

So the State Department knew, from the video connection to the consulate, that there was no “spontaneous” protest going on. The street was quiet (in my estimation, maybe too quiet).

The State Department knew from the git-go that this was an attack, not a protest, and that the information within 24 hours showed it was an attack spurred by a division of Al Qaeda. Yet Hillary, Rice, Carney and even the President himself, claimed it was a protest over a video. They lied. Blatantly.

Three times additional security was requested to be provided from State. Three times it was denied, and State even went so far as to pull existing security from Benghazi in August although there were over 230 previous terrorist incidents in the year before 9/11. The situation in Benghazi had deteriorated to the point the British and the Red Cross pulled out early this summer.

legacyrepublican | October 10, 2012 at 6:24 pm

Bad movie eh?

Lights, Cameras, Distractions!

If Hillary thinks there are enough layers between the State Dept. and the WH on this, then she can claim she was duped by the WH, too. If it looks like Obama might lose this election (I hope so and think so, but four weeks is an eternity when you’re facing down thugs) more and more, Hillary won’t hesitate to toss Barry under the bus. It’s all about the Clintons and it’s all about 2016 for her. I look for her to sell him out, if the chance presents itself, and launch her campaign from his tombstone.

It’s always about the Clintons. Always.

    SeanInLI in reply to windbag. | October 10, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    Without a doubt, Hillary is going to do what’s best for Hillary here. Not for the Administration, not for world peace, and not for the American people.

    However, since denying the security to the consulate is a buck that stops with her, you can rest assured that nothing is going to leak out of her camp. She’s in too deep with Obama now.

      If she can find a way to pin it on Obama, she will. Some bogus claim that her hands were tied in the matter. That she tried, but the WH ran interference. Facts won’t matter, what will is a story that others will vouch for, especially the MSM.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to windbag. | October 10, 2012 at 8:50 pm

    I think the smartest woman in he world has gotten herself into a no-win situation. The only way she can get out of the responsibility for security is to acknowledge she was a figurehead and all policy decisions were made in the White House. Now she could say she had agreed to just those terms – the same terms she imposed on the Attorney General in Bill’s administration- in order to promote party unity. The problem is she then has another problem. If she wasn’t in charge did she not have a duty to resign as soon as she knew that a lie was being pawned off on the American people? That duty trumps party unity.

    It isn’t 1996. The Clinton’s can spin this all they want but their friends in the media have lost their ironclad grip on the narrative.

      Hillary’s sell-out to Obama is proof positive that duty never trumps party unity with her.

      I will be almost as glad to see her departure as I will his.

Uh, it sure seems like Obama was pushing this same lie when he spoke to the U.N. That would have been WAY AFTER everyone knew for a fact the attack in Benghazi was a terror attack, not that sprung up from a protest over the YouTube video, but that was planned and executed by terrorists in the complete absence of ANY SEMBLANCE of a protest at the consulate. The President was lying at the U.N. and he knew he was lying. Isn’t that a story?

I hope Susan Rice has an outfit that can coordinate with the bus tire tracks that will soon be across her back.

This is SOOOO much worse than Watergate. Boggles the mind. Just goes to show you how confident they are that there are no modern-day Woodwards/Bernsteins in the MSM to bite them.

I’ve lost count of the layers of lies here.

That’s probably the plan. I’ll just be happy when we have much more government.

Can’t wait.

[…] mission, the State Department didn’t even bother to respond to his last two requestsUPDATE IV: Joel Engel at Legal Insurrection:In yet another story that you won’t find in the New York Times, Charlie Spiering in the […]

TrooperJohnSmith | October 10, 2012 at 7:42 pm

There is a whole cadre of career, professional Sate Department personnel who are not happy about what went on post-Qaddafi in Libya. I can think of two reasons why they are speaking out on this: (1.) their asses and careers; (2.) it was their people thrown to the terrorists by politicians.

These folks at State are not dumb. They’ve seen the debacle at Justice with F&F and know that when things get nasty, there is a lot of room under Obama’s Bus. They don’t intend to go under the bus wheels without a fight… as did the late Ambassador.

I don’t know whether I have more contempt for Obama and his minions or for the morally destitute Fourth Estate.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to TrooperJohnSmith. | October 10, 2012 at 8:23 pm

    Exactly. I also add in their families as to why they are speaking out. The failure to protect embassy personnel is a violation of basic trust. I suspect career people at CIA and other agencies that send people overseas are also very upset at how Stevens’ warnings were ignored by the sing Kumbaya diplomacy girls and boys.

    Stevens was not a political appointee. He was career State Department. As soon as we heard Stevens had requested more security and been denied it I suspected this was going to blow up in the administration’s face. The bureaucracy simply wouldn’t tolerate it.

    So who’s idea was the big lie? Personally I don’t think Obama has much imagination. Somebody had to feed him he idea. I think Rice would already be under the bus if it was her. Hillary is a possibility. Obama can’t throw her under the bus until after the election because he needs Bill. Another possibility is Valerie Jarrett. Everything with her is about protecting Obama politically and there is ample evidence her picture should be at the top of the listing on Dunning Kruger effect in Wikipedia. Finally there is Axelrod. He’s preoccupied with the campaign but massive deception is also his middle name.

      My money’s on Jarrett. We already know she pulled Preezy Eye Candy’s strings on the bin Laden raid. This woman is the real power behind the throne.

Henry Hawkins | October 10, 2012 at 7:47 pm

Don’t know ’bout y’all, but I’m enjoyin’ th’ everlovin’ shit outta this. First there’s Libya. Note that ‘Benghazi’ spelled out in English is ‘Waterloo’. They’re scared to death that Joe ‘The Gaffe Whisperer’ Biden will get loose before his debate. Plus there’s a new O’Keefe video showing an Obama campaign regional director coaching people on how to commit vote fraud and providing the necessary forms to do it. Meanwhile pubic opinion on media credibility is nosediving. Add that to my belief that Obama and Biden, in their debates, could safely bring up any subject *except* jobs, the economy, national security, foreign policy, the deficit, debt, Obamacare, the budget, entitlement reform, or energy policy. Other than those issues, they can talk about whatever they wish. I’m all smiles this moment.

This is the best feelin’ I’ve had in a long while, which is saying something because I frequently endure a lapful of ferrets.

I sincerely hope this multitude of converging problems foir the Obama campaign, each of them entirely self-inflicted, is the redwood that breaks the camel’s back.

“Biden will clear-it-up tomorrow night . . . Really.”

” … only the acquiescence of the mainstream press has kept it from becoming a full-blown scandal.”

Acquiescence makes the MSM’s heart grow fonder.

I want to see Bibi Netanyahu diagram this whole fatally amateurish mess as a cartoonish bomb with the fuse lit, with schematic stages of Obama admin/State Dept. etc., culpability in this clearly illustrated.

As Pat Caddell says, the MSM has become the enemy of the American people.

Conservative Beaner | October 10, 2012 at 8:35 pm

If this incident really blows up and it comes down to sticking it to Barry or Hillary, I would not want to be in Obozo’s shoes.

I wish I could say that I am amazed at the level of stupidity with Obama’s administration. But I’m not.

Don’t forget, when Obama directed bombs to fly into Libya, without Congressional approval, we discovered shortly thereafter that we teamed up WITH Al Quaida (hereafter shortend to A.Q.) members. Obama foolishly helped them gain a foothold in Libya. It should not have been difficult to figure that we should provide more than adequate security to protect our ambassador.

Unfortunately for ambassador Stevens, our president is a leftist. You see, leftists assume that they can reason with Islamists. Leftists think that Islamists share a common enemy with them, capitalism. What they don’t understand is that Islamists actually hate Leftists too, probably more than capitalism. After all, Islamist hate gays and think women are property worth little more than cattle.

Islamists think of leftists as useful fools. As long as the leftist is useful to their purposes they get to live; when their usefulness is over they are thrown away. Once the Useful Fool-in-Chief helped A.Q. overthrow Gadhafi and and gain a foothold in Libya our usefulness was over. Amb. Stevens was probably trying to guide the interim government in Libya towards a secularist stance. Therefore he was now a hinderance towards the Islamist A.Q. and needed to be thrown away. Why not make it a spectacular show demonstrating A.Q.’s dominance and Obama’s weakness?

[…] / Weekly Standard / PJ Tatler / Hit & Run / Babalu Blog / Flopping Aces / The Black Kettle / Legal Insurrection / : General : Barack Obama, Eric Nordstrom, Hillary Clinton, Islam, Libya, Middle East, […]

Here is another question for you, boys and girls:

It is being reported that Ambassador Stevens went to Benghazi to cut a deal for the return of weapons that were suspected to have fallen in the hands of AQ, and AQ umbrella groups.

Where did those weapons come from? It has been reported that both the French, and the Egyptians, furnished the Libyan rebels with weapons. How many here think that the big cover is was to prevent the American people from finding out we also provided weapons to Libyan rebels that have turned out to be AQ?

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | October 11, 2012 at 12:00 am

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

What really infuriates Americans besides the outright failure to do their duties, ie; dereliction of duty-intentional actions, and or inactions, that cost the lives of 4 Americans- a US Ambassador and 3 Embassy staff personnel, who were serving their country, and entrusted the US govt to protect them in doing their duties, which whom deliberately intentionally failed to do, is Obama and Hillary Clinton’s shameless nonchalant careless indifferent apathetic contemptuous arrogant attitude in all of this is so egregious in nature, and so abhorrently disgusting and reprehensible, it’s makes one want to puke just from the mere thought.

This is what happens when you have anti-American leaders in position of power and authority, ie; Obama and Hillary Clinton, and all of their henchmen and stooges like Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, David Axlerod, Huma Abedin, etc, assisting America’s enemies from within, to destroy America, to kill Americans.

    While my contempt for Obama knows no bounds I oppose impeachment. Let him be thrown out of office…rejected in a landslide by the same people who elected him. This is the best way to discredit his reign.

    Not that it matters to him, though. He’ll take his war chest, fattened by illegal contributions, and go live the good life in Hawaii.

    There, maybe once in a while he’ll feel the pain of that rejection. He’ll never believe it was his fault but it’ll sting and I think that’s the best we can hope for.

[…] Barack Obama and (1) stop posting idiot attacks on Hillary Clinton with gibberish such as “Karma’s a bitch, ain’t it, Madame Secretary?“, and (2) when you “borrow” a title from us, at least admit it (or is there a […]